Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #13

Thx for all infos. Will absorb later.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Direct threat to S-300 and S-400. Unobtrusive "Axes" will challenge the defense of Russia

questions..

Is that a 5th column anti-Russian military site?  or is a genuine investigation ,military  place?

and if the website is truthful and or balanced . do they have inside Information from Russian military in Syria?

Yeah... I read that article and was amused...

That might work if they want to defeat the Syrian air defence forces, but do they think the Russians will stand by and watch considering their air defence will be tied in to that system and would therefore also be under attack?

If Israel wants to take on S-300 it really risks an escalation... and for what? The ability to murder people in a neighbouring country.... only the US has that right...

I suspect the decision to gift S-300s to Syria and also to give them a full IADS was a message to Israel and likely to the US... if they ignore the message, perhaps the next message will be an enforced no fly zone covering Syrian territory where aircraft are simply shot down.

Certainly any platform suspected of carrying these anti IADS weapons would become legitimate targets even in international airspace or over foreign country airspace.

First video ever of sukhois intercepting rafale. So they have a nice data on its radar signature. They probably tracked them to know how far they can see them with training modes of their radar.

Vladimir79 will be surprised

https://mobile.twitter.com/Defence_blog/status/1057581624962048000

https://defence-blog.com/army/expert-was-forced-to-remove-criticism-post-about-failure-russian-pantsir-s1-in-syria.html/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Pantsir having issues with slow and small targets ?

Isos wrote:https://defence-blog.com/army/expert-was-forced-to-remove-criticism-post-about-failure-russian-pantsir-s1-in-syria.html/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Pantsir having issues with slow and small targets ?

TorM2U has a hit accuracy of 80% in 80 strokes. WOW
Please enter Syria TorM1 immediately. That explains why Israel wanted to destroy the Iranian TorM1 at T4.

A fact that should immediately lead to rethinking. More Tor for Syria, Iran, Venezuela and Russia.

No, its just bad advertisement for Alamaz Antey.

Russian MoD praised Pantsir's success at their Syrian AF base. This comes from a non mod source, someone who is a tv celeb. So in other words, not non prone to obtaining financial aid for advertisements.

miketheterrible wrote:No, its just bad advertisement for Alamaz Antey.

Russian MoD praised Pantsir's success at their Syrian AF base.  This comes from a non mod source, someone who is a tv celeb.  So in other words, not non prone to obtaining financial aid for advertisements.

Russia tested pantsir against everything they could. Those small drones they are talking about are not different than civilian drones that russia trained against in russia. It even intercepted grad rockets. This guy also speaks about pantsir s1 while russia has S2 in syria with much better radars.

This story is bullshit and the guy gas no proves of his "80% ..."

Isos wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:No, its just bad advertisement for Alamaz Antey.

Russian MoD praised Pantsir's success at their Syrian AF base.  This comes from a non mod source, someone who is a tv celeb.  So in other words, not non prone to obtaining financial aid for advertisements.

Russia tested pantsir against everything they could. Those small drones they are talking about are not different than civilian drones that russia trained against in russia. It even intercepted grad rockets. This guy also speaks about pantsir s1 while russia has S2 in syria with much better radars.

This story is bullshit and the guy gas no proves of his "80% ..."

Not just that, but the 80 targets with 80% is just a falsification of great proportions. That is clearly a "97% of statistics are made up on the spot" kind of thing.

Isos wrote:https://defence-blog.com/army/expert-was-forced-to-remove-criticism-post-about-failure-russian-pantsir-s1-in-syria.html/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Pantsir having issues with slow and small targets ?

All SAM's will. I don't think tor would not face similar problem.

But as usual people will focus on the removal of the post instead of how actually both system's radar actually works.

Or the fact they work in tandem through iads and that both are obtaining data from same systems.

Hahahahahahahaha... if it is detecting birds then why would it not detect drones?

Detecting birds is confusing the operators... yeah right...

The only real problem with Pantsir is that even though its missiles are rather cheap, they are still rather more expensive than cheap drones used by the terrorists... and using 30mm cannon shells is not very efficient.

What they need is a system to locate where these drones are being launched from so they can kill the people launching drone attacks on Russian bases... and I have read that they have developed that system...

”It appears that our weapons to journalists and experts can only be praises. Although not always (this is already from his personal practice), ” the Alexey Khlopotov said.

Well it could not possibly be anything to do with giving feedback to terrorists on their attacks about what works and what does not... it must be corruption and makers of Russian military equipment wanting to sell weapons...

GarryB wrote:and using 30mm cannon shells is not very efficient.

