Russia sends four SU27s to Syria
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East England
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Putin says he can't bomb ISIS because USA won't give him the co-ordinates:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/wo...yria.html?_r=0
Presumably this is for the hard of thinking who believe his propaganda lies.
But what is the real reason?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/wo...yria.html?_r=0
Presumably this is for the hard of thinking who believe his propaganda lies.
But what is the real reason?
Putin says he can't bomb ISIS because USA won't give him the co-ordinates:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/wo...yria.html?_r=0
Presumably this is for the hard of thinking who believe his propaganda lies.
But what is the real reason?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/wo...yria.html?_r=0
Presumably this is for the hard of thinking who believe his propaganda lies.
But what is the real reason?
One of the problems of hitting ISIS is good target data that isn't also going to result in unwanted carnage and bad PR were a bomb to hit next to ... say ... a kindergarden. Any such targeting data would be vetted before passing it to someone with looser RoE than us.
Picture this scenario: a US fellow finds some ISIS pogues and none of the aircraft he can work with are in the air. He passes it to HQ who pass it to the Russians. They come in and whack the target, but also take out the first aid center and old folks home next door. The Russians can say "but the US passed us that target, so we hit it."
This is a very real potential mess up since our C2 and coalition coordination isn't up to par with the Russians. A pity, but given the hay made with strikes that do what you didn't want them to, it isn't worth the risk. ISIS will be there tomorrow, just have to find them again.
The other problem is that targeting data on things like "ISIS" and its people is perishable information. We used to have a term called "actionable intelligence" when I was dealing in strikes against some of the Al Q and other sorts in Iraq. When some of them had been found, there was a time limit for how long that information was good for. After a while, it was no longer good targeting data and we would be back to "weapons tight" until better, non perished information was available, or not.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some misinterpretation from Eclectic. You probably do not speak Russian (apologies if you do), NYT correspondent maybe speaks but not good enough, plus people usually hear what they'd like to hear...
I do speak Russian and I heard was Putin was saying as it was on TV (though I do not advocate him in general at all).
It was said that:
1. When Russia was accused for bombing "not the right groups" of armed people in Syria, they (the Russians) asked US: "Give us the coordinates of the "right ones" and we will attack them". The answer was "No". I personally see no trouble in getting such a negative answer. Lonewolf excellently explained the problems of sharing such data. Indeed, it was showed on TV that some military vehicles were moving in a city through living quarters and finally parked next to the wall of a mosque. One can imagine what a cry would take place all over the muslin world even if a handful of shrapnel hit this wall.
It was reported here (in Russia) that US also added that negative reply was linked to the condition "until you support Assad", but maybe politicians added it or it was misinterpreted, in turn, by the Russian media.
2. Then the Russian question was re-formulated: "If you do not provide the target coordinates, please tell us who should NOT be bombed". Once again, negative reply.
In this case the main source of ground-based intelligence for the Russian forces is the Syrian governmental forces. Obviously, they will point towards all the rebels.
All this does not mean that the Russian AF cannot bomb ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Nura front, etc. They can and they do bomb them. I assume (and am pretty sure) that in addition they bomb anti-Assad rebels as well. But if the latter oppose to the Russian forces and prevent the Syrian governmental troops to attack ISIS (standing in between them), it is logical. War is war.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East England
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rebels fire Scud missile at Russian airbase?
https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsRepo...coastal-region
And
https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivil..._attempted_to/
Maybe we will see some aircraft dispersion now.
https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsRepo...coastal-region
And
https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivil..._attempted_to/
Maybe we will see some aircraft dispersion now.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or just put C-300 air defense system on every airbase used by the Russian AF. Scud is an easy "test and training" target for C-300.
And not give them (C-300s) to the Assad forces that will sooner or later either get them broken or taken by jihaddists.
And not give them (C-300s) to the Assad forces that will sooner or later either get them broken or taken by jihaddists.
There are other Surface to Surface missiles than Scuds. Just because a missile was fired doesn't mean it was a scud. There are a host of shorter range missiles once in the Syrian inventory. A few that might have fallen into opposition hands include ...
FROG-7, Scud-B OTR-21, Tochka 9K720, Iskander, Hwasong-6(Scud C), Hwasong-7(Scud D), Fateh-110, Zelzal-2, Zelzal-3 Tactical Shahab-2
These are of various sizes and ranges, and are made in Russia, North Korea, or Iran.
The reason I don't think it was a Scud is because NATO and/or the US could confirm if a Scud launched, providing it is keeping the area under surveillance. That capability has been around for a few decades.
Give it a day or two and see if the US confirms that a TBM was launched. If they don't, then it was probably something other than a Scud.
FROG-7, Scud-B OTR-21, Tochka 9K720, Iskander, Hwasong-6(Scud C), Hwasong-7(Scud D), Fateh-110, Zelzal-2, Zelzal-3 Tactical Shahab-2
These are of various sizes and ranges, and are made in Russia, North Korea, or Iran.
The reason I don't think it was a Scud is because NATO and/or the US could confirm if a Scud launched, providing it is keeping the area under surveillance. That capability has been around for a few decades.
Give it a day or two and see if the US confirms that a TBM was launched. If they don't, then it was probably something other than a Scud.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These sources mention that the Cuban "contingent" is rather small, a few tens of people. OK, maybe a few hundreds; more would simply not fit transport aircraft. That is definitely not enough to be a game-changer alone.
If the chinese could send a "small group", amounted to 1-2 Mln... :-)
If the chinese could send a "small group", amounted to 1-2 Mln... :-)
Unconfirmed reports - unidentified aircraft shot down by Turkish jets, after ignoring 3 warnings, over Turkish airspace.