Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #11

Russia knows how to reduce the presence of the US in Syria, without asking for it directly. Even I know it.

Russia only needs to increase the air defenses of Syria. If them reach the areas controled by the Kurds the US will not be there in big amounts, because they only like to be on land where they control the air space, and where they can fly free.

Without strong air support and air coverage, there is not land presence of the US in the ground.

If Russia wants to abort the US backed opperation in Racqqa only need to help Syria stablishing a no fly zone for the US over the city. And for it there is not a need of MiG-31. Cheaper land warfare is enough.

In the refered to the air warfare, the best for Syria is to have L-39 in decent amounts. The US would dislike to waste expensive missiles on them. At same time is the cheapest and easiest to provide for Russia. Then it is clear what Syria will receive on air warfare.

US could wipe their arses with Syrian AD. It would take ages to actually build proper AD network, train people, build radar coverage. Good luck doing it in fractured country. Also AD always can be saturated

From what we see until now in Syria the building of the air defenses of the country is coming from long time and is being done by saturation of towed systems (SA-2, SA-3 and SA-5), manpads (SA-7, SA-14, SA-16, SA-18, SA-24 and SA-25) and some of the oldest mobile systems (ZSU-23-4, SA-6). In addition to that there are low amounts of more modern and capable systems.

The last attacks of Israel and the US, where both had significant loses shows how Syria is not far of achieving a no fly zone for their enemies based mostly on saturation with weaker systems plus something more capable.

The use of some weapons is always more attractive for the media, but this is in overall terms a low technological level war.

With an easy example, we can see which way is using Syria to deal with hostile missiles and aircrafts. It is to fire 5 SA-5 (S-200) missiles per hostile aircraft instead of 1 SA-10 (S-300) missile. Both Syria and Russia prefer this way, that is far more affordable for both.

Regular wrote:US could wipe their arses with Syrian AD. It would take ages to actually build proper AD network, train people, build radar coverage. Good luck doing it in fractured country. Also AD always can be saturated

Dont tell them that, its unpolite to say such things here. Russia will send them now 200 ZSU-23s and everything will be just fine

eehnie wrote:From what we see until now in Syria the building of the air defenses of the country is coming from long time and is being done by saturation of towed systems (SA-2, SA-3 and SA-5), manpads (SA-7, SA-14, SA-16, SA-18, SA-24 and SA-25) and some of the oldest mobile systems (ZSU-23-4, SA-6). In addition to that there are low amounts of more modern and capable systems.

The last attacks of Israel and the US, where both had significant loses shows how Syria is not far of achieving a no fly zone for their enemies based mostly on saturation with weaker systems plus something more capable.

The use of some weapons is always more attractive for the media, but this is in overall terms a low technological level war.

With an easy example, we can see how way that Syria is using to deal with hostile missiles and aircrafts, is to fire 5 SA-5 (S-200) missiles per hostile aircraft instead of 1 SA-10 (S-300) missile. Both Syria and Russia prefer this way, that is far more affordable for them.

You cannot enforce no-fly zone with AD network no matter how good or up to date. You need an actual fighter-interceptor fleet of significant size to do so in cooperation.

Air defence systems are extremly vulnerable without adequate support from air force, we saw that in every single conflict in last 40 years.

Militarov wrote:

Regular wrote:US could wipe their arses with Syrian AD. It would take ages to actually build proper AD network, train people, build radar coverage. Good luck doing it in fractured country. Also AD always can be saturated

Dont tell them that, its unpolite to say such things here. Russia will send them now 200 ZSU-23s and everything will be just fine

US stock is aprox. 2000 tomahawks. Lunching 60 (while 23 hit according to Russians and 44 hit according to US sat images) because they fear that smaller number wouldn't have been a success is not so good in terms of image. English bought just around 60 for their subs. They don't have enough of them actually to saturate an AD network like Russia's one or chinese. In the other hand, Russia lunched 2000 Scud against Chechenya easily.

Isos wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Regular wrote:US could wipe their arses with Syrian AD. It would take ages to actually build proper AD network, train people, build radar coverage. Good luck doing it in fractured country. Also AD always can be saturated

Dont tell them that, its unpolite to say such things here. Russia will send them now 200 ZSU-23s and everything will be just fine

US stock is aprox. 2000 tomahawks. Lunching 60 (while 23 hit according to Russians and 44 hit according to US sat images) because they fear that smaller number wouldn't have been a success is not so good in terms of image. English bought just around 60 for their subs. They don't have enough of them actually to saturate an AD network like Russia's one or chinese. In the other hand, Russia lunched 2000 Scud against Chechenya easily.