What they need is a system to locate where these drones are being launched from so they can kill the people launching drone attacks on Russian bases... and I have read that they have developed that system...

”It appears that our weapons to journalists and experts can only be praises. Although not always (this is already from his personal practice), ” the Alexey Khlopotov said.

Well it could not possibly be anything to do with giving feedback to terrorists on their attacks about what works and what does not... it must be corruption and makers of Russian military equipment wanting to sell weapons...  

I disagree.. dual 30mm Cannon shells from Pantsirs ,that spray many bullets at same time ,is the perfect for the Job and very efficient..and cheap and guided by radar ,and Those drones fly very slow and they are relative big too targets too ,will have no chance to bypass the attack of a 30mm gun.. This is exactly how those drones have been shot down... you see the marks of the bullets in several parts.. using missiles will indeed will be less cost efficient and will completely destroy the  Drone and the evidence , So they will always prefer to use Cannon shells or electronic warfare to keep the drone as intact as possible ,for later investigation.

And locating the plane ,where the drones are launched will not solve completely the problem. Because terrorist
can do this from Civilian zones.. using them as civilian shields.. Look what was NATO backed Jihadist Rebels doing in eastern Ghoutta.. they had a mounted 152 mm artillery cannon completely inside a building , so was not visible
from Satellites or even low flying Planes its location.  They build a hole on the roof of the building ,where the cannon was firing the shells against Center Damascus ,for months , they killed thousands of civilians.. and was being used to bomb the Russian Embassy too.. This is the biggest criminal record of verifiable evidence of mass crimes against civilians  supported by US and UK against Syria and an act of war against Russia too , since their embassy was being attacked by US and UK backed rebels.. and there is unverified claims ,but told by Sputnik of British special forces and PMC arrested after the liberation of Eastern Ghoutta.   So even knowing where the source
of the attack happens ,will not guarantee that you can stop the attack if , it is done over an Hospital zone or civilian or school zone the attack for example.. So that later NATO can accuse Russia of warcrimes. This is a very common practice of NATO major powers.. to shield behind civilians in Syria... they doing this in their illegal military bases in Syria..  so that if Russia bombs the place.. they can play the card that they were "protecting" civilians and Russia bombed them. But in reality civilians were used as human shields ,to continue with their criminal activities.

Source: Russian experts have brought anti-aircraft missile systems in Syria into combat readiness

Now all three S-300PMU-2 battalions are ready for combat work in Syria, it remains to complete training on the equipment of the Syrian military wrote:

I disagree.. dual 30mm Cannon shells from Pantsirs ,that spray many bullets at same time ,is the perfect for the Job and very efficient..and cheap and guided by radar ,and Those drones fly very slow and they are relative big too targets too ,will have no chance to bypass the attack of a 30mm gun.. This is exactly how those drones have been shot down... you see the marks of the bullets in several parts.. using missiles will indeed will be less cost efficient and will completely destroy the Drone and the evidence , So they will always prefer to use Cannon shells or electronic warfare to keep the drone as intact as possible ,for later investigation.

Standard 30mm cannon shells can be used in bursts to try to hit small drone targets... but the guns are intended not to be laser beams... a spread of rounds increases the chance of a hit on a target that might be manouvering...

I remember in the 1990s there was a target with an Mi-28N drawn on it as a target for an air defence system... I believe it was Tunguska... it was a life sized target that was set up at 2km range and from a 50 round burst there were multiple hits on the target but also huge gaps where no rounds hit.

Against a big target like a helo the chances of a burst getting a few good hits and bringing it down were pretty good, but a small target like a drone would need rather a lot more rounds to be fired to get a chance of a hit.... and remember with standard rounds you need a hit... even a miss by 5mm means the round will blow past and not do anything.

With airburst 30mm cannon shells the situation is much better... because getting the rounds close to the target is much easier than having to get a direct hit.

Also a small drone is a fragile thing that even a near miss by an exploding 30mm cannon shell can damage... so 5 or 6 shells exploding in the air nearby would probably bring most drones down without needing to hit them directly.

Drones and to a lessor extent cruise missile targets... which are also relatively small, are the main reason they are going to 57mm shells with guidance or air burst designs... a single air burst 57mm shell will cost rather more than 50 x 30mm shells, but for a drone target you might fire 300 or even 500 rounds before you get a hit... which means a vehicle with 750 rounds per gun like Pantsir or about 950 rounds per gun like Tunguska is only going to get the chance to shoot down 3-5 drones before needing to reload... with a 57mm gun with perhaps 120 rounds on board each vehicle your chances are much much better of bringing the target down with the first or second shot.

