PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   Here it comes: Syria (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/513470-here-comes-syria.html)

glad rag 5th May 2013 15:29

BBC News - Israeli strikes on Syria 'co-ordinated with terrorists'


Damascus airstrikes
BBC News - Damascus military facilities 'hit by Israel rockets'

"Syrian state media said the rockets hit the Jamraya research centre, which Western officials have suggested is involved in chemical weapons research"

"It is the second suspected Israeli strike in Syria in two days."

Israeli jet shot down over Damascus: Hezbollah TV | News , Middle East | THE DAILY STAR


:}

"BEIRUT: An Israeli warplane was shot down by Syrian air-defense units during a raid near Damascus early Sunday, Hezbollah's Manar television station reported, citing security sources in the Syrian capital.

There was no independent confirmation of the claim and Israel did not comment on the raid reports.

ExRAFRadar 5th May 2013 15:37

Ignore- could not post vid

Eclectic 5th May 2013 20:00

Israel were not too unhappy with the Assads running Syria, the family provided little trouble for decades.
The revolutionaries contain many salafists (including lots of volunteers from abroad, including the UK). Israel doesn't want these people running a country on their borders.
So to strike against Assad means they have a bigger problem. Or several.

Syria has Fateh-110 missiles from Iran, these are accurate super Scuds with a 200 mile range. Syria also has a substantial chemical weapons capability. Both of these give Israel sleepless nights. Especially if Syria supply Hezbollah with the missiles. Or just about anyone with the chemical weapons.

Jamraya is a collection of military complexes that are behind a mountain to the west of Baghdad, not a long way from the Lebanese border. This is the second time Israel has hit it. But this time they went in much bigger and took out an assortment of targets. Including using earth penetrators against the many bunkers there. That they succeeded to some degree in their aims can be seen with the immense firework display visible from Baghdad, which could well have been Fateh-110 solid fuel going up.

It looks like the West is planning a safe zone in the north, next to the Turkish border, which would then be declared as a no fly zone. This would help stem the refugee problem and give the West a vehicle to control the political process amongst the Syrian opposition, minimising salafist power. Expect Typhoons to be flying out of Akrotiri to enforce this.

Easy Street 5th May 2013 20:44


It looks like the West is planning a safe zone in the north...which would then be declared as a no fly zone....Expect Typhoons to be flying out of Akrotiri to enforce this.
What about the Syrian fixed air defences? And air bases? And IADS? And mobile SAM? A no fly zone is not an easy or low-political-cost option in this particular instance. Although I will agree that it is lower cost than many of the alternatives, I don't see it being especially likely, given the enormous set-up "costs" required (both in materiel and political capital).

Lonewolf_50 5th May 2013 23:37

Eclectic, did you mean "Damascus" when you wrote "Baghdad?" in your post?:confused

You hypothesis on the no fly zone near Turkish border makes some sense to me.

GreenKnight121 6th May 2013 07:26

Or perhaps he meant Beirut.

Eclectic 6th May 2013 09:03

OOPS! Senior moment.

A safe zone next to the Turkish border could be enforced with Patriots inside Turkey + AWACs.

Then SEAD could be done progressively till air superiority is achieved.

angels 6th May 2013 09:17

I am not a military man, but I would say they hit something....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=953_1367764824

Eclectic 6th May 2013 10:41

The politics for a safe zone have been discussed in the Economist newspaper (which is very well connected on both sides of the Atlantic) for some months. As in this article from last November. Middle East and Africa: Syria?s agony | The Economist

The idea was promoted publicly in America by Senator John McCain the week before last: PressTV - McCain urges 'safe zone' for Syria rebels

The debate on this has hotted up considerably over the last couple of days since the Israeli strikes: Democrats and Republicans think US closer to arming Syrian rebels, after Israeli strikes | Fox News

America just recently put a lot of diplomatic effort in getting Turkey and Israel to kiss and make up. Mainly for handling the Syrian situation. The Americans are training Syrian rebel fighters at camps in Jordan and Turkey (with UK assistance). The Americans are indirectly supplying arms by the CIA orchestrating the supply activities of the Arab gulf states. America also has special forces in position to act should the chemical weapons situation escalate. So have the Russians.

The problem is that all the American, UK and Gulf aid is wasted whilst Assad maintains air superiority. He can drop oil drums full of TNT from helicopters on to bread queues (a favourite tactic) with total impunity. So sooner or later, to some degree, that air superiority will need to be degraded. We won't give the rebels MANPADs because they could fall into the hands of salafists and end up being used at a civil airport near you. Though the rebels have captured some MANPADs and used them effectively. They shot down an Assad helicopter yesterday.

The safe zone makes a lot of sense because it can be very flexible and progressive and because the Patriot batteries are already in place. We could implement it this afternoon. Then gradually extend the size of it and implement SEAD. This would help stem the refugee tide, which has become a major problem. Also it would give the West a degree of political control, thus reducing the power of the salafists.

