Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #1

KoTeMoRe wrote:

So far the Shahed drone has been good. And there's the CH-4...

And so the shills come out to play, do you really think Russia would use and operate Iranian or Chinese drones for these ops with the VKS?

I would recommend looking at the pictures posted with my edit to my previous post. Meanwhile, I will look for my Syrian Su-24 photos showing their optical systems in use. I will also find the Su-34's as well.

sepheronx wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:I am very confident that these were Orlan drones, or perhaps a different Russian drone.

Unless Russia operates another foreign UAV other than the Hermes 450 or the ScanEagle, then these were certainly an Orlan type drone, unlikely to be an Eleron or a Zala however.

So far the Shahed drone has been good. And there's the CH-4...

Are those even in Russian service though?

Syria and Iraq have allies outside of Russia.

Shahed = Iranian aid

CH-4 = Chinese aid

max steel wrote:

Unconfirmed Footage - Russian Air Force Aircraft attacking Al-Lataminah @ Northern Homs Countryside.

No, footage from Center-2015 with arabic pasted over it.

Somewhat of a live updates on air strikes in Syria, by both RuAf and Syrian air force:

http://qasioun.net/en/breakingList/

Their articles are mostly junk but at least times and strikes are somewhat of a legit source.

Russia military journalist briefing

How did the Su24M hit the targets during nighttime ???

Strizh wrote:How did the Su24M hit the targets during nighttime ???

New targeting pod with a highly sensitive microphone that can home in on the allah akbars.

x_54_u43 wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

So far the Shahed drone has been good. And there's the CH-4...

And so the shills come out to play, do you really think Russia would use and operate Iranian or Chinese drones for these ops with the VKS?

I would recommend looking at the pictures posted with my edit to my previous post. Meanwhile, I will look for my Syrian Su-24 photos showing their optical systems in use. I will also find the Su-34's as well.

1. Shut your filthy mouth.
2. Russians have been operating with Shahed and other Iranian drones for about 4 years, helping Assad. They are "Surprized" by the actual quality of the IRGC.
3. The Chinese drones aren't exactly treason, they're a good off the shelf alternative to what Russia cannot buy or produce for now. If Russia has better luck with Dozor or other designs, then fine, until then Russia is stuck with Forpost and other less than adequate tools. Eleron for instance is a short range tactical drone. To get coverage over 100km they're no good.

New video from Russia24

That was 7 years ago and I believe Rostec owns the company.  In other words, I can bet you that production is significantly higher (as the radio agencies have been in a massive upswing since the failures of 2008 Georgian war, and are producing brand new radio technology and glonass recievers especially for troops.  I don't know about dual purpose ones though, they may not make many of them).  If not for dual purpose chips, then for pure glonass.  As for those guided missile orders, I will need citations on those as I don't really believe it.

Well when you combine anti shipping, guided and cruise missiles orders probably never went over 100 per year, even that my estimate is probably to high. I have exact figures on Kh31/35 for 2009. - 2010. from Tactical Missile Corporation yearly report published partially by https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/attach/176/176265_mdb_3_2011_sm.pdf sadly i cant find way of obtaining their annyal report, this is for both AG and AS versions.

Later Russians ordered some 3M54s for modernised Kilos and Buyan-M ships, i guess we can count them in whole this guided ammunition story. Some Onix based missiles for Bastions and similar. But they have very small orders of actual guided ammunition in general.

x_54_u43 wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

So far the Shahed drone has been good. And there's the CH-4...

And so the shills come out to play, do you really think Russia would use and operate Iranian or Chinese drones for these ops with the VKS?

I would recommend looking at the pictures posted with my edit to my previous post. Meanwhile, I will look for my Syrian Su-24 photos showing their optical systems in use. I will also find the Su-34's as well.

Noone said Russians are using them, many Shahed 129 have been seen over Syria so we can assume Syrians operate them and CH-4 has been spotted in Iraq. When its about Russian drones being used in Syria for now we have spotted Eleron 3, Orlan 10 and Granat 3.

sepheronx wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:I am very confident that these were Orlan drones, or perhaps a different Russian drone.