The added advantage is that the other rounds are going to be much more powerful too and range of engagement will be greatly increased, and actual guided shells are possible too.

I would say a round with a rear facing optical sensor that explodes when it sees a coded laser beam would be ideal... the biggest problem with air burst rounds is that they need a super precise timing mechanism to calculate when to explode... and such super precise timing mechanisms are expensive and take up space inside the round. Some sort of laser sensitive detonator in the rear of the round facing back at the launcher means you could track the target and outgoing projectile and lase your round as it approaches the target so it can explode a few metres short of the target and shower the target in fragments like a claymore mine.

Obviously such a design would be easier in a 57mm shell as there is more space for more HE and more fragments to blow forward at the target.

Such a round would also be rather useful on the battlefield because it means you don't have to hit a target to take out a group of enemy.

If there is a group of soldiers then detonating the round a good distance in front of them means they will all get hit with fragments, whereas a round that needs an impact to detonate will hit a front soldier but might not get the guys standing beside him...

Agree . With usefulness  of intelligent round  . Old method was firing a round with radio sensor in nose  . And shining radar on target . In WW2 , battleship used this method to hit attacking metal prop driven plane . But with small target and low RCS , then laser may be better . Shining laser on target and sensor in nose of guided round . Or sensor sending laser from nose and detecting  reflection itself . We all know  about cheap laser . All you need is detector in nose . Or in case of jamming then sensor in tail .With drone , or prop driven old plane , direction  can not change quickly  ( bigger drone or cruise missile , with smaller angular movement relative to gunner )  and gunner can predict  path of target . But with speed boat that can turn on a dime . This can not work .

Higher altitude and slower target  like cruise missile need heavier calibre smart round  . Faster target at medium altitude  ( higher angular speed relative to gunner ) need smaller calibre   ( higher angular movement of gun itself ) simple projectile . A micro drone  needs a shot gun ! Pigeon  shooting .

Also why SAA not yet manufactured SSBM ? In yemen they are under far worse blockade . No Iranian or Russian help . Yet they can make SSBM ? If Syria make these in large number . Like Hezb or Ansar allah forces then American bases are no longer viable on Syrian soil . And any Usraeli air raid can be retaliated easily without Russian direct help or intervention . Russia can then keep a healthy distance from larger conflict . What is wrong with this picture ?

Stealthflanker wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Well, if those S-300 missiles r using a directional fragmentation warhead instead of a proximity fuse, then they have better chance of blowing those planes out of the sky, since their nose radar &/ cockpit will be hit &/ ordinance under wings & fuselage will be detonated.

Oh come on. You can't confuse warhead and fuse. Fuse is the one needed to sense the target presence and detonate the warhead, regardless of types.  The original 48N6 use Blast fragmentation without any directionality meaning that the warhead fragments will spread evenly in any direction.  the Directional warhead in other hand focus its fragmentation to one particular direction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway. Seems Masyaf has very good EW coverage. But the 96L6 might suffer against low RCS target due to its operating wavelength and multipath. The same problem can also be seen for the 30N6.  Having Nebo SVU might alleviate problem as it allows the 30N6 to direct its resources (longer dwell time) to scan particular area where the possible low RCS target might reside.



This coverage chart assume 2000 m altitude target and low RCS (0.001 sqm in X or 0.00267 in C band and 0.094 sqm in VHF) Should Russia brought in Nebo SVU. There might be no hiding for stealths and conventionals.  The outer blue ring is 96L6 coverage against conventional target while the smaller light blue depict coverage against Stealth target.  it is smaller even than the 30N6 mainly because unfavorable propagation "lobes" on my estimate.  

Without Nebo SVU however it would be difficult should Israel attempt to use stealths or stealthy cruise missile. as it might "bypass" the coverage of the SAM's.

