Russian involvement in Syrian crisis

SajeevJino

Long walk
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
6,017
Likes
3,364
Country flag
So, Turkish have stated that the plane, which had pursuit Turkish F-16 near the border was MiG-29.
It can be only Syrian MiG-29 9-12.
Finita la Comedia :)
may be they were never encountered with Flankers, they think it's the Syrian Fulcrums

Anyway they revert it, and said It's the Su 30 SM and Su 24
 

gadeshi

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
9,223
Likes
6,636
may be they were never encountered with Flankers, they think it's the Syrian Fulcrums

Anyway they revert it, and said It's the Su 30 SM and Su 24
After Russian MOD statement and diplomatic military attache note.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cee6fcba-69bf-11e5-8171-ba1968cf791a.html#ixzz3nh7foBY8

Moscow scuppers US coalition plans for no-fly zone in Syria

Sam Jones, Defence and Security Editor
©Reuters
A Russian military jet lands in Syria on October 1

Russia’s bombing of anti-regime rebels in Syria has been described as a disaster for the US-led coalition’s efforts to destroy Isis, the Islamist militant group, but the Kremlin’s real challenge to Washington is in the skies above the war-torn country.

Alongside a modest Latakia-based contingent of two dozen Su-24 Fencer and Su-25 Frogfoot jets — planes designed to strike land targets — Moscow has deployed assets which render the prospect of no-fly zones enforced by the US or its allies over Syria impossible to enact.

Just weeks ago, after months of diplomacy, officials were close to an agreement on enforcing aerial safe-zones to end the Assad regime’s bombing of civilians in northern and southern Syria, according to diplomats and military officials in the US-led coalition. The agreement was based on Jordanian and Turkish plans presented earlier this year.

Many officials believe an imminent move to ramp up coalition activity in Syria precipitated the Kremlin’s sudden intervention late last month.

“The ultimate reason all this is happening is because of the renewed focus on Syria and the need for some sort of political solution there — something which we thought we could achieve by enforcing no-fly zones, safe zones,” said one senior European diplomat.

But any hopes of military co-ordination with Russia to achieve this, even in the wake of its disruptive deployment, are swiftly being dashed.

Nato’s supreme military commander in Europe, US General Phillip Breedlove warned last week that the alliance was “worried about another A2/AD bubble being created in the eastern Mediterranean.” A2/AD stands for anti-access, area denial.

Gen Breedlove’s fears have been realised in the past days as Russia’s small deployment of four Su-30 “flanker” jets, which are at Latakia’s Bassel al-Assad air base — highly manoeuvreable aircraft designed to shoot down other aircraft — has been augmented with a far more powerful arsenal.

Russia’s ministry of defence announced on Friday the deployment of its navy cruiser the Moskva to Latakia. The Moskva is armed with a complement of 64 S-300 ship-to-air missiles, Russia’s most powerful anti-aircraft weapon.

Deployment of S-300s — or other similarly sophisticated systems, also known as triple-digit Sams — has long been one of the Pentagon’s biggest fears in the Middle East. The S-300 system, which has an operating range of 150km, is capable of striking down all but the most sophisticated stealth aircraft. It means most missions flown by Washington’s coalition allies — Jordan, for example, uses F-16 jets — are now highly vulnerable. Even the UK’s deployment of Tornados and Typhoons at the Royal Air Force’s base at Akrotiri, Cyprus, is threatened by the missiles.

“The Russian forces now in place make it very, very obvious that any kind of no-fly zone on the Libyan model imposed by the US and allies is now impossible, unless the coalition is actually willing to shoot down Russian aircraft,” says Justin Bronk, research analyst at the Royal United Services Institute.


“The Russians are not playing ball at deconfliction — they are just saying, ‘keep out of our way’. The coalition’s operations in Syria will be vastly more complex from a risk assessment point of view and from a mission-planning point of view.”

Even surveillance missions above Syria by US and coalition aircraft will be complicated. One Nato air force officer said the organisation expected to start seeing the kind of “cold war tactics” and brinkmanship Russia has recently been using in the Baltics. Pilots will be briefed to expect powerful Russian radar systems “lighting up” their aircraft in shows of strength, he said.

Preventing the creation of US-led coalition no-fly zones in Syria is important for Moscow’s influence over events in the country. With the Assad regime’s territorial grip looking fragile in recent months, the added imposition of a US-led coalition no-fly zone could have forced negotiations that would have led to a loss of Russia’s influence. Now any diplomatic or political process that does occur will do so on Moscow’s terms.

“Russia’s military actions are serving political ends of which there are several,” says Alex Kokcharov, Russia analyst at IHS Janes, the defence consultancy.

For Mr Putin, US and Nato “no-fly zones” have additional resonance too.

