Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #13

Actually it seems the Americans are not giving Turkey their F-35s even though they paid for them and are supplying parts to make all F-35s.

Turkey wont hand over S-400 technology to the US because they will depend on the S-400 for their defence for several decades to come and have no interest in seeing the technology overcome by anyone.

The fact of the matter is that the S-400s in foreign hands will be far easier to defeat than those in Russian service simply because the S-400s in Russian service have the full spectrum of support and force multiplying equipment and systems to make them even more effective than on their own.

Think of it in terms of law enforcement... give a man a gun and a badge... it pretty much makes him equal to any bad guy with a gun without a badge. Give the man with the badge a radio and the capacity to call for backup and suddenly he is much better off... give him helicopters and dogs and swat teams and even a group of criminals don't have a chance... it is the same guy, but things like a radio and backup when needed as well as better armed and better armoured Swat members means he has force multipliers he can use when needed. He wont call SWAT teams out for a shoplifter of course.

The point is that an S-400 on its own can be overwhelmed, but sensible use and other systems correctly used together mean the forces needed to overwhelm become enormous and expensive and vulnerable to pre-emptive self defence attacks before they are even used.

Russia and Turkey are not best buddies, but they have a lot of things in common and some areas of cooperation where they can both come out better than if they just spat at each other and treated each other as the enemy.

Turkey wanted Assad gone, but it looks like Assad is here to stay... and to be honest if Libya is anything to go by they really would have had more problems with him gone than with him in power. The chaos of a thousand groups all wanting power and control and not able to work together once the joint goal of getting rid of Assad was achieved was played out in Afghanistan when the Soviets were there... when they left peace did not suddenly break out... all the factions just turned on each other and there was war that has pretty much continued to this day without resolution.

Turkey needs a stable neighbour, but it does not want the Kurds to be in charge. Russia wants a stable Syria, as do the Syrians, though Assad wants to remain in power, that is not a certainty either.

Very simply Russia and Turkey and Iran would benefit from all of Syria being under the control of Assad, with Turkey, Assad and possibly Iran preferring no place for the Kurds, but with Russia not really caring either way.

If the Kurds could convince Turkey and Iran and Assad that they want peace they might be able to come to some agreement to wipe out ISIS and then look at what options are acceptable to go forward... but America doesn't want that... they want the war and the bloodshed to continue... unlike all the other countries in the region except Israel.

ultimatewarrior wrote:The vast majority of mobile targets are destroyed by drones. Calling in an attack jet after spotting a group of men is simply not going to work. It takes 30 minutes. By that time the men are all gone. Hard targets can be taken out by a bomber. Small mobile targets are best left to attack drones.

ultimate, the problems with the so called "time sensitive" targets, above all in COIN operations, are obviously still present and pressing in practically all the military forces around the world; the solution on which almost all analysts converge should be in the weapon componet.
Those weapons should have:


1) At least theatre range (200 km or more).
2) Very high speed (mach 4 and over).
3) Capable to be employed within a very short time since receiving confirmation of target (under this point of view sea and ground-based weapons or ,much more in perspective, space-based ones are the optimum).
4) Have pin-point precision (very important in urbanized area)
5) Have costs and time of production compatible with as midly extensive employment.

No a weapon having all the up-named requisites (in particular n 4 ) exist today in any Armed Force on the planet.

Today therefore the task is ,form time to time , entrusted to different platforms all having some characteristic useful for the specific task :

1) Artillery, representing the most commom choice in all Armies around the world for this role.
Tube and gun artillery, particularly modern ones, enjoy in facts almost all the characteristics useful to attack time-sensitive targets and in particular : very low relative cost of ammunitions (also precision guided ones), very high number of ready disposable ordnances (useful for attack almos contemporaneously several targets in the same area ) and high speed of the weapons , its main limit is the range that today lie ususally in the 20-40 km (we exclude here modern MLRS, in facts theirs enormous destruction power and area of destruction render them unsuitable for couter-insurgency operations).

2) UAVs. This choice predate on the "blending" of ISR role and strike role in the same platform. The advantages are : very short time to hit the same target the drone was surveiling (obviously against targets discovered by other resources ,such as HUMINT, space based ISR or ground based assets theirs time to target is abyshmal) , relative low cost of the weapons employed , no risk of allied human live loss , theris main limit is the number and power of the carried weapons (very few ammunitions with very low power) allowing to attack only very few ,easy targets in open with no possibility to engage survivors.