You need to remember the earth is not flat either... So stealth is not the only way to hide from radars ,from certain distances.. Using Geography is far more effective than stealth.. Because radars signals can't see a plane if it is behind a mountain..Syria geography apparently is the worse place in the world to deploy Long Range air defenses.
because have many mountains around key cities. .. Apparently Lebanon have many mountains that Israel use
as a shield ,before attacking Syria.. they enter in lebanon flying low under the Russian radars and when close to the attack zone ,they do a hit and run.. and hide again. SO Russia will need AWACS operating 24 hours in Syria ,
to monitor all parts of Syria ,including planes hiding behind mountains cover. or deploy S-400s or S-300s in zones that NATO or Israel airforces could use to hide their missiles or planes when passing.. In charly website they did a full investigation about how Syria geography could limit Russia air defenses vs Planes flying low.. and was quite shocking... that for example from Latakkia from where S-400s are deployed to Damascus there is very poor visibility vs planes flying low.. and from Latakia to turkey is even worse.. from Latakkia to Lebanon , the line of sight is medium ..and the best line of sight for Russia defenses was towards Cyprus and towards the eastern desert and IRAQ. and Rules of combat also can affect a lot the performance of any air defense. if you have air defenses.. and don't use them ,to shot down a potential dangerous plane.. then it will not be the air defenses to blame if you dont use them .

Vann7 wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Well, if those S-300 missiles r using a directional fragmentation warhead instead of a proximity fuse, then they have better chance of blowing those planes out of the sky, since their nose radar &/ cockpit will be hit &/ ordinance under wings & fuselage will be detonated.

Oh come on. You can't confuse warhead and fuse. Fuse is the one needed to sense the target presence and detonate the warhead, regardless of types.  The original 48N6 use Blast fragmentation without any directionality meaning that the warhead fragments will spread evenly in any direction.  the Directional warhead in other hand focus its fragmentation to one particular direction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway. Seems Masyaf has very good EW coverage. But the 96L6 might suffer against low RCS target due to its operating wavelength and multipath. The same problem can also be seen for the 30N6.  Having Nebo SVU might alleviate problem as it allows the 30N6 to direct its resources (longer dwell time) to scan particular area where the possible low RCS target might reside.



This coverage chart assume 2000 m altitude target and low RCS (0.001 sqm in X or 0.00267 in C band and 0.094 sqm in VHF) Should Russia brought in Nebo SVU. There might be no hiding for stealths and conventionals.  The outer blue ring is 96L6 coverage against conventional target while the smaller light blue depict coverage against Stealth target.  it is smaller even than the 30N6 mainly because unfavorable propagation "lobes" on my estimate.  

Without Nebo SVU however it would be difficult should Israel attempt to use stealths or stealthy cruise missile. as it might "bypass" the coverage of the SAM's.

You need to remember the earth is not flat either... So stealth is not the only way to hide from radars ,from certain distances.. Using Geography is far more effective than stealth.. Because radars signals can't see a plane if it is behind a mountain..Syria geography apparently is the worse place in the world to deploy Long Range air defenses.
because have many mountains around key cities. .. Apparently Lebanon have many mountains that Israel use
as a shield ,before attacking Syria.. they enter in lebanon flying low under the Russian radars and when close to the attack zone ,they do a hit and run.. and hide again. SO Russia will need AWACS operating 24 hours in Syria ,
to monitor all parts of Syria ,including planes hiding behind mountains cover. or deploy S-400s or S-300s in zones that NATO or Israel airforces could use to hide their missiles or planes when passing.. In charly website they did a full investigation about how Syria geography could limit Russia air defenses vs Planes flying low.. and was quite shocking... that for example from Latakkia from where S-400s are deployed to Damascus there is very poor visibility vs planes flying low.. and from Latakia to turkey is even worse.. from Latakkia to Lebanon , the line of sight is medium ..and the best line of sight for Russia defenses was towards Cyprus and towards the eastern desert and IRAQ. and Rules of combat also can affect a lot the performance of any air defense. if you have air defenses.. and don't use them ,to shot down a potential dangerous plane.. then it will not be the air defenses to blame if you dont use them .

Russia has radars in territory of Syria, but also has sea based radars. They have the view from both sides of the mountains. Russia has under control every thing that takes-off in Israel.

Both Russian sea level based radars obviously have large radar shadow areas, their S-400 in the Masyuf mountains has much better but not complete coverage, especially over Lebanon. One Syrian S-300 has been positioned close to that Russian S-400 in the mountains, presumably to be shielded by the Russian Pantsir already there as well as well as giving bi-directional plausible deniability in the event of a missile hitting an IAF aircraft. The old 'it was him not me' argument we all learnt when young

Presumably the other Syrian S-300 radars and maybe TELs are positioned to reduce those shadow areas.

Incidently a US carrier is back in the Med, warming up after its trip to the Arctic, which it reportedly didn't enjoy much.

One Syrian S-300 has been positioned close to that Russian S-400 in the mountains, presumably to be shielded by the Russian Pantsir already there as well as well as giving bi-directional plausible deniability in the event of a missile hitting an IAF aircraft. The old 'it was him not me' argument we all learnt when young

Why even bother with that trick, when they got the S-300s in country because Israel tried the "Stop hitting yourself" argument... and it backfired... spectacularly.