Politically we have learned a lot from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. With what we know now we would have done these campaigns very differently. We cannot get a country to switch instantly from being an oppressive dictatorship to being a Western liberal democracy. All we can do is to work towards the replacement regime being less bad. Mali being an example of how our doctrine has changed.

Some may say why should we. And they have a very valid point. The problems for the West iinclude young people being radicalised who then wage asymmetrical warfare against us, as in 9/11. Some would say that American policy has made this worse rather than better. Then there is our reliance on Arab petrochemicals. The situation here has changed very rapidly and very fundamentally with fracking in America. It has changed the global strategic balance. Then there are WMDs. Bliar and Bush lied to us about these so we are very cynical. However the Tokyo underground sarin attack proved just how devastating a small amount can be in the hands of the wrong people. And in Syria today there are lots of the wrong people and lots of nerve gas.

Syrian nerve gas: NBC Weapons: What Is Known About Nerve Gas In Syria

"Syrian nerve gas is stored at some fifty locations all over the country." So we have an accident waiting to happen. The salafists could very easily release this in the London or New York undergrounds if they got their hands on it.

Ronald Reagan 6th May 2013 11:26

Syrian Rebels the bad guys
 
Puts a different spin on things!
UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use - Telegraph
Typical of the west to support the wrong side yet again!

Fox3WheresMyBanana 6th May 2013 11:29

One of the problems with any kind of international law on conflicts is that such laws derived from a situation where all sides were clearly located and expected to 'play by the rules'. Not only are there now many anti-Western groups not linked to easily definable geographic areas, but those groups are specifically exploiting the international law loopholes to further their causes. Al Qaeda et al are in breach of every single condition of the Geneva Conventions. We are mugs to keep 'playing by the rules' when they don't.

To my mind, the two questions the three questions that come into play about any action by nation states are:
Will it work?
What message does this send out for now and the future?
What are the consequences if we do nothing/fail?

I feel the worst crime, morally, is losing. This is where me and those who claim that, for example, the fire- and atomic bombings in WWII were immoral part company. Losing to the totalitarian regimes would have been a far worse moral crime than the deaths of x hundreds of thousands of unarmed citizens ensuring the end of the war.

That said, I object to quite a number of current 'illegal actions' on the above grounds. The invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation didn't 'work'. I'm not convinced most rendition 'worked'.
I think the current Israeli bombing works. They are targetting specific weapon systems which could cause grave consequences for their people. There has been minimal collateral damage (or you can bet it would have been on every Arab TV channel), and they clearly hit weapons targets as shown by the secondaries.

Lonewolf_50 6th May 2013 14:42

Ronald:

Their evidence isn't as hard as they'd like it, but it seems to be as good as the evidence that the regime may have.

Eclectic's point overrides either consideration: if there are fifty or so locations where such stuff is stored, then the sarin gas is a bad news event just waiting to happen, within or beyond Syria.

Eclectic 6th May 2013 17:57

Regarding the rebels using sarin, this is eminently possible. They have captured several major Assad bases and the weapons in them, this is how they got their MANPADs. With Assad's sarin being widely dispersed it would be surprising if the rebels hadn't found some. And, as Assad has been using sarin for about a month, why not hit back in kind?

Sarin degrades pretty quickly when stored. So it is usually created by mixing two precursors immediately prior to use. This sometimes happens within the shell. Otherwise it could be quite technically demanding, requiring expertise from the rebels or the presence of specially trained defectors.

Pontius Navigator 6th May 2013 18:41

Wouldn't a no-fly zone in the north create a free-fly zone in the south and nearer Israel?

I can see how Patriot can enforce a narrow no-fly zone on the Turkish border but how far and how low?

Then don't confuse Air Superiority with Air Supremacy. The latter is required for a NFZ, the former will mean the airspace is continually contested and sometimes we would lose.

Lonewolf_50 6th May 2013 19:14

If I may quote this for thruth:

Then don't confuse Air Superiority with Air Supremacy.
Tough to have the latter when there are MANPADS within the airspace volume in the hands of someone not on your side. :cool:

SASless 6th May 2013 21:39

Assad has diddled the Pooch....he has authorized combat action against the Israeli's! So he is going to fight a Civl War and the Israeli's....now that is chutzpah!

500N 6th May 2013 21:41

SAS

Do you have a source for that ?

SASless 6th May 2013 21:56

Yes....know nothing of the credibility of the source however.

http://www.thetower.org/exclusive-as...cks-syrian-tv/

Eclectic 6th May 2013 22:02

Syria attacking Israel on the Golan Heights: Rockets fired from Syria fall in Israel-occupied Golan - Daily News Egypt

racedo 6th May 2013 22:24


One of the problems with any kind of international law on conflicts is that such laws derived from a situation where all sides were clearly located and expected to 'play by the rules'.
No sides in a war play by the rules and they haven't done for centuries.

The Moralising by the press that somehow there is respect for International law is blowing smoke to make it look like they are the good guys and others the bad guys.

In war there ain't any good guys.


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:50.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.