Air Combat in Syria
- Thread starter gadeshi
- Start date
pmaitra
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,600
Russian bombers fly around Europe to strike Syria in 8,000 mile show of strength
RAF Typhoon jets scrambled to meet the Blackjack bombers who went on to strike Syria
Russian air force Tu-160 bomber flies a combat mission as part of a Russian air campaign against targets in Syria Photo: AP Photo
A Tupolev Tu-160 Russian long-range bomber carries out an airstrike on ISIS targets in Syria Photo: TASS / Barcroft Media
____________________________
Russian Tu-160s launch Syrian air strike from Kola Peninsula, in far northwest Russia, in a global strike show.
Some speculate that it was done to show NATO its capabilities, while another reason could to to give its crew real life training in undertaking a long range trip before actually launching the cruise missiles.
Video from the Aviationist:
RAF Typhoon jets scrambled to meet the Blackjack bombers who went on to strike Syria
Russian air force Tu-160 bomber flies a combat mission as part of a Russian air campaign against targets in Syria Photo: AP Photo
A Tupolev Tu-160 Russian long-range bomber carries out an airstrike on ISIS targets in Syria Photo: TASS / Barcroft Media
____________________________
Russian Tu-160s launch Syrian air strike from Kola Peninsula, in far northwest Russia, in a global strike show.
Some speculate that it was done to show NATO its capabilities, while another reason could to to give its crew real life training in undertaking a long range trip before actually launching the cruise missiles.
Video from the Aviationist:
Last edited:
Bahamut
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 2,740
- Likes
- 2,259
PBS NewsHour Uses Russian Airstrike Footage While Claiming U.S. Airstrike Successes
U.S. media can no agree with itself if Russia is giving ISIS an airforce or if Russia pounds ISIS with the biggest bomber raid in decades. Such confusion occurs when propaganda fantasies collide with the observable reality.
To bridge such divide requires some fudging.
So when the U.S. claims to act against the finances of the Islamic State while not doing much, the U.S Public Broadcasting Service has to use footage of Russian airstrikes against the Islamic State while reporting claimed U.S. airstrike successes.
The U.S. military recently claimed to have hit Islamic State oil tankers in Syria. This only after Putin embarrassed Obama at the G-20 meeting in Turkey. Putin showed satellite pictures of ridiculous long tanker lines waiting for days and weeks to load oil from the Islamic State without any U.S. interference.
The U.S. then claimed to have hit 116 oil tankers while the Russian air force claims to have hit 500. But there is an important difference between these claims. The Russians provided videos showing how their airstrikes hit at least two different very large oil tanker assemblies with hundreds of tankers in each. They also provided video of several hits on oil storage sites and refinery infrastructure.
I have found no video of U.S. hits on Islamic State oil tanker assemblies.
The U.S. PBS NewsHour did not find any either.
In their TV report yesterday about Islamic State financing and the claimed U.S. hits on oil trucks they used the videos Russia provided without revealing the source. You can see the Russian videos played within an interview with a U.S. military spokesperson at 2:22 min.
The U.S. military spokesperson speaks on camera about U.S. airforce hits against the Islamic State. The video cuts to footage taken by Russian airplanes hitting oil tanks and then trucks. The voice-over while showing the Russian video with the Russians blowing up trucks says: "For the first time the U.S. is attacking oil delivery trucks." The video then cuts back to the U.S. military spokesperson.
At no point is the Russian campaign mentioned or the source of the footage revealed.
Any average viewer of the PBS report will assume that the black and white explosions of oil trucks and tanks are from of U.S. airstrikes filmed by U.S. air force planes.
The U.S. military itself admitted that its strikes on IS oil infrastructure over the last year were "minimally effective". One wonders then how effective the claimed strike against 116 trucks really was. But unless we have U.S. video of such strikes and not copies of Russian strike video fraudulently passed off as U.S. strikes we will not know if those strikes happened at all.
Propaganda and reality also collide in the larger U.S. policy on Syria. President Obama claims that the "overwhelming majority of people in Syria" want the Syrian President Assad to leave. But independent British polling in Syria found (pdf) that a strong plurality of Syrians prefers him as president over any of the available alternatives.
And while new research reveals extensive cooperation between NATO member and U.S. ally Turkey and the Islamic State the U.S. is asking for more cooperation with Turkey to shuffle more weapons into the Syria conflict and thereby, inevitably, also to the Islamic State. Some other U.S. allies are likewise deeply involved in financing and equipping the Islamic State.
But Kuwait just arrested a gang that was smuggling weapons from the new U.S. client state Ukraine to the Islamic State. Iraqi military and Shia militia find huge bundles of cash (vid) which were to be smuggled to the Islamic State. How does it come that the otherwise all-seeing (including your emails) U.S. secret services are unable to uncover Islamic State financingand smuggling when smaller states with much less resources can do so?
Does all this sound like the U.S. is really campaigning against the Islamic State? Or is this whole campaign just as fraudulent as the PBS video and Obama's proclamations? Why is the U.S. so deeply lost on the ‘Dark Side’ in Syria?
h/t CHPSTCK
Permalink
U.S. media can no agree with itself if Russia is giving ISIS an airforce or if Russia pounds ISIS with the biggest bomber raid in decades. Such confusion occurs when propaganda fantasies collide with the observable reality.
To bridge such divide requires some fudging.