3) Helicopters , representing the second most common choice among military forces around the world. The advantages are like for the UAVs : very short time to hit the same target the drone was surveiling , relative low cost of the weapons employed , capability to hover in the target area and re-engage survivor and respond to changes on the ground high number and variety of carried weapons , limits are the significative vulnerability to modern man-portable missiles and medium caliber guns.

It is just for those reason that anywhere UAV-delivered weapons represernt a very very low percentage of the total amount of ammunition delivered.

ultimatewarrior wrote:According to that chart B-1 flew the most sorties. You don't see B-1 bombing a single guy or a group of guys. They use attack drone for that. Russia lacks attack drone

Obviously not

B-1 bombers flew the few sorties after F-22 "Raptor", not the most ; but contemporaneously it delivered also the higher percentage of USAF ammunition on the total (and the weapons it deliver are not light AGM-114 Hellfire........).

The conundrum of the ideal recon attack drone, is that if it can fly high it will be safe and can operate 24/7 which means it is less likely for enemy activity to go unnoticed, but if it operates up high it needs much better cameras and other sensors to find and monitor targets on the ground. To operate for long periods and carry a reasonably useful weapon load it also needs to be rather big and loaded with lots of ammo and fuel... all these features make it much more expensive than the small light traditional UAV.

Rather small guided weapons would be the ideal solution especially if they can be made cheap, so 5-20kg bombs with some sort of guidance to get them reliably within 2-3 metres of the target is ideal... if you can develop a guidance kit using Glonass guidance that can do it, then that is great... they have Glonass guidance fuse systems for 152mm artillery shells for their new artillery vehicles that can steer shells to within 10m of a target... perhaps the combination of the Gefest & T aiming system and glonass guided bombs can achieve such levels too... certainly high altitude launches of missiles like Ataka or Kornet with laser beam guidance or simple command guidance could be another option.

There is also those mini missiles that have been shown on new IFV turrets that have retractable pods of 8 or 12 missiles that are short to medium range guided anti armour missiles presumably with optical guidance... for all we know they could be Metis missiles with a rocket motor boost and command guidance via radio beam instead of being a wire dragger that is light and cheap and simple but accurate... that is useful for UCAVs.

Where the UCAV shines over other options is that it is relatively cheap and can be operated 24/7 over airspace that is not currently in full scale war mode.

Even when it is not killing enemy it is keeping tabs on their movements and actions, which provides useful intelligence for planning future operations in the area. Things like where are the heavy weapons... where is ammo stored... where are the vehicles and people... who is using cellphones and where... when bombs go off who responds and where are the injured taken... all of this is useful military information.... and while the western media cry over hospitals and churches and schools being hit by Russian bombs, the fact is that the west often times strikes so that follow up strikes hit those responding because the doctors and people that help the injured are important targets in war too...

Edit: I should add that I don't think a UCAV would be vital, but it would be useful... but they have to get the right design for their needs... even if they bought a foreign design right now, they would need to adapt their weapons to be used, and of course the time in training and learning to use it properly, not to mention production rights etc etc... it would just be easier to wait till a domestic model is ready... which I am sure they are working on a few... they wont need to be fast or stealthy... something like the M-55 with a smaller single engine and a huge fuel tank and internal capacity for an enormous number of tiny bombs... it might take a full runway to get airborne and only climb slowly, but once it gets to operational altitude it could stay there for 12-14 hours and just monitor and attack when needed.

Syrian Military Capabilities
@Syrian_MC
·
15m
#Breaking

Russian AD units in #Khmemeim AB are repelling a missile attack by the terrorists in #Idlib



Syrian Military Capabilities
@Syrian_MC
·
13m
Some missiles landed within the AB
This attack was large counted over 20 missiles


Syrian Military Capabilities
@Syrian_MC
·
12m
Update
The AD units are now firing towards the sea side
(Terrorists sometimes uses a sea route to attack the AB)

Isos wrote:
Syrian Military Capabilities
@Syrian_MC
·
15m
#Breaking

Russian AD units in #Khmemeim AB are repelling a missile attack by the terrorists in #Idlib



Syrian Military Capabilities
@Syrian_MC
·
13m
Some missiles landed within the AB
This attack was large counted over 20 missiles


Syrian Military Capabilities
@Syrian_MC
·
12m
Update
The AD units are now firing towards the sea side
(Terrorists sometimes uses a sea route to attack the AB)

Putin is too soft. If I were Putin I ignore Erdogan's desperate pleas for ceasefire to save his Uyghur buddies and bomb the shit out of these illegal Chinese Uyghur immigrants from Xinjiang. Erdogan's plan is to establish a Uyghur colony in Idlib. That is illegal under international law.

