Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #11

I guess now we know why VKS did not bother with targeting those Tomahawks. They took the scenic route...



http://nortwolf-sam.livejournal.com/1881339.html

PapaDragon wrote:
I guess now we know why VKS did not bother with targeting those Tomahawks. They took the scenic route...



http://nortwolf-sam.livejournal.com/1881339.html

Just exactly what i was expecting. that the missiles will come from Jordan
zone . So the Russian warship trying to block the american missiles will be pointless because AMericans can deviate their attack from Jordan or Israel.
The attacks can be done from persian gulf too through IRAQ. There had to be
ground navigation decoys deployed through the flight path to correct the navigation. yes that is through terrorist controlled zones.

So this is why i was saying ,that you cannot measure the real performance
of air defenses in a country like Syria ,because 70% of it ,is under occupation
of terrorist. So Syria ,neither Russia can not setup their air defenses there propertly. S-400s have to be deployed far from the coast and medium to short air defenses in the coast. If Syria had control of its borders , and had short air defenses across most of its borders, the attacks will have been totally neutralized.

PapaDragon wrote:
I guess now we know why VKS did not bother with targeting those Tomahawks. They took the scenic route...

The US also said that they were launched off Crete, sensibly well away from any possible local retaliation.

Vann7 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
I guess now we know why VKS did not bother with targeting those Tomahawks. They took the scenic route...



http://nortwolf-sam.livejournal.com/1881339.html

Just exactly what i was expecting. that the missiles will come from Jordan
zone . So the Russian warship trying to block the american missiles will be pointless because AMericans can deviate their attack from Jordan or Israel.
The attacks can be done from persian gulf too through IRAQ. There had to be
ground navigation decoys deployed through the flight path to correct the navigation. yes that is through terrorist controlled zones.

So this is why i was saying ,that you cannot measure the real performance
of air defenses in a country like Syria ,because 70% of it ,is under occupation
of terrorist. So Syria ,neither Russia can not setup their air defenses there propertly. S-400s have to be deployed far from the coast and medium to short air defenses in the coast.  If Syria had control of its borders , and had short air defenses across most of its borders, the attacks will have been totally neutralized.

Does the S 400 don't cover much of Syria? If they do they could have shot them down? Sorry I am no expert, just wondering.

Isos wrote:

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.

Interesting, first time i hear about it being reported by USN. Any links in existence atm?

par far wrote:


Does the S 400 don't cover much of Syria? If they do they could have shot them down? Sorry I am no expert, just wondering.

Those restricted ranges, similar to the Buk, made the map much more interesting!

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:

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.

Interesting, first time i hear about it being reported by USN. Any links in existence atm?

I just look for it and I was wrong. They admited that 2 subs went near them in 2009 but for the "month undetected" no one admited anything, however the senat asked an amiral for détails.

PapaDragon wrote:
I guess now we know why VKS did not bother with targeting those Tomahawks. They took the scenic route...



http://nortwolf-sam.livejournal.com/1881339.html

S-300V and 400 easily reach those.  Even later variant of Buk's can reach much of that as they get closer.

And may i ask to the people here how we know if Russia didn't strike those Tomahawks? Afterall, many did not reach their target. Actually, more than half didn't.

miketheterrible wrote:
S-300V and 400 easily reach those.  Even later variant of Buk's can reach much of that as they get closer.

And may i ask to the people here how we know if Russia didn't strike those Tomahawks?  Afterall, many did not reach their target.  Actually, more than half didn't.

There is indeed doubt as to the number that hit the target. The US says 59 and Russia 23 (from memory) the highest other number is 44 possible impacts from satellite images, which if you allow for double hits could bet a bit nearer to the US figure. There is also a report of another one hitting a local village. But, as you say there seem to be some missing missiles.

In previous strikes the Tomahawk has proved to be pretty reliable and there is a good chance that these were fairly recent stock. So logically they should have got through.

Perhaps more interesting is that no-one is saying what happened and where they are even tho' there will be radar tracks on someone's desk.

You can tell by the damage done to the airforce base.  If that was 59 Tomahawk missiles that hit, then Russia or Iran have nothing to worry about.  Instead, minimum damage and Russia states 23.  So far, Russia has been far more reliable and honest in their reporting than US has.  Since so far, they (US) have been flip flopping over everything in last day.