Unless Russia operates another foreign UAV other than the Hermes 450 or the ScanEagle, then these were certainly an Orlan type drone, unlikely to be an Eleron or a Zala however.

So far the Shahed drone has been good. And there's the CH-4...

Are those even in Russian service though?

Naaa, none in Russian service, Syrians do operate Shahed 129 tho apparently. Till this point in Syria we have seen Eleron 3, Orlan 10 and Granat 3 when its about Russian drones.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

1. Shut your filthy mouth.
2. Russians have been operating with Shahed and other Iranian drones for about 4 years, helping Assad. They are "Surprized" by the actual quality of the IRGC.
3. The Chinese drones aren't exactly treason, they're a good off the shelf alternative to what Russia cannot buy or produce for now. If Russia has better luck with Dozor or other designs, then fine, until then Russia is stuck with Forpost and other less than adequate tools. Eleron for instance is a short range tactical drone. To get coverage over 100km they're no good.

Looks like I touched a nerve, Albanian. Classic posting pattern with list format, no sources and spelling mistakes, consistent with shilling.

And it does not have to be Eleron, there is always Orlan. As for its range, I am sure you watched the documentary by Star Television, on Russian UAVs?

If so, you know perfectly well the range of Orlan, unless you do not watch "Russian propaganda".

For your viewing pleasure...

This is like, you're the actual dumbest motherfucker I've ever read. I could be from fucking Nauru and still call you out for being a dumb cunt.

Once again. Eleron on your own clip is at best at 1KM altitude, usual altitude because of sensor limitations is around 1000/1500 m, Shahed operates at twice that alt without trouble. The CH at about 3km alt.
Your own source shows those drones to be used in purely tactical role with very small FoV. I cannot belive I'm discussing this. Russia is looking for a domestic UCAV for half a decade now. Why is this so difficult to understand.
You could cram a ton of sensors on the ORLAN/Eleron they've been both shown at risk because of the low altitudes they operate. Both in Ukraine and in Syria.

KoTeMoRe wrote:This is like, you're the actual dumbest motherfucker I've ever read. I could be from fucking Nauru and still call you out for being a dumb cunt.

Once again. Eleron on your own clip is at best at 1KM altitude, usual altitude because of sensor limitations is around 1000/1500 m, Shahed operates at twice that alt without trouble. The CH at about 3km alt.
Your own source shows those drones to be used in purely tactical role with very small FoV. I cannot belive I'm discussing this. Russia is looking for a domestic UCAV for half a decade now. Why is this so difficult to understand.
You could cram a ton of sensors on the ORLAN/Eleron they've been both shown at risk because of the low altitudes they operate. Both in Ukraine and in Syria.

The Orlan's sensors are rather sophisticated, at this altitude:



They got this on their screens, note the shadows of the people, the furthest one was actually moving, and you could discern the movement of their shadow.



Now, if Wikipedia is to be believed, the Orlan can operate at an altitude of 5500m, giving it plenty of distance from any threats in Syria, as well as a nice radius of 140km datalink range.

So, with the high altitude involved for observing large detonations, no need to climb down for a closer look. We are looking for bomb blasts, not camouflaged snipers, the high wind speeds at that altitude causing the buffeting seen in some of the videos, and the degradation of the video quality by the recording software(look at the crosshair), I am thinking that we are looking at Orlan footage.

Militarov wrote:

That was 7 years ago and I believe Rostec owns the company.  In other words, I can bet you that production is significantly higher (as the radio agencies have been in a massive upswing since the failures of 2008 Georgian war, and are producing brand new radio technology and glonass recievers especially for troops.  I don't know about dual purpose ones though, they may not make many of them).  If not for dual purpose chips, then for pure glonass.  As for those guided missile orders, I will need citations on those as I don't really believe it.

Well when you combine anti shipping, guided and cruise missiles orders probably never went over 100 per year, even that my estimate is probably to high. I have exact figures on Kh31/35 for 2009. - 2010. from Tactical Missile Corporation yearly report published partially by https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/attach/176/176265_mdb_3_2011_sm.pdf sadly i cant find way of obtaining their annyal report, this is for both AG and AS versions.