Here we have Azov heading south on the Syrian Express. Looks as heavily loaded as I have seen here over the past few years.

JohninMK wrote:Here we have Azov heading south on the Syrian Express. Looks as heavily loaded as I have seen here over the past few years.

All the unguided munitions are manufactured in Syria. Only ATGM and guided bombs need to be shipped from Russia. Good thing Russia don't need to use a lot of guided bombs because of SVP-24.

ultimatewarrior wrote:

All the unguided munitions are manufactured in Syria. Only ATGM and guided bombs need to be shipped from Russia.

If that was correct why the recent pictures of lots of unguided bombs quayside in Tartous?

You surely can't believe that the RuAF would use Syrian made munitions rather than their own? The SyAF perhaps as they might have to.

JohninMK wrote:

ultimatewarrior wrote:

All the unguided munitions are manufactured in Syria. Only ATGM and guided bombs need to be shipped from Russia.

If that was correct why the recent pictures of lots of unguided bombs quayside in Tartous?

You surely can't believe that the RuAF would use Syrian made munitions rather than their own? The SyAF perhaps as they might have to.

I doubt Russia ships hundreds of unguided bombs to Tartus. That would require dozens of ships. And we don't see dozens of ships.

ultimatewarrior wrote:

JohninMK wrote:

ultimatewarrior wrote:

All the unguided munitions are manufactured in Syria. Only ATGM and guided bombs need to be shipped from Russia.

If that was correct why the recent pictures of lots of unguided bombs quayside in Tartous?

You surely can't believe that the RuAF would use Syrian made munitions rather than their own? The SyAF perhaps as they might have to.

I doubt Russia ships hundreds of unguided bombs to Tartus. That would require dozens of ships. And we don't see dozens of ships.

So maybe Azov is carrying 500 tonnes of bombs and munitions. That would keep the RuAF going for a while. Plus they no doubt fly the smart stuff in.

JohninMK wrote:

ultimatewarrior wrote:

JohninMK wrote:

ultimatewarrior wrote:

All the unguided munitions are manufactured in Syria. Only ATGM and guided bombs need to be shipped from Russia.

If that was correct why the recent pictures of lots of unguided bombs quayside in Tartous?

You surely can't believe that the RuAF would use Syrian made munitions rather than their own? The SyAF perhaps as they might have to.

I doubt Russia ships hundreds of unguided bombs to Tartus. That would require dozens of ships. And we don't see dozens of ships.

So maybe Azov is carrying 500 tonnes of bombs and munitions. That would keep the RuAF going for a while. Plus they no doubt fly the smart stuff in.

An unguided bomb weighs half a ton or more. Hundreds of such bombs weigh hundreds of tons. It's not economic to ship unguided bombs. Like I said. Unguided bombs are built in Syria. Only guided bombs are shipped from Russia because Syria don't have electronics technology to make guided bombs. Like I said. Russia uses unguided bombs with SVP-24. Very few guided bombs are used. This ain't WW1 or WW2 where you have hundreds of ships every day delivering cargo. In Syria war few Russian ships delivers cargo once a month.

Kornet / Krasnopol only weighs about 100 pounds each. They use planes to deliver Kornet / Krasnopol. They don't use ships for that. They use ships to deliver guided bombs only.

ultimatewarrior wrote:

An unguided bomb weighs half a ton or more. Hundreds of such bombs weigh hundreds of tons. It's not economic to ship unguided bombs. Like I said. Unguided bombs are built in Syria. Only guided bombs are shipped from Russia because Syria don't have electronics technology to make guided bombs. Like I said. Russia uses unguided bombs with SVP-24. Very few guided bombs are used. This ain't WW1 or WW2 where you have hundreds of ships every day delivering cargo. In Syria war few Russian ships delivers cargo once a month.

Kornet / Krasnopol only weighs about 100 pounds each. They use planes to deliver Kornet / Krasnopol. They don't use ships for that. They use ships to deliver guided bombs only.

You can be hard work. A 500kg bomb may be half a tonne, not ton, but a 250kg is half that etc. The load capacity of the Azov is around 500 tonnes or up to 1000 of your bombs, not that they would carry that particular load.

Can you give a link to your bomb manufacturing claim please?

