Here it comes: Syria

[mmitch]

So did the Russians switch their S400s to 'standby' or was it done for them?
mmitch.

[Heathrow Harry]

Why fire at all? Maybe switch a couple of tracking radars on to see if they work but otherwise why give up the intelligence - and to save Assad a bit of local redevelopment.... would be silly

[henra]

Originally Posted by mmitch

So did the Russians switch their S400s to 'standby' or was it done for them?
mmitch.

With so many 'data sniffers' around they probably kept them switched off. Not much to gain but a lot to lose. (Gaining wavelength and scan patterns of the S-400 would be invaluable and far exceed the value of the damage done to some Syrian Brick Houses- I would dare to say that knowing that an S-400 is stationed there is probably the extra price and a good additional motivation for executing and announcing the strike)

[hoss183]

Originally Posted by mmitch

So did the Russians switch their S400s to 'standby' or was it done for them?
mmitch.

I suspect the behind the scenes diplomacy to avoid WW3 was: 'We wont target any Russian bases or assets, leave us alone and we will do likewise'

[Lima Juliet]

Yup, General Goldfein’s ‘triple nickle’ F-16CG sits in Belgrade aircraft museum afterbeing schwacked by a SA-3. Thankfully he was picked up almost immediately by CSAR under significant gunfire. The good General allegedly buys the pilots and PJs a good bottle of malt each year

[chopper2004]

Originally Posted by Airbubba

And the F-16 allegedly shot down by the SA-3 was flown by the current USAF Chief of Staff.

Nope Captain Scott O'Grady left active duty into the AFRC not too long after his service at Aviano and continued to fly in the AFRC.

Subsequently I read he went into politics.

cheers

[Onceapilot]

Originally Posted by Easy Street

OAP,

I think you’re being a bit naive by expecting questions such as yours (‘can Typhoons operate in the face of S400?’) to be answered in the public domain. Generically, I would expect a CAP to have been placed to deter Syrian or Russian ac from making westbound excursions that might have threatened the Tornados at the easternmost point of their routes (which wouldn’t have been very far east in any case so the CAP could easily have been filling a ‘detached escort’ function overhead Akrotiri). This would also have deterred any potential threat to Akrotiri itself. While the Tornados would have been able to fly under the S400 radar horizon, that wouldn’t have been an option for an effective CAP. As such I don’t think we can infer anything about the Typhoon’s capability or tactics from the publicly-available information - exactly as it should be!

In reality, it is unlikely that anyone commenting on this site knows all the tactics and equipment that were used. However, something that I assume can be deduced is that, the Russian forces really were held weapons tight and, the coalition Politicians and players knew that before launching the mission. Overall, I am very pleased to see that this was a successful mission and, some level of cooperation was achieved.

OAP

[The B Word]

Originally Posted by chopper2004

Nope Captain Scott O'Grady left active duty into the AFRC not too long after his service at Aviano and continued to fly in the AFRC.

Subsequently I read he went into politics.

cheers

Nope, that was not in 1999. Scott O’Grady was shot down by a SA-6 near Banja Luka in 1995 - the same SA-6 that had been looking at me a few days before!

[Lima Juliet]

Here is a cracking article in the Daily Mirror about Corbyn’s apparent ill-judged ramblings:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...mpression=true

You might say this doesn't matter because Corbyn's not in charge of the country, but he wants to be and in order to do so he must demonstrate he understands, and can solve, complex problems. This statement is something you'd expect from a right-on 15-year-old who thinks they know everything already and whose response to difficulty is to whine that it's not fair.

[TEEEJ]

Originally Posted by Airbubba

More details from this Airforces Monthly article:



https://airforcesmonthly.keypublishi...o-back-at-war/

Also note the Tornado GR4s were carrying 2 x AIM-132 ASRAAM.

You Tube

[gums]

Salute!

Thanks, TEEEEJ, I had confused Scott's shootdown with Goldein's and flata$$$ blew my memory of the 117. And TNX, B Word for clearing up the dates.

Gen Goldfein was indeed shot down in 1999 and like the Nighthawk, by a modified SA-3 system and really good operators.