Later Russians ordered some 3M54s for modernised Kilos and Buyan-M ships, i guess we can count them in whole this guided ammunition story. Some Onix based missiles for Bastions and similar. But they have very small orders of actual guided ammunition in general.

         
Russia lagging way behind the west..  bla bla bla bla bla..
Why would Russia need to buy thousands of cruise missiles like USA?
Russia don't need to waste so much money.. the reason why Russia produce only 100 is because they don't need more than that.. they are not in the business of invading a nation every year like NATO and USA.  A cruise missiles are anything but cheap.. tomahawks last i saw
cost $1.4 millions of dollars. Why in hell Russia needs to buy thousands of cruise missiles every year? that weapon is only need to invade a foreign nation far away of your lands..

Thanks God Russian Army does not have so short iQ..  otherwise will be bankrupt wasting money in things they don't need in such large quantities.

War is not like in video game ,where you only need to care about tactics and using your best weapons.. in real life.. wars can be lost if you do not have a balance with your economy..just keep using state of the art expensive weapons ,without taking into account the economics side of any war. .Russia needs to develop an strategy that could allow them to continue fighting for as long as is needed.. a year or two  more.. If they go now and start using remote control missiles with all the latest bells and whistles and sensors in the world ( InfraRed,TV,Lazer ,active homing ,anti radiation,and missiles with Artificial intelligence ) then we are talking a bout several millions of dollars per missile , in a conflict they are paid NOTHING! and they just doing an humanitarian service. lets not Forget that US iraq war invasion cost was 1 trillion dollars.. or about 100$ billions US dollars per year.. This is ridiculous stupid.. Russia don't have to imitate United States waste of money..

Russian airforce lags in nothing in comparison to what the west have.. They have all the technology in the world their army needs to counter anything that the west bring forward. I will say is the other way.. The west is lagging behind Russia in moder warfare..  In counter electronics ,smart missile technology ,precision weapons ,air defenses and nukes.  and now in Tanks and Artillery too.. So in short you are wrong. Russia doesn't lag in anything..it have what it needs ,but they will not be using their best hardware in Syria for economic reasons and to not allow the west to spy on their technology.  So i don't expect Iskanders to be used for example , or neither Pak-fa.. even if was on service.. Military powers needs to save their best weapons only for real emergencies that nation security is at risk.

x_54_u43 wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:This is like, you're the actual dumbest motherfucker I've ever read. I could be from fucking Nauru and still call you out for being a dumb cunt.

Once again. Eleron on your own clip is at best at 1KM altitude, usual altitude because of sensor limitations is around 1000/1500 m, Shahed operates at twice that alt without trouble. The CH at about 3km alt.
Your own source shows those drones to be used in purely tactical role with very small FoV. I cannot belive I'm discussing this. Russia is looking for a domestic UCAV for half a decade now. Why is this so difficult to understand.
You could cram a ton of sensors on the ORLAN/Eleron they've been both shown at risk because of the low altitudes they operate. Both in Ukraine and in Syria.

The Orlan's sensors are rather sophisticated, at this altitude:



They got this on their screens, note the shadows of the people, the furthest one was actually moving, and you could discern the movement of their shadow.



Now, if Wikipedia is to be believed, the Orlan can operate at an altitude of 5500m, giving it plenty of distance from any threats in Syria, as well as a nice radius of 140km datalink range.

So, with the high altitude involved for observing large detonations, no need to climb down for a closer look. We are looking for bomb blasts, not camouflaged snipers, the high wind speeds at that altitude causing the buffeting seen in some of the videos, and the degradation of the video quality by the recording software(look at the crosshair), I am thinking that we are looking at Orlan footage.

Ya'allah, this density in only matched by unobtanium. If the Orlan could operate from 5,5K it wouldn't have been picked off at least 8 times by Ukropithecus. The sensors on both Eleron and Orlan are best used at the 500/1000 alt. This is how they work best. BDA is only a very little task those UAV's are going to be employed for. If you think that drones are best employed for recording fireworks, then you haven't got the slightest clue about area interdiction and survey.(AIS).

KoTeMoRe wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:This is like, you're the actual dumbest motherfucker I've ever read. I could be from fucking Nauru and still call you out for being a dumb cunt.