Tomahawks have roughly a 10% failure rate. That was from 1999.

PapaDragon wrote:
I guess now we know why VKS did not bother with targeting those Tomahawks. They took the scenic route...



http://nortwolf-sam.livejournal.com/1881339.html

Thanks.

[quote="Vann7"]

PapaDragon wrote:

So this is why i was saying ,that you cannot measure the real performance
of air defenses in a country like Syria ,because 70% of it ,is under occupation
of terrorist. So Syria ,neither Russia can not setup their air defenses there propertly. S-400s have to be deployed far from the coast and medium to short air defenses in the coast. If Syria had control of its borders , and had short air defenses across most of its borders, the attacks will have been totally neutralized.

I don't think this re-routing stops such attacks from being engaged and neutralized as best as possible. The bottomline is that the targets are in Assad-controlled territory; which means it's defensible. Setting up a bullet proof AD is not possible under the conditions but an efficient one is possible around key infrastructure and military installations - which basically amounts to the same.

It all depends on what Russia is willing to commit/invest (so here again the U.S makes it more costly for the Russians). Pansirs and Tors with Russian personal assigned to protect these areas (under Assad control) is possible. Not only will there be a deterrent for the U.S to avoid engaging areas protected by Russian personal but there will also be hardware in Russian hands capable of effectively neutralizing the threats. The question is; how much is Putin willing to commit?

miketheterrible wrote:If that was 59 Tomahawk missiles that hit, then Russia or Iran have nothing to worry about.  Instead, minimum damage and Russia states 23. .

Actually , the Cruise missile attack is very concerning . Even if only 23 hit ,Because Russia was supposed to upgrade Syria air defenses long time ago ,
Russia had no less than 6 years of time to upgrade Syria air defenses.
so from my point of view this was a major catastrophic failure. Imagine if that base there was 1,000 russian soldiers?  they all will have been wiped if were sleeping in tents.

And there is the factor of what will have happened if Americans arms the cruise missiles with very small nuclear warheads? of 1kt nuke? In such a case
even one missile that manage to enter ,will have been enough to wipe out 2km around the entire military base.  So even if ONE manage to enter is bad news. Because this shows what i have been saying  for a long time. that Russia needs to FUCKING prepare for massive waves of hundreds if not thousands of cruise missiles that Americans can do.  if 2 warships fired 60, then 20 warships will have fired 600 and americans have how many destroyers? 60?   .  Is not good , in combination with NATO
and ground launchers they have near Russia.like Romania. and soon in baltics. NATO should have no problem to pull 1,000 cruise missiles in a surprise first strike attack.


Even Russia military base will have been overwhelmed if the monkey president all they had there is S-400s.  This attack should be as a major embarrassment for Russia Even if 70% of the missiles failed, so what?.
The other 30% did the job of reaching the base. and thats whats matter. any air defenses there will have been wiped ,including
S-400s if they were overwhelmed that is. This is what piss me about Russia , they are always 2-3 steps behind their enemies attacks in preventing shit to happens. They were supposed to boost Syrian air defenses not now but 6 years ago and they were supposed to expect this kind of mass waves attacks 6 years ago. In Lybia war , NATO fired 800 missiles. somewhere i read. End story short , this incident is a major incompetence of Russia.

COuld Russia have stopped this attack ? Absolutely. for sure.
But that Putin was so lazy fuck lame ass tard ,to think that Americans will not
have attacked that base because Russia was there? This is what they expected from Turkey too.. that they will not dare to attack Russia because
oh no Russia have nukes.    Putin is a lame ass duck dinosaur ,he is always underestimating his enemies ,and is not properly protecting neither Syrian army ,neither Russian army.

Allowing even one missile to enter in the base is unacceptable ,specially when Americans or Israel or Turkey or Saudi Arabia can arm them with Biological weapons ,chemicals or nuclear warheads. and later they will deny anything. is like with terrorist. Allowing just one suicide truck bomber to enter your base is too much ,and it will wipe everyone near. Russia is simply not fighting in Syria with the tools they should. Their tactics and close to mediocre ,the have lose dozen of soldiers for not properly arming them with the right tools and right tactics. they even lost 2 t-90.. if that is not idiocy and incompetence then now idea what incompetence is. This also shows that the so called "electronic warfare is worth of shit. because it was supposed to cover 300km or 600km from latakkia. now all those myths are over after the attack.