The Syrian systems are now linked in with the Russian systems so all systems add to the overall picture.

I would expect the A-50 can be launched when certain areas need a closer view or more attention too...

JohninMK wrote:Both Russian sea level based radars obviously have large radar shadow areas, their S-400 in the Masyuf mountains has much better but not complete coverage, especially over Lebanon. One Syrian S-300 has been positioned close to that Russian S-400 in the mountains, presumably to be shielded by the Russian Pantsir already there as well as well as giving bi-directional plausible deniability in the event of a missile hitting an IAF aircraft. The old 'it was him not me' argument we all learnt when young

Presumably the other Syrian S-300 radars and maybe TELs are positioned to reduce those shadow areas.

Incidently a US carrier is back in the Med, warming up after its trip to the Arctic, which it reportedly didn't enjoy much.

The Russian Navy also use sea based radars from multiple angles. There are shadows but not the kind of shadows where some aircraft or even missile can hide. Maybe some helicopter flying static at very low altitude (likely under 200m over the ground). And Israeli aircrafts will be watched before to reach these positions.

According to hal radio..
Russia air defenses will face a major challenge..
from unespected sources...

France Deploys SIGINT Ship To Syria; New Gear to JAM S-300 System for attack



http://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/news/world-news/3478-france-deploys-sigint-ship-to-syria-new-gear-to-jam-s-300-system-for-attack


So if the news is correct.. it looks like NATO will fabricate any new excuse to attack Syria.
a new chemical attack in a place Syrian army is advancing .And the major goal could be Russia..
to test Russia air defenses S-300.. to see its performance and spy with intelligence warships
on Russian S-300s defenses and counter electronics defemses. when used.  This could pose serious
troubles for Russia , because will have to reveal ,which frequencies , Russia operates. and will help
France and NATO to observe and learn something that could help them later interrupt Russia air defenses.

Like i said in the Past , Putin Short sight policies is the only reason Russia is in Syria.. there is a war
happening in yemen.. why Russia don't need to be in yemen ?? Putin made a major mistake , in forming
alliance with Nations that Russia can't properly defend for being far from Russia and with an acceptable
economic outcome..  The only way Russia could have protected properly Syria is with a very expensive
war ,close airspace to NATO completely in all Syria ,send full scale army and airforce and draw a red line
for NATO or Israel ,that any attack on Syria will be an attack on Russia. and will retaliate at them.. But it will
not be worth of it... Because Russia needs nothing from Syria . Every nation Putin makes an alliance will be
on the hit list of NATO. So Russia should select carefully its allies.. And limit itself to protection to countries close and very easy for Russia to mobilize and defend and provide supplies.. only bordering nations to Russia mainland
and Kalingrad are the zones Russia can better defend. IRAN is important too.. since it can't be allowed that NATO takes control of it. and gets access to the Caspian sea. There are some exceptions to this..
For example Mexico is at the borders of US and they are friendly to Russia, and Egypt is close to US major bases in ITALY.. of warships.. so Russia could benefit of good relations with Egypt big time. and having a big military base there.. near Lybia border to counter ISIS there.. that will help Russia to monitor NATO movements closely from there. and dominate with force in case of a conflict.. choke NATO when leaving italy..

Vann if was up to you, and because we all know how bad Putin is , who should be the president of Russian Federation?
What will he should do regard SYRIA?(just to Stay on toppic).

@vann7

Why Russia not in yemen ? Perhaps because national interests not strongly served by backing either side ? Perhaps the Ansar allah can try to ally with Russia . As well as Iran . Now I got no replies from my suggestion that any attack by usraelis against Syria , should be retaliated by missiles . Made and fired by Syrians .

I understand fully that Russia does not want to have war with usrael or NATO . And I have said before that an attack on civilian population leading to death . Or even death of soldier or airman can escalate quickly . But is there a halfway point between total war and total defence ? Also using Russia advanced air defence , will allow the other side to learn and adapt . Better not use this , unless there is a big war .

Against usraeli air attack . A simple response can be using cheap rockets . But with less than lethal warhead . This can bring normal life to a halt . Noise . Colours . Sirens . Brings political pressure to stop war . Without creating the need to retaliate for the loss of life . By a lethal counter strike . Similar situation with planes and ships of NATO . Something that makes operations difficult . Dummy mines forcing ships to stop . Psy ops against yank bases . Without causing death and necessitate lethal retaliation . What are yanks in desert afraid of ......