I never saw a SA-3 at Red Flag, but they still had SA-6 threat sites, as I described. During Linebacker there was concern that the Vee were fielding the SA-3 and we saw strong india band strobes on our RHAW gear, but no missiles. The theory that developed postulated they were trying to use the india band for defeating our jammers and chaff corridors. Saw some SA-2 missiles, but we defeated them.

Gums sends...

[hoss183]

Originally Posted by Lima Juliet

Yup, General Goldfein’s ‘triple nickle’ F-16CG sits in Belgrade aircraft museum afterbeing schwacked by a SA-3.

Belgrade aerospace museum is well worth a visit, some real gems there. Its right next to the airport, down a back street.

[just another jocky]

Originally Posted by Lima Juliet

Here is a cracking article in the Daily Mirror...

Not something you hear very often.

[just another jocky]

Originally Posted by TEEEJ

Also note the Tornado GR4s were carrying 2 x AIM-132 ASRAAM.

A true Multi-Role Combat Aircraft!

[Onceapilot]

There seems to be an interesting difference between Russia/Syria and coalition partners claims on missile losses. Russia seem to be claiming 70 odd losses and coalition claim none. It seems that, surprisingly, the Donald might be closer to the true news, rather than the fake news. I wonder if we will see some more info today?

OAP

[A_Van]

Originally Posted by Onceapilot

There seems to be an interesting difference between Russia/Syria and coalition partners claims on missile losses. Russia seem to be claiming 70 odd losses and coalition claim none. It seems that, surprisingly, the Donald might be closer to the true news, rather than the fake news. I wonder if we will see some more info today?

OAP

This is the question of my real interest, too. "None" is definitely a propaganda for house wives, 70 (of 103-105) looks a bit unrealistic for me, either. I would expect 30-40% of intercepted cruise missiles.
However, they (the Syrians) knew the time, the direction (except maybe for the one where B-1B were shooting from), there were no anti-SAM missiles used prior to the attack.


Now the burden of proof is on the Syrian side. They have access to debris, holes on the ground and in buildings, etc. However, when a Tomahawk is intercepted by BuK or Pantzyr rocket, the result might be close to dust...


I am not sure we will see 100% convincing evidences and all sides will remain with their opinions.

[Herod]

Astonishing pair of pictures on the front of today's "Times" Before and after of the Barzeh research centre. The site is totally destroyed, but it looks as if the perimeter fence might still be standing. The trees lining the road are still there. Now that's precision.

[A_Van]

Originally Posted by Herod

Astonishing pair of pictures on the front of today's "Times" Before and after of the Barzeh research centre. The site is totally destroyed, but it looks as if the perimeter fence might still be standing. The trees lining the road are still there. Now that's precision.

This is strange indeed and seems not to fit the announced numbers. More than 15 Tomahawk per building (equivalent of 6-7 tons of serious, not improvised, explosives) would eliminate everything around, as there were not underground explosions - buildings "are ordinary civilian boxes". This only means that not all 100+ missiles hit them, but much less.

For those really interested, here are recent numbers from Russian MOD per SAM complex used:

Pantzyr: 25 missiles fired, 23 targets hit
Buk: 29 and 24
Osa: 11 and 5
C-125: 13 and 5
Strela-10: 5 and 3
Kvadrat: 21 and 11
C-200: 8 and 0

C-200 (SA-5 in NATO classification) is the main loser and this is not a surprise. It was designed (in early 60's) to deal mainly wih airplanes, and Syrian crews were probably not enough trained to work on CM.

Source in Russian:
??????????: ????????? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? - ????? ? ??? - ????

[Herod]

This is strange indeed and seem not to fit the announced numbers.

A_Van.

I presume you know the English saying "A picture is worth a thousand words"?

[A_Van]

Originally Posted by Herod

A_Van.

I presume you know the English saying "A picture is worth a thousand words"?

I do. Russian equivalent could be straightforwardly translated as "single view is better that 10 hearings".

As for SAM performance, these are not my numbers and I am not 100% sure they are correct (but anyway seem to be more close to reality than "0" in Trump's and May's twits).

I am just sharing what is announced here. Not by journalists, but by people who should bear at least some responsibility for what they are saying.
Not sure British media would copy this summary from the Russian MoD official. And for those interested hearing all views this might be of interest.