So far far from impressed ,this is not good , Putin have shown the Americans
how dangerous just 2 US warships ,can be dangerous for Russia air defenses ,that they setup for Syria. Putin have teach the Americans ,that their air defenses can be defeated and in any major agression of Syria they will be unable to protect them .

end of rant..
in other news.. anna news in aleppo report.

Published on Feb 24, 2017

It was a political move not to engage the missiles. That being said, the infographic showing the missiles flight path highlighted that the S-400 and S-300V4 missiles had only the short range 40km missiles deployed. What about the longer range missiles?

storm333 wrote:It was a political move not to engage the missiles. That being said, the infographic showing the missiles flight path highlighted that the S-400 and S-300V4 missiles had only the short range 40km missiles deployed. What about the longer range missiles?

s-300V only has really 1 kind of missile unlike S-400

But you are right, it is political. Because if Russians get hit, it would be green light for Russia to strike the US base(s).

All this time Syria has not been showing the real potential of the air defenses of the country. If you remember Syria answered properly to the first incursion of Turkish aircrafts, and was forced to apologize in order to avoid stronger attacks. The same happened with the US e Israel. Syria has been leaving them to operate.

Syria was a country with decent air defense before the begin of the war. In this time improved, not only replacing the loses, but also incresing the numbers in some cases and introducing new more modern systems. Now with the support of Iran and Russia, Syria is feeling stronger to answer.

The people tend to disregard old systems, but with enough saturation must be feared. Syria has thousand of systems by all the territory under their control. Literally (before the war Syria had 4000 SA-7 systems). And with the support of Russia these thousands of systems have high ammounts of available ammunition (missiles and rockets) that were being used in Russia as targets for newer systems.

Systems like the SA-2, SA-3 and SA-5 are disappearing fast in Asia, but in Syria the numbers seem to be bigger now that at the begin of the war.

Lots of action today but this one is work of art:

10th April of 2017. As a result of a clear airstrike near city Jisr ash-Shugur (Idlib province), 22 terrorist’s leaders of Jabhat al-Nusra killed

In the case of a new US attack on Syria, Russian antiaircraft defence forces will not intercept U.S. missiles, however, the armed forces of Syria have every right to be.  

                                                                              -Part of a statement to Interfax by Viktor Ozerov, head of the Federation Council Committee on defense and security.

Russia won't stop new US missile attacks in Syria-Ozerev

Not sure if this reflects Russia's official position on the matter. My hope is that matters do not further escalate between Russia and the West over events in Syria.

Militants Kill Two Russian Servicemen in Syria, Medics Fighting for Third's Life

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201704111052523407-russian-servicemen-killed-militants/

Two Russian servicemen were killed as a result of an attack by militants in Syria. Medics are struggling for the life of another serviceman, the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.

"Two Russian servicemen were killed in the Syrian Arab Republic as a result of an attack by militants… A mine explosion killed the two Russian servicemen. Military medics are struggling for the life of a wounded Russian serviceman," it reads.

The professional servicemen, who trained Syrian troops, and a military adviser came under mortar fire......

par far wrote:


Does the S 400 don't cover much of Syria? If they do they could have shot them down? Sorry I am no expert, just wondering.

Yes.. S-400s or S-300s can target 100% of the missiles under a normal
scenario. But the scenario in Syria is not normal. is totally in favor of NATO .
Because Syria is surrounded by Enemies , terrorist sponsor states , ie. Turkey,Israel,Jordan and in Lebanon even though the government is not supporting them ,the political parties of the opposition does. and to make things really really bad. abysmally bad for security. Syria only controls 30% of its territory and the S-400s are deployed just 30km of turkey border. It means that NATO can very easily defeat S-400s in Syria ,if went full retard mode and declared war on Russia by just using self propelled artillery with 30km range and fire at Russian base. it will not have a chance. So if the Russian base is hit ,it will not be a failure of S-400, but of the territory used.
ideally S-400s should be place far from any borders ,in zones with flat terrain
or in elevated hills.

