Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

kvs wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

flamming_python wrote:Who claimed they were missiles?

You're like the Ukrainians, refuting a claim that had never been made.

Dafuq?  You're slandering me as a f*cking Ukropi ape cuz I responded after someone posted about a Su-24 shootdown by using a pic of a Su-22 dropping flares?



I'll resist the urge to respond with a tirade of expletives... but it's taking a lot of willpower...

Yeah, that was a shotgun smear.  FP should have gone back to the original post instead of blowing his load.

The amount of fakery with photos from unrelated events is very large.  No image trotted out as proof of some
event in Syria at the present time can be given the benefit of the doubt.

His posts are getting more and more bewildering and confusing. I remember he was extremely upset that Turk soldiers were getting bombed, more so than the fact that Turk soldiers were enabling Jihadists like WTF? Maybe if they weren't colluding with goatfuckers they wouldn't get bombed FFS lol!

What Russia achieved was an incomplete victory or better said a partial success ,more good to syria than
for Russia. It was a major achievement.. it was good but not good enough to end the war.. and victory will have been not only exclusive control of m5 only for Syria army and citizens to travel ,but also m4 too ,and even better will have been control of the city [Jisr -Al Shughur] from were terrorist attacks happen ,to the Russian base on a daily basis... just a rocket attack on Russian base happened today..

Y.N.M.S
@ynms79797979
·
53m
The air defenses at Hmeimim Airport confronted and destroyed two hostile targets
Y.N.M.S
@ynms79797979
·
1h
Air defenses at the Hmeimim base address hostile targets

Y.N.M.S
@ynms79797979
·
1h
Russian reconnaissance flight flying over the countryside of Idlib.

Good news however , is that Russia still will have full freedom to continue bombing hts positions in idlib ,
and those firing drones or rockets to their base.. and the pressure on Russian pilots from the threat of manpads will be way smaller with the ease of tensions with Turkey. Erdogan do benefits from this deal even ,when it benefits more Russia. Because he will had no way to keep SAA from advancing and retaking m4 and more idlib territories.. So the war between turkey and russia was frozen ,before Syrian army could take too much important territory in idlib ,for Erdogan later have a way to save face.

So all said.. there is a big chance the cease fire will last this time.. the agreements in the northern east syria in kurdistan zones is holding , and patrols between Turkey and Russian army frequent..only thing causing problems
there are the american troops , creating road blocks.. but this are only symbolic resistance.. doesn't worsen the security of syria. Airspace in kurdistan zone is controlled by new Russian bases there. as i understand.. since any base Russia deploys ,they always deploys air defenses.

Vann7 wrote:
Airspace in kurdistan zone is controlled by new Russian bases there. as i understand.. since any base Russia deploys ,they always deploys air defenses.

Yes they organised a base of operation for helicopters in al-Qamishli. I only heard of short range pantsir being deployed there, however. If it is just that, it hardly controls the whole of the airspace in the Kurdish areas...

magnumcromagnon wrote:His posts are getting more and more bewildering and confusing. I remember he was extremely upset that Turk soldiers were getting bombed, more so than the fact that Turk soldiers were enabling Jihadists like WTF? Maybe if they weren't colluding with goatfuckers they wouldn't get bombed FFS lol!

Upset?

Maybe someone thinks a Russian-Turkish war over Syria while the US and Europe cheer on is in any of these 3 country's interests, but I don't.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

I doubt that Erdogan is familiar with Lanceray or his work in any case

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

Vann7 wrote:
Airspace in kurdistan zone is controlled by new Russian bases there. as i understand.. since any base Russia deploys ,they always deploys air defenses.

Yes they organised a base of operation for helicopters in al-Qamishli. I only heard of short range pantsir being deployed there, however. If it is just that, it hardly controls the whole of the airspace in the Kurdish areas...

Exactly. Russia should deploy adequate air defence coverage over all the bases it presently shares with the Syrian state. Besides al-Qamishli, there's Nayrab airbase (which the Turks bombed during their recent escapade) that should first and foremost be defended to secure Aleppo. The defence of Hama's airport from continuous Israeli harassment should as well be beefed up with additional Russian technical/material assistance (maybe, rather than any actual Russian military presence). Also there's Tabqa airbase which Russia has secured but in a very limited capacity. I would even add Mennagh airbase to this list, although this would require Kurdish co-operation and piss off the Turks.