JohninMK wrote:

ultimatewarrior wrote:

An unguided bomb weighs half a ton or more. Hundreds of such bombs weigh hundreds of tons. It's not economic to ship unguided bombs. Like I said. Unguided bombs are built in Syria. Only guided bombs are shipped from Russia because Syria don't have electronics technology to make guided bombs. Like I said. Russia uses unguided bombs with SVP-24. Very few guided bombs are used. This ain't WW1 or WW2 where you have hundreds of ships every day delivering cargo. In Syria war few Russian ships delivers cargo once a month.

Kornet / Krasnopol only weighs about 100 pounds each. They use planes to deliver Kornet / Krasnopol. They don't use ships for that. They use ships to deliver guided bombs only.

You can be hard work. A 500kg bomb may be half a tonne, not ton, but a 250kg is half that etc. The load capacity of the Azov is around 500 tonnes or up to 1000 of your bombs, not that they would carry that particular load.

Can you give a link to your bomb manufacturing claim please?

Syria manufactures large caliber rifles. They also manufacture 120 mm mortars. They manufacture unguided bombs. Russia won't waste money to ship unguided bombs.

https://southfront.org/golan-s-01-first-syrian-made-sniper-rifle-photos/

An unguided bomb weighs half a ton or more. Hundreds of such bombs weigh hundreds of tons. It's not economic to ship unguided bombs.

Of course they ship them... there is no other way that could be economic...

The only bomber they have that carries more than two bombs at a time would be the Backfire that operates from Russian airfields anyway.

For Su-24 and Su-34 they mostly carry either 250kg or 500kg bombs, but normally two or four each... most often two per target.

Worst case scenario would be two five hundred kg bombs per target, which is 1 ton of bombs.

500 ton capacity for Azov means on one trip alone it can carry enough bombs for 500 targets, and other ships can carry more...

This ain't WW1 or WW2 where you have hundreds of ships every day delivering cargo. In Syria war few Russian ships delivers cargo once a month.

How many targets do you think they hit per month?

I mean apart from cruise missile attacks and attacks by Backfires that use bombs from Russia, how many bombs do you think they use?

There were videos of Syrian helos dropping barrel bombs on targets... you posted them yourself... so the Syrians are making aircraft bombs for the Russians but are using barrel bombs themselves?

Kornet / Krasnopol only weighs about 100 pounds each. They use planes to deliver Kornet / Krasnopol. They don't use ships for that. They use ships to deliver guided bombs only.

The point is that they can bring a lot more weapons and ammo in by ship than they can by aircraft and it is much cheaper by ship.

The only advantage of bringing it in by air is that it is quick, but you know in advance that you will need a lot of certain weapons so order them in bulk and bring them in by ship... if you need extra stuff for an attack or because some were destroyed or lost in combat then fly it in but most of the time the solution is to order by ship... the side that spends the most doesn't win wars...

Syria manufactures large caliber rifles. They also manufacture 120 mm mortars. They manufacture unguided bombs. Russia won't waste money to ship unguided bombs.

Russia has enormous stocks of dumb bombs... why would they buy Syrian bombs when they can ship their own bombs and use up old stock?
This is basically war training for Russia, and logistics units need training and experience too.

These days there are no dumb bombs. Upgrade kits make them into guided bombs. The Russian solution for this upgrade
is vastly cheaper than the US one and is basically 90% as effective. Using aircraft based guidance instead of bomb based
guidance is a good solution and reduces the cost dramatically.

Since the Russian guidance kits are designed for Russian bombs, it makes sense for Russia to burn though its old stock that
is only waiting to explode in some storage accident if left unused. It is a win for everyone except the yanquis and their pals.

Since the Russian guidance kits are designed for Russian bombs, it makes sense for Russia to burn though its old stock that
is only waiting to explode in some storage accident if left unused. It is a win for everyone except the yanquis and their pals.

The software for the bombing systems will be based on the aerodynamics of Russian weapon... they probably have a programme for each bomb weight and shape.

The huge irony is that the western media is such a powerful propaganda force, but when over used it becomes meaningless... after reports of the thousandth hospital in some small Syrian town was destroyed or school or church... it started to lose all meaning or effect... notice you really don't hear much about their bombing accuracy or lack of it any more?

The irony is that often hitting the wrong target comes down more to bad intel or no intel rather than inaccurate weapon deliver these days.