“Putin was deeply shaken by the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya,” Mr Kokcharov notes. “There is something at a personal level that is motivating this.”

For Russia military planners, no-fly zones — seen in the West as a measure of humanitarian mercy — are often seen as tools of regime change.



Oops, sorry FT. @pmaitra do you have any objections?
Objection about what? Because it is from FT? You can post from any news source.

However,Americans continue the bombing. Secret ban, only exacerbates the situation.Of course Obama is not Kennedy, but the Russian economy is not the economy of the USSR.
Russian economy is not USSR's economy. Agreed. Now, what other details can you provide other than a vague statement?

During the Gorbachyov's years, USSR was trying to earn US Dollars and selling off its state assets, including its gold reserves. Today, Russia is doing the opposite. It is getting rid of Dollars as soon as it earns them, and buying gold with that.

In one word - opposite.

Live in your lala land that it is just financial mess.

A country whose 20% GDP roughly depends on oil exports to do well in near future.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/for-russia-oil-collapse-has-soviet-echoes-1441215966
I think Russia realizes that relying solely upon oil is not a good idea. We need to explore what role oil played in the US bringing Iran out of the cold, despite protests from Israelophiles. Perhaps this calls for another thread.
If Russian aircraft such precise navigation, why they flew into the sky Turkey?
To enforce a no-fly zone?

Just kidding. The objective is simple and utterly obvious. Barbeque the ISIS entering Syria from Turkey.
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Russians love to solve their problems in a pretty radical way :)
Are you with us? Good! No? You are our target!
They don't like little SDBs or GBU-38s. They love 500kg presents :)
I have studied the expansion of the Russian Empire into Central Asia. To make it simple, it goes like this: fight, negotiate, fight, negotiate, fight, negotiate.

It is also very similar to how the Bolsheviks negotiated with various ethnic groups thus winning their support against Kolchak.

I don't think Russian modus operandi has diverged much, expect for a few cases of Soviet intervention in Eastern Europe.
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
10,322
Likes
8,639
Country flag
@pmaitra, When the oil ceases to be bought for dollars, only Russia will get rid of them.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
@pmaitra, When the oil ceases to be bought for dollars, only Russia will get rid of them.
The petro-dollar is already in pain. I read somewhere that this is one reason why the US extended the olive branch to Iran. As I have said earlier, we might discuss this in a different thread. Now, what Russia is doing is that it is still selling oil and gas for Dollars, but is quickly using those Dollars to buy gold. In other words, it is a de facto selling oil for gold at current market prices of gold. This keeps the supply of Dollars high in the world market, and helps Russia accumulate enough gold for a future partially gold backed currency. I must commend one brave woman for refusing shore up the Rouble and keeping it free floating. She is Elvira Sahibzadovna Nabiullina.
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
10,322
Likes
8,639
Country flag
The petro-dollar is already in pain. I read somewhere that this is one reason why the US extended the olive branch to Iran. As I have said earlier, we might discuss this in a different thread. Now, what Russia is doing is that it is still selling oil and gas for Dollars, but is quickly using those Dollars to buy gold. In other words, it is a de facto selling oil for gold at current market prices of gold. This keeps the supply of Dollars high in the world market, and helps Russia accumulate enough gold for a future partially gold backed currency. I must commend one brave woman for refusing shore up the Rouble and keeping it free floating. She is Elvira Sahibzadovna Nabiullina.
Do not be naive. Cheap ruble or the hryvnia beneficial to the state, but not the people. However, international calculations carried out in dollars. VAZ Russian or Ukrainian ZAZ tie their rates to the dollar. Prohibit the dollar in Russia is possible only by law, as in the Soviet Union. Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and the Russian intervention in Syria,is calculated the dollar equivalent rather than the ruble equivalent.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Do not be naive. Cheap ruble or the hryvnia beneficial to the state, but not the people. However, international calculations carried out in dollars. VAZ Russian or Ukrainian ZAZ tie their rates to the dollar. Prohibit the dollar in Russia is possible only by law, as in the Soviet Union. Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and the Russian intervention in Syria,is calculated the dollar equivalent rather than the ruble equivalent.
The Dollar is also prohibited in India by law. That is how independent and sovereign countries work.

Cheap Rouble will benefit exports, but not imports. In any event, Russia is saving money by not buying Polska apples, Dutch flowers, and German BMWs and Merc-Benzes. On the other hand, Germany has no match for Russian UralAZ, KamAZ, GAZ; and certainly not MAZ used to carry the giant Russian dildo.


So, what gives? No new Sapsan trains between Moscow and Leningrad? Well, who really cares?

Will EU stop importing Russian gas? No. So, Russia still earn forex, but spends less forex. Moreover, Russia will also not stop selling gas to EU, but will sell gas to EU, and PRC. Even more diversified.