Once again. Eleron on your own clip is at best at 1KM altitude, usual altitude because of sensor limitations is around 1000/1500 m, Shahed operates at twice that alt without trouble. The CH at about 3km alt.
Your own source shows those drones to be used in purely tactical role with very small FoV. I cannot belive I'm discussing this. Russia is looking for a domestic UCAV for half a decade now. Why is this so difficult to understand.
You could cram a ton of sensors on the ORLAN/Eleron they've been both shown at risk because of the low altitudes they operate. Both in Ukraine and in Syria.

The Orlan's sensors are rather sophisticated, at this altitude:



They got this on their screens, note the shadows of the people, the furthest one was actually moving, and you could discern the movement of their shadow.



Now, if Wikipedia is to be believed, the Orlan can operate at an altitude of 5500m, giving it plenty of distance from any threats in Syria, as well as a nice radius of 140km datalink range.

So, with the high altitude involved for observing large detonations, no need to climb down for a closer look. We are looking for bomb blasts, not camouflaged snipers, the high wind speeds at that altitude causing the buffeting seen in some of the videos, and the degradation of the video quality by the recording software(look at the crosshair), I am thinking that we are looking at Orlan footage.

Ya'allah, this density in only matched by unobtanium. If the Orlan could operate from 5,5K it wouldn't have been picked off at least 8 times by Ukropithecus. The sensors on both Eleron and Orlan are best used at the 500/1000 alt. This is how they work best.  BDA is only a very little task those UAV's are going to be employed for. If you think that drones are best employed for recording fireworks, then you haven't got the slightest clue about area interdiction and survey.(AIS).

Orlan should be fine up to 2000-2500m, above that it becomes far less useful, i guess it performs best between 1000-1500m. Fact it can fly on 5.000m doesnt make it useful there, you fly it so high till you reach area you want to scout, to save fuel coz drag there is reduced.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Ya'allah, this density in only matched by unobtanium. If the Orlan could operate from 5,5K it wouldn't have been picked off at least 8 times by Ukropithecus. The sensors on both Eleron and Orlan are best used at the 500/1000 alt. This is how they work best.  BDA is only a very little task those UAV's are going to be employed for. If you think that drones are best employed for recording fireworks, then you haven't got the slightest clue about area interdiction and survey.(AIS).

One more time, there is no need to fly at 1000m altitude when you are observing fuck huge explosions and doing BDA.

And when did I say that I think that drones are best used for observing fireworks? Projecting a little bit there?

KoTeMoRe wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:This is like, you're the actual dumbest motherfucker I've ever read. I could be from fucking Nauru and still call you out for being a dumb cunt.

Once again. Eleron on your own clip is at best at 1KM altitude, usual altitude because of sensor limitations is around 1000/1500 m, Shahed operates at twice that alt without trouble. The CH at about 3km alt.
Your own source shows those drones to be used in purely tactical role with very small FoV. I cannot belive I'm discussing this. Russia is looking for a domestic UCAV for half a decade now. Why is this so difficult to understand.
You could cram a ton of sensors on the ORLAN/Eleron they've been both shown at risk because of the low altitudes they operate. Both in Ukraine and in Syria.

The Orlan's sensors are rather sophisticated, at this altitude:



They got this on their screens, note the shadows of the people, the furthest one was actually moving, and you could discern the movement of their shadow.



Now, if Wikipedia is to be believed, the Orlan can operate at an altitude of 5500m, giving it plenty of distance from any threats in Syria, as well as a nice radius of 140km datalink range.

So, with the high altitude involved for observing large detonations, no need to climb down for a closer look. We are looking for bomb blasts, not camouflaged snipers, the high wind speeds at that altitude causing the buffeting seen in some of the videos, and the degradation of the video quality by the recording software(look at the crosshair), I am thinking that we are looking at Orlan footage.

Ya'allah, this density in only matched by unobtanium. If the Orlan could operate from 5,5K it wouldn't have been picked off at least 8 times by Ukropithecus. The sensors on both Eleron and Orlan are best used at the 500/1000 alt. This is how they work best.  BDA is only a very little task those UAV's are going to be employed for. If you think that drones are best employed for recording fireworks, then you haven't got the slightest clue about area interdiction and survey.(AIS).

