Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #11

JohninMK wrote:

par far wrote:

franco wrote:

par far wrote:

franco wrote:Russia sends more upgraded Su-24M's to Syria. Total is up to 22 according to this article plus if my memory serves me correctly there are also 8 Mig-29SMP.

http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/syria-gains-more-upgraded-su-24m2-bombers.html

Would it not better to give Syria aircraft that can be effective against ground targets and air targets as well? Let's say that the Russian's don't want to bomb close to US forces, can they have the Syrian's do that for them?(By giving the Syrians air to air capabilities, they would not need to be afraid of US fighters jet and they can keep the Turkish fighter jets out.) Would not training the Syrian's on the SU 30, be more beneficial to Russia? Or is that too costly?

30 would be too expensive for now. Believe they are trying to do that with the mig-29smp which is an upgrade close to 29SMT level.

The SU 30 would be expensive, do you think 20-25 MIG 29 SMP, will be enough for Syria or will they need more?

It would probably not be in Russia's interests for the SyAF to have a widespread or good AAM capability as that would raise the prospect of a SyAF pilot having a go at a UASF plane. Much better to keep the prime interceptor function under their own direct control.

Also, the SyAF seems to be fairly short of pilots so supplying updated Su-24s will keep those pilots tasked with the vital CAS work as well as well motivated with better tools than they have now.

The US are now saying that the anti conflict hot-line is back in action.

franco wrote:Russia sends more upgraded Su-24M's to Syria. Total is up to 22 according to this article plus if my memory serves me correctly there are also 8 Mig-29SMP.

http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/syria-gains-more-upgraded-su-24m2-bombers.html

JohninMK wrote:

storm333 wrote:Jihadist scums are being drenched with thermobaric bombs
https://twitter.com/Syria_Protector/status/853622754268131328

That's a pretty good clip. Do those things air burst?

PapaDragon wrote:
^^^Shockwave hits the ground and collapses the tunnels (in addition to surface slam). You don't even neet to know where tunnels are exactly, just hit general vicinity. Sweet and simple.

PapaDragon wrote:
Russian sappers in Palmyra with new Legionary armor. So that could mean that these guys are those assault sappers we heard about?


^^^Anyone know what that black padding on the legs of a guy in brown cammo is?


More:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1910862802489800.1073742358.1492252324350852&type=3

JohninMK wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
That small black ball is Sfera (Sphere) robot. It is supposed to scout tight spaces.

And by shear coincidence http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2556498.html more there but in Russian

PapaDragon wrote:
That small black ball is Sfera (Sphere) robot. It is supposed to scout tight spaces.

JohninMK wrote: And by shear coincidence http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2556498.html more there but in Russian

Militarov wrote: I see IR light sources and cameras so.. i assume its some sort of UGV to scout confined spaces. Saw something very, very similar used by Israeli sappers some years ago.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

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.

Russia atm doesnt have enough L-39s for their own needs, let alone to waste them on Syria. Atm about 160 are fit for service. Majority of rest are graveyard material.

Militarov wrote:

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 the 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.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

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 the 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.

Novorussia did it without fighter intercepters.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

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 the 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.

Novorussia did it without fighter intercepters.

Since when is Novorossia a no-fly zone? Fact that Ukrainians are choosing not to fly is totally different thing. And fact that Ukrainians barely had anything to fly on in 2014-2015. whole AF had about 30 aircraft that could fly in total including all types of aircraft.

We are here talking about enemy that has real capabilities not rusting AF Ukraine has.

Another Russian soldier has lost his life in Syria. According to the Russian Defense Ministry he was an instructor killed in a firefight when rebels attempted to storm a Syrian army base.

Sputnik:

Russian military adviser Major Sergei Bordov was killed during militants' attack on a Syrian Army garrison. He prevented the terrorists from entering the facility at the cost of his life, the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement on Thursday.

"In Syria, Russian military adviser Major Sergei Bordov was killed as a result of a militant attack. The serviceman was a member of a unit training Syrian troops," it read.

The ministry underscored that the officer organized the defense of Syrian soldiers and prevented the terrorists' breakthrough into the inhabited area.

"During the fight, the officer sustained critical wounds. Major Sergei Bodrov was granted a state decoration posthumously," it added.
As usual the Russian Defense ministry presents just enough information to establish its officer died a heroic death, but nowhere enough to satisfy us.

Here is what we're wondering:

Which base and where?
Was the Russian major the only casualty?
How were militants able to approach the training facility undetected?
Where were the Syrian guards?
How come in an attack on a Syrian army installation it fell to a Russian officer to lead the defense?
Either there's something we don't understand, or there is something odd about the story.


If it fell to a Russian trainer to single-handedly save a Syrian base from a surprise enemy attack then Syrian army fighters are pretty darn incompetent.
So maybe that's what happened. Or maybe the Russian army is weaving a tale here.

If American experience is anything to go by, when a foreign military instructor is killed inside a friendly army base it is rarely in an attempted storming of the base from the outside. It is much more common for trainers to be killed by infiltrators who sign up for training only to strike from the inside. (Or in mortar strikes from a distance.)

That doesn't diminish the sacrifice (if you're into that) of the trainer rendered, but it doesn't make for a quite as classically heroic story.

Is the Russian military massaging the circumstances in which their servicemen die? I hope not, they certainly deserve better.

The loss of major Sergei Bodrov brings Russia's fatalities in Syria so far to 31.