Who is gaining from these sanctions? :eyebrows:

Russian automobile production is up. Russia's agricultural sector has been seeing growth already in 2013, i.e. before sanctions. Now, after the sanctions, it is expected to grow even more.

Who the hell cares if these things are tied to the Dollar. What is the Dollar tied to? Thin air.
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
10,322
Likes
8,639
Country flag
The Dollar is also prohibited in India by law. That is how independent and sovereign countries work.

Cheap Rouble will benefit exports, but not imports. In any event, Russia is saving money by not buying Polska apples, Dutch flowers, and German BMWs and Merc-Benzes. On the other hand, Germany has no match for Russian UralAZ, KamAZ, GAZ; and certainly not MAZ used to carry the giant Russian dildo.


So, what gives? No new Sapsan trains between Moscow and Leningrad? Well, who really cares?

Will EU stop importing Russian gas? No. So, Russia still earn forex, but spends less forex. Moreover, Russia will also not stop selling gas to EU, but will sell gas to EU, and PRC. Even more diversified.

Who is gaining from these sanctions? :eyebrows:

Russian automobile production is up. Russia's agricultural sector has been seeing growth already in 2013, i.e. before sanctions. Now, after the sanctions, it is expected to grow even more.

Who the hell cares if these things are tied to the Dollar. What is the Dollar tied to? Thin air.
I do this foolishness even do not want to comment. I know your reasoning: "VAZ better BMW". :drool:Let's return to Syria.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
I do this foolishness even do not want to comment. I know your reasoning: "VAZ better BMW". :drool:Let's return to Syria.
I never said VAZ is better than BMW, if luxury is your concern. If reliability is your concern, even a 1960's Moskvitch is more reliable than any new BMW you can get.
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
10,322
Likes
8,639
Country flag
I never said VAZ is better than BMW, if luxury is your concern. If reliability is your concern, even a 1960's Moskvitch is more reliable than any new BMW you can get.
You're not tired of this foolishness? From where do you know? You no resuuin life did not goon the Moskvich 412. Why do you keep such blind faith in everything RUSSIAN?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
You're not tired of this foolishness? From where do you know? You no resuuin life did not goon the Moskvich 412. Why do you keep such blind faith in everything RUSSIAN?
I am not tired of anything. I own two Soviet made binoculars. Built like a tank. Works fine. Took both to the Himalayas. I also own a Soviet made Lomo camera, again, built like a tank, although my Japanese Yashika was better. Now, I have had my older car towed a few times. One of the tow truck drivers once told me that the BMW is one of the most towed cars in the US. The basic point is, BMWs are very expensive to maintain, and so, many users cannot afford to maintain them, and BMWs break down very frequently. Now, that is German technology for you. Good performance and high luxury - fit for civilian use. For war time, they are duds.
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
10,322
Likes
8,639
Country flag
I am not tired of anything. I own two Soviet made binoculars. Built like a tank. Works fine. Took both to the Himalayas. I also own a Soviet made Lomo camera, again, built like a tank, although my Japanese Yashika was better. Now, I have had my older car towed a few times. One of the tow truck drivers once told me that the BMW is one of the most towed cars in the US. The basic point is, BMWs are very expensive to maintain, and so, many users cannot afford to maintain them, and BMWs break down very frequently. Now, that is German technology for you. Good performance and high luxury - fit for civilian use. For war time, they are duds.
You always live in wartime? I repeat once again:
Military products to the USSR made qualitatively. For the civil sector - go away rubbish. In addition to toys.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
You always live in wartime? I repeat once again:
Military products to the USSR made qualitatively. For the civil sector - go away rubbish. In addition to toys.
Look, what I do or not do should be of little concern, but to relieve your curiosity, I lead my life with some luxuries, and keep my capability at the bare basic required level. So, I don't fear going up in the Rockies in the winter, or drive in the deserts of New Mexico in summer. So, yes, I am a bit of a always-ready-for-hardship kind of a person.

Yes, I agree, in the USSR, military products were very good and the civilian products were mediocre.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
That's important. You're not worth a tank in the garage?
Looks like you are angry. Have some Roshen chocolate and calm down. I am trying to format some news articles. Will join the discussion later.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Russian Navy May Blockade Syrian Rebels; Russian Air Force Owns the Skies
Meanwhile the two-faced Islamist-supporting Turks are cruisin’ for a bruisin’ and the US air force has been told to stay the heck on the ground

(Zero Hedge) | Russia Insider


Russia’s Black Sea fleet is ready to join the action

Last week, NATO’s supreme allied commander for Europe, General Philip Breedlove, suggested that Russia has effectively declared a no-fly zone in Syria.

