Breaking news on Sky.....
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pr00ne
Up until now there has been no serious and credible threat to western coalition aircraft operating in Syria. Now there is. Simple. It is a game changer, the west cannot afford to lose another aircraft.
Good answer from Just This Once too.
Y_G
Why?
Why would the Russians threaten coalition ops in any way shape or form?
Why would the Russians threaten coalition ops in any way shape or form?
Good answer from Just This Once too.
Y_G
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Is there not an underlying concern that Russian Command and Control may not be quite as effective/efficient/safe as we would wish?
Yeller Gait,
What?
Why can't the west afford to lose another aircraft? The aircraft that was lost was Russian, shot down by the West, by Turkey, a full member of NATO. Are you getting a little confused?
MPN11,
You make a good point, they do have history here.
What?
Why can't the west afford to lose another aircraft? The aircraft that was lost was Russian, shot down by the West, by Turkey, a full member of NATO. Are you getting a little confused?
MPN11,
You make a good point, they do have history here.
I would have thought the threat was obvious. With all that hardware in the air operated by, France, US, Turkey, UK, Russia, Syria; precious little coordination, deconfliction or airspace control, no common IFF measures; a couple of nations that now have a grudge issue and a load of very capable surface-to-air systems, it's another shoot down, frag or mid air waiting to happen.
All those lessons we taught on TLT seem to have been forgotten.
All those lessons we taught on TLT seem to have been forgotten.
Courtney Mil,
Fair point, but so far the main problem would seem to be presented by Turkey...
Fair point, but so far the main problem would seem to be presented by Turkey...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Which is why they can now enforce a buffer zone.
As for the US taking out the Russian SAM can you imagine the CinC giving the order? It would be a short cut to a hot war. Whacking a Turkish F16 could even be accepted as just even.
As for the US taking out the Russian SAM can you imagine the CinC giving the order? It would be a short cut to a hot war. Whacking a Turkish F16 could even be accepted as just even.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russia is no longer in the same league as Nato conventionally, and they know it.
Is that the best you have?
Just this once...
No, don't be ridiculous. I don't think it's deployed to threaten RAF aircraft.
Do you?
No, don't be ridiculous. I don't think it's deployed to threaten RAF aircraft.
Do you?
Yes, I believe it is a credible threat to all aircraft not allied to Assad and that their deployment was designed to be escalatory.
But still interested in your analysis and as you have acknowledged there is no air threat from IS, just who do you think the SAMs are there to threaten?
But still interested in your analysis and as you have acknowledged there is no air threat from IS, just who do you think the SAMs are there to threaten?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Syria is still a sovereign country, yes? Despite the fact that "we" wanted to bomb the crap out of Assad a year ago, he is still the legitimate leader of Syria, and he has invited the Russian government to assist in his defence against Rebel (CystISIS / Other) forces. Yes?
So if Coallition forces start invading Syrian airspace, Assad has every right to defend, and given Russia has been invited to the party by Assad, for Russian forces to intervene on Assad's behalf. No?
Now I'd guess Assad has either been unable, or unwilling to intervene himself, and because much of the coalition action has been against CystISIS, Moscow has probably been a little ambivalent to the prospect of intervening. However now a coalition partner has decided to shoot a Russian aircraft out of the sky, wherever that may have taken place, it would be fair they may be a little less willing to allow intervention in a sovereign country it's been asked to help protect.
So Tourist
Why the hell would they do that?! a MASSIVE, basically unwarranted escalation, directly against a sovereign state that's been invited by the host state to protect it! That's the quickest route to WW3!
and Pr00ne,
A "Coalition" aircraft has just shot a Russian aircraft out of the sky, they perhaps might be a little less willing to turn a blind eye to Coalition aircraft invading the country they've been asked to defend?
Hopefully not however.
but Turkey look like the kind of ally many people could do without.
So if Coallition forces start invading Syrian airspace, Assad has every right to defend, and given Russia has been invited to the party by Assad, for Russian forces to intervene on Assad's behalf. No?
Now I'd guess Assad has either been unable, or unwilling to intervene himself, and because much of the coalition action has been against CystISIS, Moscow has probably been a little ambivalent to the prospect of intervening. However now a coalition partner has decided to shoot a Russian aircraft out of the sky, wherever that may have taken place, it would be fair they may be a little less willing to allow intervention in a sovereign country it's been asked to help protect.
So Tourist
The US could still wipe out their little force in a morning, they just now have a little chance to sting in the process.
And to be honest, the Turks have the capability too.