So to effectively use air defenses .. no matter how advanced they are.
you need.
1)density .. why? because they can be overwhelmed. If you have only 40
   missiles available ,and the enemy fire at you 60 cruise missiles attacks, then guess what? only 40 will be intercepted. So any system of defenses in the world can be overwhelmed ,no matter how good it is ,is not a matter of If ,but a matter of mathematics. So Syria needs many pantsirs and tors deployed in the flight path of the cruise missiles. But Syria can't do that ,because the missiles flew using terrorist controlled zones as much as possible. So if Syria had control of all its territory ,they will be able
to create a density of air defenses far away of the military bases , to counter massive attacks like this. 60 is really nothing , Americans can pull 200-300 strikes no problem. So those missiles will continue to enter in Syria unless
Russia properly arm Syrian air defenses.  By sending a warship between the americans and Syria ,that can significantly help ,but if US navy choose a different flight path , then it will do nothing. if the missiles are fired from red sea and enter Israel-> jordan-> Syria ,then Russia warships will not be able to intercept them even if the missiles are designed for it. why? because the cruise missiles will arrive first at the target zone. Since Those cruise missiles fly low ,then Russia air defenses will detect them not from far distances.

The ideal missiles to kill tomahawks are short air defenses , like TORs and pantsirs. This are the ones that the grigorovich frigate class have. why?
Because small missiles weight less ,and can do quick turns more faster.
aside they are more cheap. S-400s long range missiles are more ideal for stealth planes ,bombers ,ballistic missiles etc. To hit things that flight high and at long distances. the short range s-400s missiles however can do the job as well as Pantsirs or Tor. Russia did not used s-400 very likely because it will have wasted 60 missiles,trying to intercept missiles that are very far from its positions and that they will detect only when its close to the base. aside that using S-400s will allow enemies to capture its signal ,for future jamming.
There is a saying you never use your best hand at the start.and this is exactly
what Russia did. S-400s will be ideal to use ,only if a major war start against Russia ,and that no longer Russia needs to follow any rule of engament. for example S-400s will be idea ,to declare  a no fly zone over half of Turkey or Most of Israel. to push the enemy planes far from your positions. in other words S-400s are ideal for Offensive in a full scale war. Pantisirs,Tors are more ideal for defense. You deploy a Tor defenses in every part of Syrian border ,and that will be very effective. If Russia had used S-400s that is for their military base , it will likely become short on missiles in another attack ,to their base. Now Putin learned the lesson ,it cannot trust on its nuclear deterrence anymore. NATO will attack Russia by proxy ,after some false flag
or false claim of breaching airspace.

Pantsirs and Tors and Buks.. this are the missiles Russia needs to deply in big numbers to help the S-400s and S-300s.  Look at the S-400 as a sniping rifle to take individual targets at far distances. and then look at the Tors,Pantsirs as machine guns for mass fire.  Syria not even need S-400s at all to target
cruise miss. you deploy s-400s in the farther place of enemy fire ,and around it you deploy pantsirs and Tors to protect S-400s. S-400s for offense of combat jets fighting at long range or for ballistic space missiles, the others for defense of massive fire. like the one recently. Patsirs have a gatling gun and very fast acceleration small missiles that will wipe tomahacks in no time.
So don't feel upset with the performance of S-400s, their location is the worse place in the world possible. and is facing not one ,not two but all major NATO powers, Israel and a jihadist invasion too. in Russia such tomahacks attack will had no chance to enter even 20km inside Russia border with Europe. Just like Sniper rifles ,S-400s needs to be deployed at far distance from enemy ,so they dont have a chance to fight you. in Syria ,the enemy have all the chances of the world to fight S-400 ,since is right there at Turkey border. Also Airforce is important too. Air defenses needs to be combined with strong air force. so that the enemy not even have a chance to try. But in Syria.. dito.. Russia only have there 4 combat jets and they used to escort their bombers ,not to defend their base. So if a major war breaks in Syria . In latakia base , Russia will be extremely at disadvantage against NATO IF , NATO strike first.  If Russia start the offensive , they have a chance to create an area denial zone ,but this can only be done if Russia start attacking any plane that comes withing range of s-400s ,and start using its airforce to bomb any deployment of artillery inside Turkey. and shutdown israeli planes flying over Lebanon or their own airspace. to keep the enemy far thats is.. S-400s are pretty effective ,but their use in Syria ,will be similar as to a duel between someone with a very heavy sniper rifle and someone with a handgun a 10 meters. The first to shoot will win. the sniper will lose all its advantages for fighting too close.