That contention was supported by Moscow’s rather bold move to effectively instruct the US-led coalition to keep its planes out of the sky starting last Wednesday. Ultimately, The Kremlin has declared a monopoly on Syrian air space for the duration of Russia’s military campaign, marking an epic embarrassment for Washington, and serving notice to the anti-regime forces operating in Syria that there’s a new sheriff in town.

Well, don’t look now, but in addition to the de facto no-fly zone, some experts are out suggesting that Russia is set to use its Black Sea fleet to enforce a blockade on the Syrian coast. Here’s Sputnik:

Russia’s Black Sea Fleet may be used in Syria to blockade the Syrian coastline and deliver armaments, as well as possibly deliver artillery strikes, the head of Russian State Duma’s defense committee and former Black Sea Fleet commander Vladimir Komoyedov said.

“Regarding the large-scale use of the Black Sea Fleet in this operation, I don’t think it will happen, but in terms of a coastal blockade, I think that it’s quite [possible]. The delivery of artillery strikes hasn’t been excluded; the ships are ready for this, but there is no point in it for now. The terrorists are in deep, where the artillery cannot reach,” Komoyedov said.

Komoyedov added that the size of the naval grouping used in the operation will depend on the intensity of the fighting. He noted that currently, the navy’s Mediterranean flotilla is currently sufficient for actions in the given area.

Komoyedov also said that auxiliary vessels will certainly be used in the operation against ISIL to deliver armaments as well as military and technical equipment.

Meanwhile, the aerial bombardment continues unabated as Russian warplanes have reportedly destroyed “a terrorist base in the woods” where tanks - which are ironically Soviet made- were stationed. Here’s RT:

The Russian Air Force in Syria has conducted 25 sorties on 9 Islamic State installations in the last 24 hours, eliminating a disguised terrorist base equipped with tanks, a command center and a communication hub, the Defense Ministry reported.

Russian bombers taking off from Khmeimim airbase knocked out a terrorist base hidden in the woods near the city of Idlib, eliminating 30 vehicles, among which were several Soviet-made T-55 tanks.

“Six airstrikes hit the base, and the terrorists’ equipment was fully destroyed,” Konashenkov said.

And here’s the video which purportedly shows the attack on the hidden ISIS base:


While according to Russian weatherwomen, mother nature is smiling on The Kremlin's efforts (via The Guardian):

It’s warm and sunny in Syria – and conditions are perfect for flying fighter jets and launching airstrikes, according to a weather report broadcast on Russian state television.

“Russian aerospace forces are continuing their operation in Syria. Experts say the timing for it was chosen very well in terms of weather,” said the forecaster in a segment aired on Rossiya 24 on Sunday, standing in front of a screen showing a Sukhoi Su-27 fighter jet with the words “flying weather.”

For those wondering how long it would be before an “accident” took place, “inadvertently” pitting Russian fighter planes against NATO, we got the answer on Monday as Turkey scrambled F-16s to the border after Russia allegedly violated Ankara's air space. Here's a bit of color from BBC:

Russia said the incident was a “navigational error” and that it has “clarified” the matter to Ankara.

Turkish jets patrolling the border were also “harassed” by an unidentified plane on Sunday, Turkey said.

Turkey, a Nato member, has called the Russian strikes a “grave mistake.”

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told Turkish TV that the rules of engagement were clear, whoever violates its airspace.

“The Turkish Armed Forces are clearly instructed. Even if it is a flying bird, it will be intercepted,” he said.

Only, that's not true, because the first time Ankara shoots down a Russian “flying bird”, Erdogan will have a real war on his hands and will swiftly discover that while bombing air force-less Kurdish separatists with impunity is easy, dog fights with Russian fighter pilots are not, and just about the last thing Turkey needs with inflation soaring and the lira tumbling and elections looming is to go to war with Russia.

In any event, the situation is clearly escalating, and as the Russians get more bold with each passing NATO bluff and subsequent fold, the stakes get still higher. As hyperbolic as it may sound, the West is now one Erodgan miscalculation away from open warfare with Russia and Moscow looks to be just days away from enforcing a full naval blockade of what is rapidly becoming a Mid-East Kremlin colony.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
The Smart Weapons Russia is Using in Syria
Reports from Syria confirm the Russians are using weapons as technologically sophisticated as anything the US has

Daniel Fielding | Russia Insider


KAB-500S-E Satellite Guided Bomb Used by the Russians in Syria

More information has come to light on the Russian military deployment in Syria, making it possible to make more accurate assessments.

The size of the force of fixed wing aircraft based at Latakia is confirmed as follows:

  • 4 SU30s
  • 6 SU34s
  • 12 SU24s
  • 12 SU25s

It is confirmed that the helicopter mix consists of MI8 transport helicopters and at least some MI24 helicopter gunships.

The base is receiving supplies from transport aircraft from central Asia, overflying Iran and Iraq. These are AN124 and IL76 transports. It is likely that some equipment is also being shipped to the base by sea, through the naval base at Tartus.