Airbases are vital physical assets whose strategic importance is well known to foreign aggressors and very much coveted in conflict, either for capture or elimination. For the sake of Russia's continued success in their Syrian campaign, imo defence of such sites should not be given slight attention or minimal coverage.

flamming_python wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:His posts are getting more and more bewildering and confusing. I remember he was extremely upset that Turk soldiers were getting bombed, more so than the fact that Turk soldiers were enabling Jihadists like WTF? Maybe if they weren't colluding with goatfuckers they wouldn't get bombed FFS lol!

Upset?

Maybe someone thinks a Russian-Turkish war over Syria while the US and Europe cheer on is in any of these 3 country's interests, but I don't.

Except the exact opposite happened, your complaints were for nothing and lacked substance. Meanwhile, the Turkish Def. Minister was publicly talking about causing instability in Russia around that time, alluding to funneling jihadists through the Pankisi Gorge. Either wipe them out in Idlib, or fight them in Chechnya/Dagestan/Ingushetia. In fact the whole exchange between Russia and Turkey has proven a few very valuable things:

1.) NATO is completely incapable of actually protecting it's members. How many times they've shown that their incapable of defending their allies? Georgia, Ukraine, and now Turkey. But then again where supposed to believe Greece and Turkey are military allies too!

2.) NATO formations are absolutely useless without proper air cover. In stark contrast, the Soviets won WW2 while undergoing one of the most hellish aerial onslaughts ever seen.

3.) NATO lacks the proper air defenses and IAD to win beyond all means necessary. Those excecises with Poland, Lativa, Lithuania, and Estonia with major armor formations will mean fuckall when their being eviscerated with MLRS.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:His posts are getting more and more bewildering and confusing. I remember he was extremely upset that Turk soldiers were getting bombed, more so than the fact that Turk soldiers were enabling Jihadists like WTF? Maybe if they weren't colluding with goatfuckers they wouldn't get bombed FFS lol!

Upset?

Maybe someone thinks a Russian-Turkish war over Syria while the US and Europe cheer on is in any of these 3 country's interests, but I don't.

Except the exact opposite happened, your complaints were for nothing and lacked substance. Meanwhile, the Turkish Def. Minister was publicly talking about causing instability in Russia around that time, alluding to funneling jihadists through the Pankisi Gorge. Either wipe them out in Idlib, or fight them in Chechnya/Dagestan/Ingushetia. In fact the whole exchange between Russia and Turkey has proven a few very valuable things:

1.) NATO is completely incapable of actually protecting it's members. How many times they've shown that their incapable of defending their allies? Georgia, Ukraine, and now Turkey. But then again where supposed to believe Greece and Turkey are military allies too!

2.) NATO formations are absolutely useless without proper air cover. In stark contrast, the Soviets won WW2 while undergoing one of the most hellish aerial onslaughts ever seen.

3.) NATO lacks the proper air defenses and IAD to win beyond all means necessary. Those excecises with Poland, Lativa, Lithuania, and Estonia with major armor formations will mean fuckall when their being eviscerated with MLRS.

Well, it was Turkeys deputy foreign minister who made the remarks. To which everyone laughed and said the muslims in Russia arent a fan of Turks either.

@ Slasher

Of course using air defences can be a successful method of defending against known sources of attack. Russia has used it  "successfully" against American and Israeli incursions. But long term, against a wealthy and determined enemy, then relying simply on AD, not enough. Russia may be able to afford it. But Syria will not. For this reason, Syria needs to retaliate using own rockets. From distinct and exclusive demarcated forward operational areas. So as not to drag the Russians in, if it does not have to. In the south, Syria can declare a forward operational area. An area it declares for using to launch retaliatory strikes. Say against direct attacks by Israeli planes. And in the North, the same. Against direct attacks from Turkish soil against Syria. And the same against yank bases. By surrounding them. I think the time is well passed, when Syria should strike back. Taking direct responsibility. I think if it had responded to Israeli attacks earlier. Then they would not continue with bombing. When they attack. Counter. Using a few rockets. Then no need to waste so much AD assets.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:His posts are getting more and more bewildering and confusing. I remember he was extremely upset that Turk soldiers were getting bombed, more so than the fact that Turk soldiers were enabling Jihadists like WTF? Maybe if they weren't colluding with goatfuckers they wouldn't get bombed FFS lol!