Ukraine got Russian drones with American help.. by their own Ukraine cant do nothing..
Drones are very vulnerable weapons , so jamming.. iranians too can be captured.. the fact
that Russia is not using Iranian drones but theirs.. shows they have more confidence in their technology than IRANIAN one. and im not discrediting Iranian drones... somewhere i read Russia bough them..  but the way Russia use drones is for spying ,to become the first eyes of their airforce.. they also used for artillery precision attacks. and Again the question of money comes to the discussion.. Russia will not use attack big drones ,that cost millions if they could use a cheap one backed by Artillery or Airforce. The discussion about Iranian vs Russian drones
is a discussion of tactics.. in the case of IRAN.. that it doesn't have a strong airforce.. or strong anti missile jamming capabilities like Russia or electromamgnetic weapons ,in their case developing attack drones could make more sense to compensate for the lack of a strong airforce and lack of high precision artillery.  In the case of Americans.. Attack drones makes sense since they use them in third world nations with poor air defenses and they do lots of operations in foreign nations territory..  In Syria , Iranian drones makes sense.. since ISIS have next to none
air defenses..  

Imagine that Russia develops an attack drone..like American predator?
where are they going to use that? they are not cheap.. Since RUssia have precision long range
artillery and strong airforce they dont have really a need for a major attack drone fleet. This is like the question of sniper weapons about why Russia did not developed as much in that area vs the west.. And the answer is the same..thing again and again.. Russia develop the military hardware they will need.. and just that.. very long range sniper weapons like the ones used by western special forces there is not really a need for that in Russia army.. because Russia is not a  nation that invades other countries seeking to assassinate presidents in secret. In a real war.. such weapons are useless.. they are more for infiltration and stealth killing missions.. Russian Army don't need that.  in real wars ,you don't need to be stealth.. you need to be very noisy
and scare the hell of your enemies with big bombs.. a western pro sniper rifle could have a range of 3km.. but good luck to any US navy forces using a sniper rifle against and army with tanks.. his position will be blow away from 5km away. by any tank or bmp... Such weapons are useless in war.. they are only special time use for stealth secret missions.

Why people think Russia don't use flashing modern looking assault rifles ,like the west?
it is because they don't know how to do that? no.. simply Russia don't need that. America is not at risk of being invaded ever.. So they don't need strong simple weapons that could last months without cleaning and have very few pieces and that you could literary repair with a hammer .

Russia philosophy is one ,of developing weapons that can survive for a decade ..easy to produce ,easy to repair ,easy to replace..easy to clean..and cheap to produce.. . it was this easy to do thing.. what helped Russia to defeat nazi germany when invaded Russia.. that allowed Russia to quickly produce tanks and planes and weapons in big numbers with very little money and with next to no training.  

USA don't need such philosophy because America is safe from any invasion.. don't have enemies near.. But this is not the case of Russia.. that have Turkey ,Baltics ,Poland and now Ukraine and potentially Georgia.. then Russia have a large muslins population.. something that USA don't have.. so the possibilities of Chechen like wars are there..  In short Russia military doctrine.. based on its geographical location and its needs to defend a very large continent..and
its economy limitations .

Guys, whats the plan of action here ??

RuAF goes and bombs the shit out of ISIS and its allies. This is enough to destroy morale, equipment, CnC hubs. Pretty much everything in the said AO.

Creates enough leeway for SAA to mount an offensive ? Or do Russians spearhead an assault ?

The way i see it (i would request someone to post the latest map of territory held), ISIS 'strongpoints' are mostly rural far off areas. If RuAF does bomb these areas, in theory SAA can move out (if they have the men) and capture those first. Right now it seems that VVS is going after points closer to the current line of control of ISIS and SAA but maybe with time they'll go after those too ?

I just want to get an idea of what we should expect next. A solo air campaign never destroys an enemy. (thats my opinion). You need boots on the ground for clean up. I remember Kadyrov saying - I want my men to be the first boots on the ground - (which is good because they are experienced now, from Donbass.) Jokes aside, I doubt if SAA has the man power to carryout assaults.