The bulk of the force consists of two squadrons, one of 12 supersonic SU24 strike aircraft, and one of 12 subsonic SU25 aircraft.

The SU24 is a formidable bomb truck. It is capable of carrying 8 tonnes of bombs and missiles, and has the necessary equipment to do so night and day.

It is also fully capable of delivering precision guided bombs (“smart bombs”) and missiles, and - contrary to some reports - is certainly doing so.

The SU24 was designed for very high speed low level strikes, and that is what it appears it is being used for.

The SU25 is a different sort of machine, originally designed to provide aerial ground support for troops in combat.

As a result, unlike the SU24, it is subsonic. Since it is intended to provide ground support for troops, it is designed to stay in the air (“loiter”) over the same location for lengthy periods of time. Since this exposes it to a much higher risk of ground fire, unlike the SU24 it is heavily armoured.

It packs a formidable punch, including a powerful 30 mm cannon, and is able to carry up to 4 tonnes of bombs and missiles.

In its original form the SU25 was an austerely equipped daytime aircraft. The variant used in Syria is however the highly modernised SU25SM version. This is fully capable of night times strikes, and can also deliver precision guided bombs and missiles, and is certainly doing so.

Television film of SU25s taking off from the Latakia airfield show them doing so in darkness, and it is likely that they too have been used for night time strikes.

Obviously the range of both aircraft is reduced if they load up with the full weight of ordnance (bombs and missiles) they can carry. However, with reduced loads, the SU24 has the range to strike anywhere in Syria.

The SU34 is an altogether more advanced aircraft, able to carry 12 tonnes of bombs and missiles, and is capable of both high speed strikes (like the SU24) and ground support (like the SU25). Like the SU25, but unlike the SU24, it is able to loiter, and is heavily armoured. It is of course capable, like the two older aircraft, of night flying.

Shortly after the first attack the US military, predictably enough, claimed the Russian aircraft were flying with only “dumb” or “iron” bombs, i.e. conventional gravity as opposed to guided or “smart” bombs.

The Russians actually produce the same full range of precision guided bombs that the US does. The Russians may have a smaller stock of such bombs than the US, but they certainly have more than enough for the needs of the relatively small-scale campaign underway in Syria.

Smart bombs are in fact simply adaptations of conventional or “iron” bombs, with guidance mechanisms added.

The usual methods of guidance are: laser guidance, TV guidance, and satellite guidance provided by satellites - the latter using many of the same technologies used by the SatNav devices now common in civilian cars.

Satellite guided bombs are often considered the most accurate, and unlike laser and TV guided bombs, can be used at night and in poor weather conditions.

The Russians started producing laser and TV guided kits for their bombs in the 1970s and 1980s, at roughly the same time as the US did.

The Syrian air campaign has now provided conclusive confirmation that they also have satellite guided bombs. The Russians have confirmed their use in precision strikes in the Syrian air campaign.

Russian satellite bombs use the Russian GLONASS satellite system, rather than the US GPS system.

GLONASS is fractionally less accurate in low latitudes than GPS (it is more accurate than GPS in higher latitudes). It is unlikely the difference in accuracy is such as to make any practical difference.


What possibly led to the early claims the Russians were not using smart bombs was film of SU24s and SU25s being loaded with 100 kg or 250 kg bombs.

The Russians - unlike the US - generally do not consider it cost effective to provide guidance to such small bombs, which they mainly use in an anti-personnel role as a follow-up to the first strike, which is more likely to use smart bombs.

All reports of smart bombs being used by the Russians in Syria show these weigh no less than 500 kg.

The 500 kg bombs used so far are in two forms: conventional high-explosive FAB-500 bombs, and concrete-piercing BetAB-500 bombs, which are used against reinforced structures.

The FAB-500 bombs are pure gravity bombs. The BetAB-500 bombs have solid-fuel rocket boosters to give them extra penetration.


When FAB bombs are adapted to smart bombs, the Russians re-designate them KAB bombs (“korrekteeruyemaya aviabomba”).

The 500 kg smart bombs used in Syria are therefore called by the Russians KAB-500s. When these bombs use laser guidance their full designation is KAB-500L. When they use satellite guidance it is KAB-500S-E.

Bombs using both these types of guidance are confirmed as having been used in Syria. TV guided bombs may also have been used, though so far there are no reports of this. Their full designation is KAB-500T.

In addition to these bombs, which are known to have been used, the Russians can also draw on a huge array of other bombs if they want or need to.

The SU24 and SU34 used in the operation are fully capable of carrying much heavier bombs than the 500 kg bombs so far known to have been used.