Upset?

Maybe someone thinks a Russian-Turkish war over Syria while the US and Europe cheer on is in any of these 3 country's interests, but I don't.

Except the exact opposite happened, your complaints were for nothing and lacked substance. Meanwhile, the Turkish Def. Minister was publicly talking about causing instability in Russia around that time, alluding to funneling jihadists through the Pankisi Gorge. Either wipe them out in Idlib, or fight them in Chechnya/Dagestan/Ingushetia. In fact the whole exchange between Russia and Turkey has proven a few very valuable things:

1.) NATO is completely incapable of actually protecting it's members. How many times they've shown that their incapable of defending their allies? Georgia, Ukraine, and now Turkey. But then again where supposed to believe Greece and Turkey are military allies too!

2.) NATO formations are absolutely useless without proper air cover. In stark contrast, the Soviets won WW2 while undergoing one of the most hellish aerial onslaughts ever seen.

3.) NATO lacks the proper air defenses and IAD to win beyond all means necessary. Those excecises with Poland, Lativa, Lithuania, and Estonia with major armor formations will mean fuckall when their being eviscerated with MLRS.

It wasn't the Turkish defense minister and he didn't go into such specifics. Unless you have a source?

In fact the Turkish military is still largely Kemalist and it's important to keep good relations with them, while keeping Erdogan at arms length and increasingly restricted in Syria.

Turkey backed down but it could easily have gone the other way. In the end we got a result that Russia and Syria can be happy about, but it was a risky move.

I was quite right about what I said. As a result of the strike that toppled a building onto Turkish troops heads, Russia vacated Idlib airspace and agreed to permit Turkish drones in to take revenge. The Turks took advantage of this to kill well over a hundred SAA and allied militias, Hezbollah and so on, and took out a bunch of tanks, armoured vehicles and equipment.
So where is the plus in all this? At least now there's this new agreement, but maybe it could have been reached by just keeping strikes on the Jihadists. We'll never know.

As for your points:
1). Turkey is the Muslim black sheep of NATO and is hardly valued on the heirarchy as much as the Western European members are. The East European members too. Although no-one in Washington or Brussels will ever admit it. What's more the Turks were in Idlib not as part of a NATO operation, but on their own initiative.

2). So would any armoured formation be. The Turks didn't have proper air defenses; this is the least you could bring. The Soviet armoured forces suffered huge losses to Ju-87s and various German tactical bombers during their retreat in the opening months of Barbarossa; they were constantly harassed from the air. And this was with the technology of 80 years ago. Modern Russian forces without either air cover or mobile air defense systems would probably fare better than Turkish forces; after all Russia has the capability to neutralize NATO's spy satellites and GPS network, has various aerosols and camoflage technologies to better hide their forces from the air, has sophisticated EW and jamming means, and so on - but ultimately, even then they won't fare better by too much. They'll still be targets for enemy aircraft with no capability to defend themselves. Unless Russian missiles and bombs destroy enemy airfields first.

3). The Turks lack it. Although let's be honest, Turkey didn't commit much of their forces into battle. They moved tank formations into Idlib but never attacked with them. The only aircraft they really attacked with were drones, and only then after securing Russian permission. They didn't employ their artillery much, or commit to a mechanized assault - they were purely in a support role for allied Jihadists and had some infantry embedded with them; that's about it.

There are some interesting points in this short confrontation with Turkish army in Syria, which is not much discused. Turkey sent their modern ECM complexes like domestic Koral, to disable syrian defense capabilities.





In this confrontation Russian ECM complexes got upper hand against Turkish ECM and enable to shot down drones and also prevent Turkish F-16 to shot down SyAF Su-22. This is very important as this show, that russian ECM is effective protection against AMRAAM attacks and Russian flares are also effective against Stinger missiles and AIM-9X missiles in NATO/US arsenal. Old Russian flares from SyAF Su-22 work against AIM-9X launched from US F/A-18 and flares from RuAF Su-24M work against Turkish Stinger missiles.

Turkey destroyed russian and syrian su-24 with amraam. Turkish drone were not jammed and had very good hit rate untill SAA moved air defence systems there.