Producing cruise missile is not a problem really, especially not for such huge manufacturer as the States, keeping them around on other hand can be quite tricky, thats why stocks are kept quite low. Also i thought their Tomahawk stock was nearing 4.000 in 2016, might be wrong idk, i just keep remembering that number somewhere.

Well, this is how i look at it, launching 59 (or so they say) cruise missiles aganist an airfield to me is simple show of force, those reinforced shelters were all hit by single one, rest was for show and bangs without any real need (again IMO).

That is the first time ever i hear of 2000 Scuds being fired on Grozny, to my knowledge about 70-80 balistic missiles were fired in total from 1996. to 2000. and majority were Tochka rather than Scud.

eehnie wrote:he last attacks of Israel and the US, where both had significant loses shows how Syria is not far of achieving a no fly zone for their enemies based mostly on saturation with weaker systems plus something more capable.

Did I miss something? What losses? Turkey was flying in Syrian airspace before Russians stopped them. Israel doesn't even need to enter Syria to glide bomb them. US was and still is operating drones, flying planes and they have fucking airstrip for their use. What no fly zone?? Syrian airspace was penetrated more times than Sasha Grey.

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Regular wrote:US could wipe their arses with Syrian AD. It would take ages to actually build proper AD network, train people, build radar coverage. Good luck doing it in fractured country. Also AD always can be saturated

Dont tell them that, its unpolite to say such things here. Russia will send them now 200 ZSU-23s and everything will be just fine

US stock is aprox. 2000 tomahawks. Lunching 60 (while 23 hit according to Russians and 44 hit according to US sat images) because they fear that smaller number wouldn't have been a success is not so good in terms of image. English bought just around 60 for their subs. They don't have enough of them actually to saturate an AD network like Russia's one or chinese. In the other hand, Russia lunched 2000 Scud against Chechenya easily.

Producing cruise missile is not a problem really, especially not for such huge manufacturer as the States, keeping them around on other hand can be quite tricky, thats why stocks are kept quite low. Also i thought their Tomahawk stock was nearing 4.000 in 2016, might be wrong idk, i just keep remembering that number somewhere.

Well, this is how i look at it, launching 59 (or so they say) cruise missiles aganist an airfield to me is simple show of force, those reinforced shelters were all hit by single one, rest was for show and bangs without any real need (again IMO).

That is the first time ever i hear of 2000 Scuds being fired on Grozny, to my knowledge about 70-80 balistic missiles were fired in total from 1996. to 2000. and majority were Tochka rather than Scud.

I saw on french wiki for the 2000 Scud and not in Chechenya but in Afghan war against talibans.

It will not be easy to produce them if the opponent achieve to lunch a missile on the factory. An akula class sailed for a moonth undetected in the golf of Mexico so it's possible. On the other hand Russian Kalibr and kh-101 will be much better as Nato doesn't have AD network and their facilities are unprotected, it is doubtfull that an AWACS spot them at long range and Russia can lunch them from where they want ( planes, corvettes, Iskander). Russia will put Tor and pantsirs to protect major targets.

Regular wrote:

eehnie wrote:he last attacks of Israel and the US, where both had significant loses shows how Syria is not far of achieving a no fly zone for their enemies based mostly on saturation with weaker systems plus something more capable.

Did I miss something? What losses? Turkey was flying in Syrian airspace before Russians stopped them. Israel doesn't even need to enter Syria to glide bomb them. US was and still is operating drones, flying planes and they have fucking airstrip for their use. What no fly zone?? Syrian airspace was penetrated more times than Sasha Grey.

https://www.rt.com/news/381086-israeli-jets-syria-strikes/

Syria answered to the last attacks with relative success. The last month to the attack of Israel, now to the attack of the US missiles.

Regular wrote:

eehnie wrote:he last attacks of Israel and the US, where both had significant loses shows how Syria is not far of achieving a no fly zone for their enemies based mostly on saturation with weaker systems plus something more capable.