There are for example known to be smart bomb versions of 1,500 kg bombs - three times heavier than the 500 kg bombs so far used - which could certainly be carried by the SU24s and SU34s. The maximum weight of any single bomb the SU34 can carry is 4,000 kg.

The Russians have even heavier bombs. The heaviest FAB bomb known to exist weighs up to 9,500 kg (i.e. more than 9 tonnes). It was used by the Iraqis to devastating effect in the so-called “War of the Cities” during the Iran-Iraq War.

Use of such monsters would require deployment of much larger and heavier aircraft than those used so far. The aircraft the Russians would use if they decided to use such bombs would be the TU22M supersonic medium bomber.

The air base in Latakia almost certainly cannot support such large aircraft. However, if the decision were taken to use them their deployment in Latakia would be unnecessary. TU22Ms carrying large bombs have the range with inflight refuelling to carry out strikes on Syrian targets from bases in Russia.

So far there is no sign of such heavy aircraft being used, and it seems the Russians have concluded there is no need for them.

A perhaps more likely possibility is use of fuel/air or thermobaric bombs, first used by the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and perfected by the Russians since then.

These bombs - sometimes called “vacuum bombs” - are filled with a high-calorie liquid fuel in place of the usual solid explosive. Their fuse fires at a certain level above the ground, causing the bomb casing to burst, atomising the liquid content as a huge aerosol cloud, which is then ignited by a second detonator. The almost instantaneous combustion of the cloud of fuel mist burns up all the oxygen inside the resulting fireball, creating a vacuum into which the surrounding air rushes in.

The blast effect is said to be like that of a nuclear explosion, though much less powerful.

These are devastating area weapons, capable of causing massive destruction.

The Russians use the designation ODAB for these bombs (“obyomnodetoneeruyushchaya aviabomba” - ‘volume detonation air-dropped bomb’). The smallest versions weigh 500 kg and have the designations ODAB-500P and ODAB-500PM. There are known to be much bigger versions, including the colossal AVBPM, which weighs a monstrous 7,000 kg (7 tonnes) and has a blast effect equivalent to 44 tonnes of TNT, making it the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in existence.

Should any of these bombs appear during the air campaign in Syria, it will mark a dramatic escalation of the campaign.

Gravity bombs are not the only types of precision guided weapons the Russians use. The Russians - in contrast to the US - have in fact consistently shown a strong bias towards favouring air to ground missiles over bombs.

Two types of missiles are known to have been used in Syria, both well suited to the campaign underway there.

The first is the Kh-29 guided missile, which is sometimes compared to the US Maverick. Its warhead (320 kg) is however much heavier (depending on the subtype the Maverick’s warhead ranges from 60 kg to 140 kg).

The Kh-29 is designed for use against larger battlefield targets and infrastructure such as industrial buildings, depots and bridges. It has a range of 10-30 km, depending on the variant, and comes with a variety of guidance systems, including laser, infrared, active radar or TV guidance.

The Russians have confirmed use of the laser guided version of this potent missile during the Syrian campaign - launched probably by SU34 or SU24 aircraft. It is likely other forms of this missile will be used as well.

The other missile that has apparently been seen in use in Syria (though reports of its use are less reliable) is the much simpler S-25L.

This is a shorter ranged missile with a range of 3-8 km, which originated as an unguided rocket that was adapted to laser guidance (there is also said to be another version that uses infrared guidance). It carries a potent warhead of 190 kg. Pictures of this missile published some years ago show that it is capable of being carried by the SU25.

The Russians possess many other air to ground missiles they could deploy in Syria if they were minded to do so.

These include any of the very extensive family of Kh-25 missiles, which are smaller but cheaper than the Kh-29, and which have been produced in very large quantities. All the aircraft present in Syria - the SU34, SU24 and SU25 - can carry these missiles.

The Russians are in the process of replacing their Kh-25 missiles with a new family of more advanced missiles designated Kh-38. These too can be launched by any of the aircraft currently stationed in Syria. There are no reports however of the Russians so far having used these missiles.

In summary, the Russians possess the full range of precision guided weapons (smart bombs and missiles) the US and the Western powers have, and reports from Syria confirm they are using them.

Perhaps they have fewer such weapons than the US does (though there is little in the way of hard evidence of this), and the tactics may differ.

However there is no reason to think the Russian weapons are in any way inferior to those of the US, and the Russians undoubtedly have many more of these weapons than any European air force does (including those of Britain and France).

Certainly the Russians have more than enough of these weapons to see them through the present campaign. Indeed, as we have seen, they have immensely powerful and very sophisticated weapons such as fuel/air bombs they have chosen so far not to use, but which they could use if they chose to. No other power possesses such weapons in such numbers, save for the US.

These weapons are of course only as effective as the personnel who use them, and the surveillance and targeting systems that are needed to make them work.

