Some more arrivals in Syria

12 x Su-24

https://twitter.com/RamiAlLolah/stat...84659648118788

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPhrbB9WUAAPyDE.jpg:large

Russians obviously don't believe in intra-aircraft Quantity Distances or seem concerned about sympathetic detonations :8:}

Then again, the loss of a few frames wouldn't cripple them :\

RH200, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Personally, I believe governments have a moral duty to do their best to avoid killing the innocent. Killing innocent people achieves nothing other than making more enemies.

Barnstormer, as far as I'm aware, ROE were never intended to protect the military. They were intended to protect civilians. I won't deny that they can get a bit ridiculous - I think Afghanistan was proof of that.

Joint..."I believe governments have a moral duty to do their best to avoid killing the innocent. Killing innocent people achieves nothing other than making more enemies."

The French people in WWII accepted/anticipated casualties from our bombing.

If anyone wants to know what is happening inside Syria the website of The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is a good source.

Syrian Observatory For Human Rights | Syrian Observatory For Human Rights

And here is an interesting map:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPlvKLhW8AEUg2m.jpg

The game is on.

https://twitter.com/michaelh992/stat...01594638094336

This report says that the Chinese are on their way to Syria, including a 'naval vessel' which has just passed through Suez, and 'aerial assets' which are on their way. May be hearsay or trolling but would be a very interesting development if true.

JSF

Have you read or been read many rules of engagement?

You would be wrong about that. Some RoE is to prevent blue on blue, some is for the other considerations you mention.

fait accompli, due to the US's half hearted attempts to squash ISIL, its now an opportunity for all comers who want to increase their influence in the area. Obama has sunk any potential to extend influence in the area.

As far as ROE, JSF's comments do have a degree of truth in them. ROE in Somalia in the 90s put those of us at a tactical disadvantage with the locals.

Biased towards the various rebel factions and vociferously anti regime. Not saying that's a bad thing per se, but it isn't a neutral source.

JSF's point was an incorrect statement of how RoE work. As to that which pertains to "due care" for non combatants, I found that the IRL implementation of RoE far too often put a lot of obstacles in the way of our people getting their mission accomplished with the risk remaining at a sane level. Further comments censored, due to my strong emotions on the topic, and in a few cases being covered by an NDA.

What your saw in Somalia hasn't gotten much better, from what I saw, and in some cases it may have gotten worse.

In Somalia we were read ROE based in a humanitarian mission in hazardous zone. The Clinton administration and the UN morphed that into a primarily combatant role without changing the ROE. This evidenced at all levels of the planning, execution and logistics. Those ROE limitations seem to me to match up with what JSF said. Within the narrow scope of my experiences, he nailed it.

My most recent experiences were with something a bit beyond a humanitarian mission.

I am sad to repeat that, as I posted, the problem with that piece of the RoE remains an obstacle to operations at a lot of levels. Since war is the child of politics, I don't think that piece of it will change any time soon. :uhoh:

Never? Then apparently Vietnam never happened. The RoE over Vietnam that required visual identification of an aircraft before one could shoot at it totally negated the advantage in BVR weapons USAF and USN enjoyed at the time, and likely resulted in many unnecessary losses. Not to mention resulting in programs like Top Gun to teach dog fight skills to pilots not trained for it. And that visual ID requirement was not to protect civilian airliners.

Ground forces ROE are (generally) a different matter.

Lonewolf
ROE are both interesting and sometimes beyond ridiculous in some cases IMHO.
Perhaps your mention of an NDA suggests you have seen some odd ones too.

From my own experience civilians didn't even always get a mention, let alone be protected.
Of course, some historically famous events had ROE that had civilians as the intended target, either directly or indirectly which is why I bit to JSFs' post. Events like the WW2 bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima or Nagasaki spring to mind as direct targeting while the dambusters raid killed very many civilians of all ages as an indirect consequence.

It may be worth remembering that Communist Vietnam took out the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia when the West decided to do nothing. Sometimes the bad guys are better than the worse guys.

well, the life in general is about going with lesser evil...

@Barnstormer: in a nutshell, yes.

@PersonFromPorlock: I like the way you put that. Too bad the desire to draw red lines prevented our political leadership from making that very assessment. Oh well, pols make mistakes. I wonder if the "success" with the Mad Colonel from Lybia influenced the mistakes in Syria, in terms of assuming a cookie cutter ... my money is betting the over on that one.

Lots of new Latakia images:
Cavok Brasil ? Aviação e Fotografia - SÍRIA: Imagens atualizadas sobre a presença militar russa em Latakia

Plenty of analysis opportunities in that lot.