Did I miss something? What losses? Turkey was flying in Syrian airspace before Russians stopped them. Israel doesn't even need to enter Syria to glide bomb them. US was and still is operating drones, flying planes and they have fucking airstrip for their use. What no fly zone?? Syrian airspace was penetrated more times than Sasha Grey.

You must be a connoisseur I had to look her up.

Isos wrote: Nato doesn't have AD network and their facilities are unprotected

I take it You don't know what is NIAMD ?

Regular wrote:

Isos wrote: Nato doesn't have AD network and their facilities are unprotected

I take it You don't know what is NIAMD ?

LOL

They take 1 year to give Turkey a single Patriot battery. This shit is just for US to know if there was an attack on the east. There is no way they intercept salvos of cruise and ballistical missiles.

It's easy to protect a city with 2 or 3 patriot, more difficult to protect all the european airspace with

eehnie wrote:

https://www.rt.com/news/381086-israeli-jets-syria-strikes/

Syria answered to the last attacks with relative success. The last month to the attack of Israel, now to the attack of the US missiles.

So IDF lost a jet on 17th of March? What's the bort number?
They also attacked Syria on 20th with more targets and lost Skylark drone. No planes were intercepted/downed according to Syrians themselves?

There was Tomohawks lost, probably due to flying to low or mechanical problems, but what answer? Correct answer would be hitting platforms who launched them. It cost near to nothing for US to get rid of them cruise missiles as reportedly they would be using oldest stocks.

Isos wrote:

Regular wrote:

Isos wrote: Nato doesn't have AD network and their facilities are unprotected

I take it You don't know what is NIAMD ?

LOL

They take 1 year to give Turkey a single Patriot battery. This shit is just for US to know if there was an attack on the east. There is no way they intercept salvos of cruise and ballistical missiles.

It's easy to protect a city with 2 or 3 patriot, more difficult to protect all the european airspace with

Well Turkey wants to acquire S400 what will You be talking then?
What salvos of cruise and ballistic missiles? Since when Syria have them? Or You are talking about Russia?
If Russia would go to war against NATO only 1 country would win- China. After nuclear exchange US and Russia would be destroyed and power vacuum would be filled. And chinese would need cheap third world workforce.

Regular wrote:

Isos wrote:

Regular wrote:

Isos wrote: Nato doesn't have AD network and their facilities are unprotected

I take it You don't know what is NIAMD ?

LOL

They take 1 year to give Turkey a single Patriot battery. This shit is just for US to know if there was an attack on the east. There is no way they intercept salvos of cruise and ballistical missiles.

It's easy to protect a city with 2 or 3 patriot, more difficult to protect all the european airspace with

Well Turkey wants to acquire S400 what will You be talking then?
What salvos of cruise and ballistic missiles? Since when Syria have them? Or You are talking about Russia?
If Russia would go to war against NATO only 1 country would win- China. After nuclear exchange US and Russia would be destroyed and power vacuum would be filled. And chinese would need cheap third world workforce.

Of course I'm not talking about Syria. They don't even have bombs but are using barils instead.

Depend if Russian fighter are destroyed in Syria, they can attack quickly baltic states and Poland as a reponse. US won't NEVER use nuk to protect them. Their vision of the world is USA FIRST, the rest is shit, just a first line of defence.

S-400 without Pantsirs and Tor to protect them against low fliying object is an easy target for a fighter with Kh-31, spacially in a mountainous area.

However not the topic, just my opinion.

Isos wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Regular wrote:US could wipe their arses with Syrian AD. It would take ages to actually build proper AD network, train people, build radar coverage. Good luck doing it in fractured country. Also AD always can be saturated

Dont tell them that, its unpolite to say such things here. Russia will send them now 200 ZSU-23s and everything will be just fine

US stock is aprox. 2000 tomahawks. Lunching 60 (while 23 hit according to Russians and 44 hit according to US sat images) because they fear that smaller number wouldn't have been a success is not so good in terms of image. English bought just around 60 for their subs. They don't have enough of them actually to saturate an AD network like Russia's one or chinese. In the other hand, Russia lunched 2000 Scud against Chechenya easily.

Producing cruise missile is not a problem really, especially not for such huge manufacturer as the States, keeping them around on other hand can be quite tricky, thats why stocks are kept quite low. Also i thought their Tomahawk stock was nearing 4.000 in 2016, might be wrong idk, i just keep remembering that number somewhere.