Of the high level of training of the Russian pilots and ground crews there is no doubt, and film of their operations at the base provided by RT TV confirms this.

Of the surveillance and targeting systems the Russians are using we know far less. The Russians are understandably unwilling to disclose information about these systems.

The Russians are especially secretive about the capabilities of their surveillance drones. There are in fact many reports coming out of Syria of the presence of large numbers of Russian drones there. This is logical, and there is no reason to doubt these reports, and that Russian drones are present in Syria in large numbers.

There would in fact be little point in developing technologically advanced precision guided weapons if the surveillance and targeting systems - including drones - to use them effectively did not exist. There is no doubt the Russians do possess such systems, even if we know little about them. The information about the Russian strikes that is coming out of Syria confirms their effectiveness.

The Russians therefore have all the capabilities they need to sustain or even escalate their bombing campaign for as long as they want to. Indeed they are more than capable of sustaining it indefinitely, if that is what they decide to do.

POSTSCRIPT: After the above was written the Russians confirmed use of two more precision guided weapons in the air campaign.

One is - not surprisingly - the laser guided version of the well-known Kh-25 missile.

The other is a previously little known precision guided bomb, the KAB-250S-E, which uses satellite guidance.

This is a new guided bomb developed originally for use on the new SU T50 fifth generation fighter and strike aircraft, that is now in advanced development.

It seems that the Russians - like the US - have concluded that the pinpoint accuracy provided by satellite guidance makes the development of a small satellite guided 250 kg bomb worthwhile.

This development by the Russians of a 250 kg satellite guided smart bomb provides further confirmation of the underlying point: the Russians have the same range and capabilities in precision guided weapons that the US has. Perennial claims of US superiority in this area are wrong.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Top US and NATO Commanders Admit They Cannot Oppose Russian No-Fly Zone
NATO chieftain says Russia has created a ‘sphere of negation’ which US planes cannot enter

Russia Insider


Russian theatre under total lockdown

This article originally appeared at Fort Russ

American military expert, a former Colonel of the U.S. army Jack Jacobs said that the United States can't interfere with Russians in Syria, as Russia de facto set up a no-fly zone, cutting off access to any aircraft with the help of air defense systems deployed on land and on ships of the Russian navy in the Mediterranean.

In the Saudi paper on Friday, October 2 appeared an interview with former U.S. Colonel Jack Jacobs, who announced that the United States can’t stop the Russians in Syria, as Russia has set up a no-fly zone. This means that any military aircraft entering the combat zone, may be immediately shot down as a threat to the Russian airspace forces.

American sources claim that the Russian Federation with the assistance of deployed land-based air defense systems have established a no-fly zone over the entire airspace of Syria, in addition the approaches to the Russian airbase in Latakia are also closed from the sea to a distance of 100-250 km from the coast by the Russian navy, now conducting exercises in the Mediterranean sea.

Thus, the U.S. and its allies can’t even carry out the air reconnaissance of the Russian Federation forces.

A source in military circles of the American military in Turkey reported that NATO aircraft, trying to get close to the forces of the Russian Federation, has been identified by radar, and the source of the radar could not even be traced.

“The Russians have indicated that they can see everything, and getting closer is not worth it, otherwise it will be shot down,” - said the American military.

“Frankly we were surprised by the air defense system of Russia, most likely there are the latest systems S-400. I have no other ideas,” - said Colonel Jack Jacobs.

About Russians creating a no-fly zone over Syria also writes Bloombeg, citing a senior American military officer. The commander of the NATO forces in Europe General Philip Breedlove said that the new military infrastructure of Russia in Syria, including air defense systems, de facto creates a no-fly zone.

According to Breedlove, Russia has created over Syria,a “sphere of negation,” which American planes can’t enter.

General Breedlove believes that “very complex air defense system” deployed by Russia in Syria is aimed not against the “Islamic state,” which does not have aviation. “They are against someone else,” said the commander of the NATO forces in Europe.

“After several years of discussion in the U.S.of plans to create no-fly zones in Syria to protect the rebels and civilians, appeared Vladimir Putin and in a few days established his own no-fly zone.

In the US the two parties argued for a long time and could not agree, about a no-fly zone, and Putin just went ahead and did it,” sarcastically said the author of the article on Bloomberg.

The Pentagon has admitted the scale of the Russian no-fly zone in Syria, when it began negotiations with Russia on how to avoid conflicts in the conduct of their air operations.

Discussion between the military of the two countries was conducted on October 1 via a closed video channel, and lasted about an hour. On the American side in the negotiations participated the assistant Secretary of Defense for international security Elyssa Slotkin.

“The discussion was devoted to how the U.S. and Russia can cooperate on the prevention of conflict in Syria. Such discussions will continue,” - said following the talks, the official White house spokesman Josh Ernest.