During WWII to hit one factory located in a huge city the Allies would send an enormous force of bombers to bomb, and often after evaluations of later flights over the area they bomb again... these days as long as you use big enough bombs you can do the job with one plane with two bombs in one mission... previously you either needed a very powerful bomb for that (ie a nuke) or you needed a very expensive guided bomb... but now they are effectively using smart planes with dumb bombs.

Makes sense really... it is the equivalent of changing from machine guns and suppressive fire, to snipers with carefully delivered unguided rounds.

In my experience there is nothing mods hate more than having to do unnecessary work and moving your posts fits into that category.

As warned, these posts will be moved for a couple of days but when I get tired of moving I will simply delete... and if I have to keep deleting for too long then bans for periods will be the next step.

Note I will also move posts related to posts that should not be here because they will just waste space being left here.

The Russian S-400 still in position in the Syrian mountains near Masyaf with the Syrian S-300 just down the road. Sat piccy from 11th August.

THe most important weapon missing in Russia military that will have made
a huge difference are attack drones.. Russia needs them badly.. flying 24 hours
or 48 hours over IDLIB with high speed mini guided missiles..

Something like a Predator drone will have saved Russia a ton of money in cruise
missiles and will have made far more painful for terrorist to move in the open ,
when silent drones are actually sniping from above.. day and night.

something like laser guided hellfire missiles will have been perfect for the job.
Laser guide artillery too.. But Attack drones with guide munition are more accurate
with moving targets.. like terrorist in IDLIB.

also swarms of hundred of mini drones armed with grenades will be a terror for them..
Russia needs to work heavily in drone attack and AI technology.. to improve heavily
their efficiency fighting soft terrorist moving targets.

Armed drone that can fly 24 hours are just as expensive as a su-25 or a yak 130. They are slow and carry few atgm which won't be enough most of the time.

Once it fires its missiles, most of the time all at one target, it will need to go back and re-arm which will take huge ammount of time because of its slow speed.

They have enough drone for surveillance. And su-25 are the best and most cost effictive way of dealing with any target in Syria very quickly.

Isos wrote:Armed drone that can fly 24 hours are just as expensive as a su-25 or a yak 130. They are slow and carry few atgm which won't be enough most of the time.

Once it fires its missiles, most of the time all at one target, it will need to go back and re-arm which will take huge ammount of time because of its slow speed.

They have enough drone for surveillance. And su-25 are the best and most cost effictive way of dealing with any target in Syria very quickly.

Most of the time targets in Syria are small and mobile and few. Just a few pickups here and there. The key is to get them the moment they are spotted. Currently the recon drones spot them but can't attack them and it takes up to half an hour to call in an attack jet and this window allows them to escape. With attack drones taking out a few pickups every day will end the war within months. Terrorists only have a few hundred pickup trucks.

ultimatewarrior wrote:Most of the time targets in Syria are small and mobile and few. Just a few pickups here and there. The key is to get them the moment they are spotted. Currently the recon drones spot them but can't attack them and it takes up to half an hour to call in an attack jet and this window allows them to escape. With attack drones taking out a few pickups every day will end the war within months. Terrorists only have a few hundred pickup trucks.

Sounds good in theory. Terrible in practice.

Even the United States, with their vast inventory of armed drones, do not use them in such missions. They mostly take off after they know what their target is going to be. They do not loiter around for long periods of time.

Not to mention that drones would be useless in any other war, as they would simply be jammed to all hell. Or shot down using MANPAD's.

For very important targets, there's OTR-21's and Iskanders in Syria. Everything close to the frontlines can be covered by artillery and Krasnopol.

If they really wanted CAS in the area they'd bring back Su-25 patrols. They fly them up in pairs. Spotters (or pilots themselves) attack targets and then rotate with another pair of Su-25's. The planes themselves can do this almost indefinitely, it's the pilots of the planes that need to change, to rest.

A pair of Su-35's from Hmeim airbase intercepted 2 x Turkish F-16's who were threatening SAA positions around Khein Shaykoun
http://avia.pro/news/rossiyskie-su-35-perehvatili-dva-tureckih-f-16-zastaviv-ih-sbezhat

Cyberspec wrote:A pair of Su-35's from Hmeim airbase intercepted 2 x Turkish F-16's who were threatening SAA positions around Khein Shaykoun
http://avia.pro/news/rossiyskie-su-35-perehvatili-dva-tureckih-f-16-zastaviv-ih-sbezhat

Turks should be doing something about that Republic of Greater Kurdistan that​ is about to be created with generous donations in the form of Turkish territory rather than dicking around with some soon to be dead jihadists​