Found a  rather strange report of Russian/Iranian joint statement warning the US they will “respond with force” if their own “red lines” are crossed in Syria.

report:Russia/Iran will respond w force if red lines crossed again

Following Friday’s cruise missile strike on a Syrian airbase, in retaliation for the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun earlier in the week, the alliance supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad made a joint statement threatening action in response to “any breach of red lines from whoever it is”.

Usually major announcements like this are made at a much higher level.

A Different Voice wrote:Found a  rather strange report of Russian/Iranian joint statement warning the US they will “respond with force” if their own “red lines” are crossed in Syria.

report:Russia/Iran will respond w force if red lines crossed again

Following Friday’s cruise missile strike on a Syrian airbase, in retaliation for the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun earlier in the week, the alliance supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad made a joint statement threatening action in response to “any breach of red lines from whoever it is”.

Usually major announcements like this are made at a much higher level.

Russia has distanced itself from any statement that it would respond with force if the US crosses any red lines again in Syria.

"We are not aware about that, we cannot confirm that and we do not know where Reuters got this and where these anonymous sources appeared from again," Peskov told reporters.

Russia unaware of "red lines" statement

Does the S 400 don't cover much of Syria? If they do they could have shot them down? Sorry I am no expert, just wondering

No. A low flying Tomahawk at 100 km from the S-400 won't be seen, specially in a mountainous area ... That's the limit of air defence system and that's why pantsir are there to protect them from low flying missiles and aircrafts.

If you want to cover all the area (radius of 600 km around the S-400) you need to put more Buk, pantsir, Strela ... in it's dead zones where it can't see anything. So your S-400 oblige them to fly low and they can be hit by these smaller system and once they understand that there are smaller systems out there, fighter will go higher so that they can be shoot donw by S-400. And if you add some Mig-29/35 that have a link with the airdefence you have a impenetrable area. That is the way Russians protect their airspace.

A Different Voice wrote:

A Different Voice wrote:Found a  rather strange report of Russian/Iranian joint statement warning the US they will “respond with force” if their own “red lines” are crossed in Syria.

report:Russia/Iran will respond w force if red lines crossed again

Following Friday’s cruise missile strike on a Syrian airbase, in retaliation for the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun earlier in the week, the alliance supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad made a joint statement threatening action in response to “any breach of red lines from whoever it is”.

Usually major announcements like this are made at a much higher level.

Russia has distanced itself from any statement that it would respond with force if the US crosses any red lines again in Syria.

"We are not aware about that, we cannot confirm that and we do not know where Reuters got this and where these anonymous sources appeared from again," Peskov told reporters.

Russia unaware of "red lines" statement

Or anyone with experience with reading Peskov it is: "I don't know". Once again, he is known for this. Not like it matters anyway. Rumor has it that it was requested by Russia for Syria to move their more advanced planes to the Russian AB.

miketheterrible wrote:Or anyone with experience with reading Peskov it is: "I don't know".  Once again, he is known for this.  Not like it matters anyway.  Rumor has it that it was requested by Russia for Syria to move their more advanced planes to the Russian AB.

It is obvious that the most advanced aircrafts with Syrian marks are between the most pursued targets by the US and Israel. It would be a logical movement.

This is in part why I do not see Russia sending MiG-31 or other advanced aircrafts to Syria. But the less advanced, like the L-39, and more taking into account that have a lavel of training aircrafts and not combat aircrafts, can go to Syria easier and with very lower cost.

A Different Voice wrote:Found a  rather strange report of Russian/Iranian joint statement warning the US they will “respond with force” if their own “red lines” are crossed in Syria.

report:Russia/Iran will respond w force if red lines crossed again

Following Friday’s cruise missile strike on a Syrian airbase, in retaliation for the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun earlier in the week, the alliance supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad made a joint statement threatening action in response to “any breach of red lines from whoever it is”.

Usually major announcements like this are made at a much higher level.

Kremlin denies ever mentioning any red lines or retaliations. Even existence of "joint Russian-iranian-syrian command" is questionable, at least not in this form they try to portrait here in this article.