And to be honest, the Turks have the capability too.
and Pr00ne,
Just This Once,
Because we are bombing IS, they too are bombing IS, amongst others, so why does the deployment of a defensive SAM system present a threat to us?
Because we are bombing IS, they too are bombing IS, amongst others, so why does the deployment of a defensive SAM system present a threat to us?
Hopefully not however.
but Turkey look like the kind of ally many people could do without.
Pretty much how I view it. We made an assumption that Assad would not dare exercise his reasonably capable IADS against a coalition aircraft; even if we were not exactly invited into his airspace. With the Russian intervention I'm not sure this assumption is a strong as it was.
At suitable point of his choosing, what is to stop Assad sending a polite note asking the coalition to stop flying their aircraft over his country?
At suitable point of his choosing, what is to stop Assad sending a polite note asking the coalition to stop flying their aircraft over his country?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My answer was in response to an assertion that because Russia has brought some big boy toys to the area, they are now in charge. They are patently not.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joint Operations
I feel that there are at least two different threads going through here.
Firstly the right of any country to defend its own airspace and secondly the agreed primary target for all the air forces in the region ISIS, except possibly the Turkish air force that has the Kurds as its primary target we are lead to believe.
I have heard no discussion of the Syrian State asking the coalition not to invade its air space and bomb ISIS targets, I have heard of Turkey issuing Diplomatic Messages etc to the Russians about not entering their airspace.
It cannot be too difficult for the Russians to understand that if they bomb a Turkish backed group just to the south of the border using a type of plane that the Syrian air force has, remember many of the Russian planes in photos have had their markings removed, that if they cross the border they are in danger of lethal force being used, the Syrians did shoot down an F4 for a slightly similar infringement.
As for all of the coalition targeting ISIS, I would have thought by now that there were rather fewer targets available than a few months ago. Do all parties engaged in the campaign have the same definition of what at ISIS target actually is? Assuming hat the Russian Cruise Missiles used the other week actually hit ISIS targets, was there any prior warning of these targets, to avert the possibility of two attacks at the same time on the same target?
Firstly the right of any country to defend its own airspace and secondly the agreed primary target for all the air forces in the region ISIS, except possibly the Turkish air force that has the Kurds as its primary target we are lead to believe.
I have heard no discussion of the Syrian State asking the coalition not to invade its air space and bomb ISIS targets, I have heard of Turkey issuing Diplomatic Messages etc to the Russians about not entering their airspace.
It cannot be too difficult for the Russians to understand that if they bomb a Turkish backed group just to the south of the border using a type of plane that the Syrian air force has, remember many of the Russian planes in photos have had their markings removed, that if they cross the border they are in danger of lethal force being used, the Syrians did shoot down an F4 for a slightly similar infringement.
As for all of the coalition targeting ISIS, I would have thought by now that there were rather fewer targets available than a few months ago. Do all parties engaged in the campaign have the same definition of what at ISIS target actually is? Assuming hat the Russian Cruise Missiles used the other week actually hit ISIS targets, was there any prior warning of these targets, to avert the possibility of two attacks at the same time on the same target?
Russian & Syria could take defacto control of the airspace by issuing air control orders, transit corridors etc under the guise of preventing mid-airs, fratricide or collateral damage. What would the coalition do in the face of such (ahem) reasonable cooperation?
Waiting on orders to fight from our current C-in-C might be a very long wait!
He is big on "talk" but very short on "walk".
You notice he did not throw down any Red Paint on the Ground....so he is at least one order of magnitude less aggrieved by all this Russia, Syria, Turkey, ISIS stuff than with just Assad using Chemical Weapons even.
Then we have to remember....the Dolt cannot even utter "ISIS" and is now using "Daesh" in order not to say the Words "Islamic", "Radical", or "Terrorism" in the same Month.
He is big on "talk" but very short on "walk".
You notice he did not throw down any Red Paint on the Ground....so he is at least one order of magnitude less aggrieved by all this Russia, Syria, Turkey, ISIS stuff than with just Assad using Chemical Weapons even.
Then we have to remember....the Dolt cannot even utter "ISIS" and is now using "Daesh" in order not to say the Words "Islamic", "Radical", or "Terrorism" in the same Month.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are naïve if you believe that the Russians primary target is ISIS.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The Turks too are not as concerned with IS as they are with bombing the Kurds - ironically Iraq's major ally on the ground against IS.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't Syria just ask Russia to close all Syrian airspace. SA-21 is an awesome bit of kit and may be a prelude to the above happening, not much the US&A can do about Assad asking the Russians to do it. No way have the US&A the balls to attack SA-21/SU-34. Goes without saying the same applies to UK, who just tag along submissively on a bitch collar with their master.