So when the U.S. claims to act against the finances of the Islamic State while not doing much, the U.S Public Broadcasting Service has to use footage of Russian airstrikes against the Islamic State while reporting claimed U.S. airstrike successes.
The U.S. military recently claimed to have hit Islamic State oil tankers in Syria. This only after Putin embarrassed Obama at the G-20 meeting in Turkey. Putin showed satellite pictures of ridiculous long tanker lines waiting for days and weeks to load oil from the Islamic State without any U.S. interference.
The U.S. then claimed to have hit 116 oil tankers while the Russian air force claims to have hit 500. But there is an important difference between these claims. The Russians provided videos showing how their airstrikes hit at least two different very large oil tanker assemblies with hundreds of tankers in each. They also provided video of several hits on oil storage sites and refinery infrastructure.
I have found no video of U.S. hits on Islamic State oil tanker assemblies.
The U.S. PBS NewsHour did not find any either.
In their TV report yesterday about Islamic State financing and the claimed U.S. hits on oil trucks they used the videos Russia provided without revealing the source. You can see the Russian videos played within an interview with a U.S. military spokesperson at 2:22 min.
The U.S. military spokesperson speaks on camera about U.S. airforce hits against the Islamic State. The video cuts to footage taken by Russian airplanes hitting oil tanks and then trucks. The voice-over while showing the Russian video with the Russians blowing up trucks says: "For the first time the U.S. is attacking oil delivery trucks." The video then cuts back to the U.S. military spokesperson.
At no point is the Russian campaign mentioned or the source of the footage revealed.
Any average viewer of the PBS report will assume that the black and white explosions of oil trucks and tanks are from of U.S. airstrikes filmed by U.S. air force planes.
The U.S. military itself admitted that its strikes on IS oil infrastructure over the last year were "minimally effective". One wonders then how effective the claimed strike against 116 trucks really was. But unless we have U.S. video of such strikes and not copies of Russian strike video fraudulently passed off as U.S. strikes we will not know if those strikes happened at all.
Propaganda and reality also collide in the larger U.S. policy on Syria. President Obama claims that the "overwhelming majority of people in Syria" want the Syrian President Assad to leave. But independent British polling in Syria found (pdf) that a strong plurality of Syrians prefers him as president over any of the available alternatives.
And while new research reveals extensive cooperation between NATO member and U.S. ally Turkey and the Islamic State the U.S. is asking for more cooperation with Turkey to shuffle more weapons into the Syria conflict and thereby, inevitably, also to the Islamic State. Some other U.S. allies are likewise deeply involved in financing and equipping the Islamic State.
But Kuwait just arrested a gang that was smuggling weapons from the new U.S. client state Ukraine to the Islamic State. Iraqi military and Shia militia find huge bundles of cash (vid) which were to be smuggled to the Islamic State. How does it come that the otherwise all-seeing (including your emails) U.S. secret services are unable to uncover Islamic State financingand smuggling when smaller states with much less resources can do so?
Does all this sound like the U.S. is really campaigning against the Islamic State? Or is this whole campaign just as fraudulent as the PBS video and Obama's proclamations? Why is the U.S. so deeply lost on the ‘Dark Side’ in Syria?
h/t CHPSTCK
Permalink
gadeshi
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 9,223
- Likes
- 6,636
A Kh-101 empty shell after successful strike:
and all the Russian modern CMsin comparison:
1 - Kh-55/555
2 - Kh-101
3 - 3M14NK/PL Kalibr NK/PL
4 - 3M54PL/NK Biryuza PL/NK ASM with supersonic strike stage
5 - 3M14E - Export version with shorten range (350km)
and all the Russian modern CMsin comparison:
1 - Kh-55/555
2 - Kh-101
3 - 3M14NK/PL Kalibr NK/PL
4 - 3M54PL/NK Biryuza PL/NK ASM with supersonic strike stage
5 - 3M14E - Export version with shorten range (350km)
pmaitra
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,600
Pardon the off-topic post. The last one has an air intake and missile tip just like the Nirbhay.A Kh-101 empty shell after successful strike:
and all the Russian modern CMsin comparison:
1 - Kh-55/555
2 - Kh-101
3 - 3M14NK/PL Kalibr NK/PL
4 - 3M54PL/NK Biryuza PL/NK ASM with supersonic strike stage
5 - 3M14E - Export version with shorten range (350km)
gadeshi
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 9,223
- Likes
- 6,636
So you can see Nirbhai parent now
Who else don't believe in Indo-Russian JVs and TOT now?
Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
gadeshi
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 9,223
- Likes
- 6,636
More great videos from VKS:
1 - Su-25SM destroys ISIS tank via single unguided bomb from 6000m:
2 - FSA fortification wia unguided bomb also. Note no collateral damage at all:
3 - Our favourite ISIS tanker vehicles:
4 - A press briefing:
1 - Su-25SM destroys ISIS tank via single unguided bomb from 6000m:
2 - FSA fortification wia unguided bomb also. Note no collateral damage at all:
3 - Our favourite ISIS tanker vehicles:
4 - A press briefing:
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Syria War Air Combat Videos | Military Multimedia | 2 | |
|
Ace Combat : The Greatest Air Combat Game ever made. | Members Corner | 77 | |
|
Combat Air Teaming System (CATS) | Indian Air Force | 163 | |
|
|
Modern BVR Air Combat - Part 3 The Future | Knowledge Repository | 0 |