Ground jamers are not enough to protect aircraft. They need to upgrade their su24 with better RWR and pod jammers.

They can also develop a radar for it the su-24 gas a huge nose and could fit a biger radar than su35 or mig31. That would make it a very good interceptor.

The story about su22 is not proven. Turkish fire their amrams at max range behind the border. The su22 could have just turned away making the tail chase impossible for the amraam.

This article about russian jammers is only speculation and face saving from some russian journalists/experts. Reality is they did nothing against Turkey.

Syrian AF equip their MiG-29SM with Talisman ECM pods from Belarus. They could place them on SyAF Su-24MK2 as well.



Su-24MK2 is not mean to be an interceptor. But I agree, that they could get some AA modes for using R-73 and gun in air combat, specially to shot down drones, if they are near.

Iskander?

Could be Iskander or Tochka... depending on the range...

Turkey destroyed russian and syrian su-24 with amraam. Turkish drone were not jammed and had very good hit rate untill SAA moved air defence systems there.

Ground jamers are not enough to protect aircraft. They need to upgrade their su24 with better RWR and pod jammers.

Normally if it is expected they will be fired upon by enemy aircraft they operate with the Su-24MR electronic support aircraft, and they also have underwing pods they can carry for ECM/ESM... they were clearly not expecting to be engaged by ISIS.

They can also develop a radar for it the su-24 gas a huge nose and could fit a biger radar than su35 or mig31. That would make it a very good interceptor.

Su-24 has two radars... a large lower ground search radar for detecting and tracking ground targets and a smaller upper air to air radar to detect air threats to evade.

It would be no where near as good an interceptor as a MiG-23 or MiG-31... it is much better suited to strike missions.

This article about russian jammers is only speculation and face saving from some russian journalists/experts. Reality is they did nothing against Turkey.

It never pays to think you electronics are better than everyone elses... leads to painful lessons...

The facts are we don't know, but I think you are leaping to conclusions to say they did nothing... it is the Turks going to Russia wanting an agreement... Russia seemed to have a relatively strong position with the EU and US not actually supporting turkey in this like they normally do (other than Pence telling them to go ahead)...

Su-24MK2 is not mean to be an interceptor. But I agree, that they could get some AA modes for using R-73 and gun in air combat, specially to shot down drones, if they are near.

I rather suspect the Su-34 has helmet mounted cuing systems which would make using R-73s much easier... and they are still a very potent air to air missile... for any aircraft...

Yes, the Su-24 has two radars, but the smaller one is for terrain-following and the larger one for tracking air and ground targets.

GarryB wrote:
Normally if it is expected they will be fired upon by enemy aircraft they operate with the Su-24MR electronic support aircraft, and they also have underwing pods they can carry for ECM/ESM... they were clearly not expecting to be engaged by ISIS.

But it's taking a lot of time for Russia to defeat Turkey, militarily. Not sure why a major power like Russia is struggling to achieve this. USSR would have achieved this in a month or two. Therefore, Turkey fancies its chances against Russia. They are instigating Russia, knowing fully well that Russia is unable to defeat them.

Islamic world is rejoicing. US can't defeat Taliban, Russia can't defeat Turkey.

jhelb wrote:

GarryB wrote:
Normally if it is expected they will be fired upon by enemy aircraft they operate with the Su-24MR electronic support aircraft, and they also have underwing pods they can carry for ECM/ESM... they were clearly not expecting to be engaged by ISIS.

But it's taking a lot of time for Russia to defeat Turkey, militarily. Not sure why a major power like Russia is struggling to achieve this. USSR would have achieved this in a month or two. Therefore, Turkey fancies its chances against Russia. They are instigating Russia, knowing fully well that Russia is unable to defeat them.

Islamic world is rejoicing. US can't defeat Taliban, Russia can't defeat Turkey.

Are you mentally challenged?

Hole wrote:Yes, the Su-24 has two radars, but the smaller one is for terrain-following and the larger one for tracking air and ground targets.

Switch that for an aesa radar with an antenna of 2mx1m. And put su57 engine to power it.

Would be a very good interceptor/bomber.

"#Russia TV runs footage showing how #Putin made #Turkey's President #Erdogan wait in frustration in Kremlin before greeting him while cameras rolling.

The channel even added a counter for viewers."

https://twitter.com/abdbozkurt/status/1236905712732844032