Well, this is how i look at it, launching 59 (or so they say) cruise missiles aganist an airfield to me is simple show of force, those reinforced shelters were all hit by single one, rest was for show and bangs without any real need (again IMO).

That is the first time ever i hear of 2000 Scuds being fired on Grozny, to my knowledge about 70-80 balistic missiles were fired in total from 1996. to 2000. and majority were Tochka rather than Scud.

I saw on french wiki for the 2000 Scud and not in Chechenya but in Afghan war against talibans.

It will not be easy to produce them if the opponent achieve to lunch a missile on the factory. An akula class sailed for a moonth undetected in the golf of Mexico so it's possible. On the other hand Russian Kalibr and kh-101 will be much better as Nato doesn't have AD network and their facilities are unprotected, it is doubtfull that an AWACS spot them at long range and Russia can lunch them from where they want ( planes, corvettes, Iskander). Russia will put Tor and pantsirs to protect major targets.

2.000 seems as extremly steep number.

There is not only one factory of such kind, and component producers are literally across whole States so such scenario is unlikely. Assembly line can be made in matter of weeks anywhere.

And if i recall right wasnt whole Russian sub in Gulf of Mexico a hoax? It was claimed by that "Aliens are among us" portal Washington Free Beacon and both US and Russian officials denied such incident.

US does lack medium range SAM systems currently but it was their decision to turn towards fighter jet based air defence.

Regular wrote:

eehnie wrote:

https://www.rt.com/news/381086-israeli-jets-syria-strikes/

Syria answered to the last attacks with relative success. The last month to the attack of Israel, now to the attack of the US missiles.

So IDF lost a jet on 17th of March? What's the bort number?
They also attacked Syria on 20th with more targets and lost Skylark drone. No planes were intercepted/downed according to Syrians themselves?

There was Tomohawks lost, probably due to flying to low or mechanical problems, but what answer? Correct answer would be hitting platforms who launched them. It cost near to nothing for US to get rid of them cruise missiles as reportedly they would be using oldest stocks.

There was no wreckage, no photos, no video, no official reports... nothing. Just some articles from shubby sources like Twitter.

Ofc that older stocks are always used first if possible.

And if i recall right wasnt whole Russian sub in Gulf of Mexico a hoax? It was claimed by that "Aliens are among us" portal Washington Free Beacon and both US and Russian officials denied such incident.

I've seen that the nothern command center of the US navy said it happened.

Russia and its allies needs to increase information operations targeting western audiences . What Russia calls active measures is still limited in terms of tactics and strategy to what the western nations uses, activism and advocacy. I think its time that ideological sympathizers among the population in western nations be recruited to from advocacy groups for legitimate issues and then be used to pressure the elitest power structures. There are lots of sympathizers in western nations towards the Russian world view of spheres of influence, but they can only be politically effective in social movements and advocacy campaigns where their strengths can be channeled and coordinated. The west has made it easy through tool-kits, so going forward , they can get a taste of their own medicine.

Isos wrote:

Regular wrote:

Isos wrote:

Regular wrote:

Isos wrote: Nato doesn't have AD network and their facilities are unprotected

I take it You don't know what is NIAMD ?

LOL

They take 1 year to give Turkey a single Patriot battery. This shit is just for US to know if there was an attack on the east. There is no way they intercept salvos of cruise and ballistical missiles.

It's easy to protect a city with 2 or 3 patriot, more difficult to protect all the european airspace with

Well Turkey wants to acquire S400 what will You be talking then?
What salvos of cruise and ballistic missiles? Since when Syria have them? Or You are talking about Russia?
If Russia would go to war against NATO only 1 country would win- China. After nuclear exchange US and Russia would be destroyed and power vacuum would be filled. And chinese would need cheap third world workforce.

Of course I'm not talking about Syria. They don't even have bombs but are using barils instead.

Depend if Russian fighter are destroyed in Syria, they can attack quickly baltic states and Poland as a reponse. US won't NEVER use nuk to protect them. Their vision of the world is USA FIRST, the rest is shit, just a first line of defence.

S-400 without Pantsirs and Tor to protect them against low fliying object is an easy target for a fighter with Kh-31, spacially in a mountainous area.

However not the topic, just my opinion.

Do you have any photos of those 'barils'? Didn't think so.

Do you have any photos of those 'barils'? Didn't think so.

At 2.39 you can see one of them ...