It is also known that Elissa Slotkin expressed in the negotiations concern that Russia is striking not only the militants of the “Islamic state” but other groups of terrorists, which the US considers “moderate opposition to Assad” and supports them.

The response of the representatives of the Russian Defense Ministry is unclear, but apparently, the general sense was that “We can not discriminate between the different shades of ‘crap.’ So we will hammer everyone who shoots at the soldiers of the legitimate government of Syria, at whose request we are here.”

And the Americans had to accept it. Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook said that the U.S. government will not use U.S. air power to protect the “moderate rebels.”

Apparently the “goodwill,” shown by the United States compromising with Russia, is not exactly “good,” but is caused by a complete fiasco of the U.S. armed forces, which in the last 20 years bombed only the ‘Papuans’ and forgot what it was like to deal with real high-tech adversary armed with modern sea and air defense systems.

And now the Americans are just lost because they do not know how to behave with those who are able to realistically fight back.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Russia ‘Violated’ Turkish Airspace Because Turkey Moved Its Border
And as you might expect it was all cooked up by the US


Sukhoi-24SM

Originally appeared at Moon of Alabama

Russian planes in Syria “violated Turkish air space” the news agency currently tell us. But an earlier report shows that this claim may well be wrong and that the U.S. pushes Turkey to release such propaganda.

Reuters (Mon Oct 5, 2015 7:54am BST): Turkey says Russian warplane violated its airspace

A Russian warplane violated Turkish airspace near the Syrian border on Saturday, prompting the Air Force to scramble two F-16 jets to intercept it, the Foreign Ministry said on Monday.

The Foreign Ministry summoned Moscow's ambassador to protest the violation, according to an e-mailed statement. Turkey urged Russia to avoid repeating such a violation, or it would be held “responsible for any undesired incident that may occur.”

AFP (10:20am · 5 Oct 2015): Turkey ‘intercepts’ Russian jet violating its air space

Turkey said on Monday its F-16 jets had at the weekend intercepted a Russian fighter plane which violated Turkish air space near the Syrian border, forcing the aircraft to turn back.

Turkey said on Monday its F-16 jets had at the weekend intercepted a Russian fighter plane which violated Turkish air space near the Syrian border, forcing the aircraft to turn back.
Here now what McClatchy reported on these air space violations in a longer piece several hours before Reuters and AFP reported the Turkish claim:

ISTANBUL - A Russian warplane on a bombing run in Syria flew within five miles of the Turkish border and may have crossed into Turkey’s air space, Turkish and U.S. officials said Sunday.

A Turkish security official said Turkish radar locked onto the Russian aircraft as it was bombing early Friday in al Yamdiyyah, a Syrian village directly on the Turkish border. He said Turkish fighter jets would have attacked had it crossed into Turkish airspace.

But a U.S. military official suggested the incident had come close to sparking an armed confrontation. Reading from a report, he said the Russian aircraft had violated Turkish air space by five miles and that Turkish jets had scrambled, but that the Russian aircraft had returned to Syrian airspace before they could respond.

The Turkish security official said he could not confirm that account.

So it is the U.S., not Turkey, which was first pushing the claims of air space violation and of scrambling fighters. The Turkish source would not confirm that.

But how could it be a real air space violation when Russian planes “flew within five miles of the Turkish border and may have crossed into Turkey’s air space.” The Russian planes were flying in Syrian airspace. They “may have crossed” is like saying that the earth “may be flat.” Well maybe it is, right?

Fact is the Russians fly very near to the border and bomb position of some anti-Syrian fighters Turkey supports. They have good reasons to do so:

The town, in a mountainous region of northern Latakia province, has been a prime route for smuggling people and goods between Turkey and Syria and reportedly has functioned as a key entry for weapons shipped to Syrian rebels by the U.S.-led Friends of Syria group of Western and Middle Eastern countries.

One Russian plane may even indeed have slightly crossed the border while maneuvering. But the real reason why the U.S. military official and Turkey claim the above “violations” is because Turkey unilaterally “moved” the Turkish-Syrian border five miles south:

Turkey has maintained a buffer zone five miles inside Syria since June 2012, when a Syrian air defense missile shot down a Turkish fighter plane that had strayed into Syrian airspace. Under revised rules of engagement put in effect then, the Turkish air force would evaluate any target coming within five miles of the Turkish border as an enemy and act accordingly.
If Syrian rules of engagement would “move” its northern border up to the Black Sea would any plane in eastern Turkey be in violation of Syrian air space? No one would accept such nonsense and that is why no one should accept the U.S.-Turkish bullshit here. Russian planes should not respect the “new” Turkish defined border but only the legitimate one.

It would also be no good reason to start a NATO-Russia war just because such a plane might at times slightly intrude on the Turkish side due to an emergency or other accidental circumstances.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top