The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrei Martyanov Archive
Russia's Stand-Off Capability: The 800 Pound Gorilla in Syria
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_327816998

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Size does matter and so does range and speed whenever anyone talks about weapons. It seems that there is a great deal of confusion which perpetuates itself in regards to a relatively small Russian military contingent in Syria. The most popular indicator of this confusion is a never ending discussion of a possible American attack on the Russian forces in Syria, primarily on the air base Khmeimim. Can such an attack, once one considers the size of forces US can deploy against Russians, succeed in “defeating” them?

This is both a legitimate but also a highly unprofessional question. In fact, there are many people of prominence in the US who apart from considering such a terrifying scenario are actually pushing for it. Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters doesn’t mince words when it comes to attacking Russians; in fact, he is a very straight to the point guy when giving prescriptions on how to fight those Russians: This could spin out of control very, very fast. If it does, we have to win rapidly and decisively — and keep it within Syria.

There is no doubt that Peters and the bunch of US military and political people he represents did partake in the strategic wisdom of the past, from Clausewitz to Moltke to Guderian, but it is here where a seemingly legitimate question on the probability of American success in bombing those nasty Russkies into the stone age at Khmeimim and elsewhere in Syria stops being, well, serious. Of course, US can unleash whatever it has at its conventional disposal at Khmeimim and it will eventually overwhelm whatever the Russians have there, from several SU-35s to S-300s and S-400s and, possibly, make Peters’ wet dream of keeping the whole ordeal confined to Syria very real. This would work, say against anyone’s military contingent except Russia.

At issue here is not the fact that Russia is a nuclear superpower—everyone knows that. Even the most rabid American Russophobes know this and can grasp, however slightly, the concept of their poor dears turning into radioactive ash pretty fast if they do the unthinkable, such as attacking Russia proper with nuclear weapons. Syria, however, is a bit different—the escalation to a nuclear threshold could, indeed, be controlled by those who hold a decisive advantage conventionally. At issue here is the fact of conventional war—a precise type of a conflict US military prided itself on for the last 30+ years, boasting of being able to handle any kind of adversary.

In the foundation of this, rather overly assertive approach, the self-assurance was the real and not so real advantage of the US in stand-off weapons. Aggression against Yugoslavia showed the US military could overwhelm the air-defense of a nation such as Serbia fairly fast and from distances far beyond the reach of its obsolete air defenses. There were Tomahawk cruise missiles, which were launched at Serbia in thousands and which rendered her air defense almost useless after the first couple of weeks of incessant bombing.

But here is the problem for the US: Russia can take this hypothetical conventional conflict well beyond Syria any time it wants and I am not talking about other strategic theaters, such as Ukraine, where Russia can “compensate” for a hypothetical “defeat” in Syria. The reason for this is purely technological—Russia can go tit-for-tat conventionally in Syria and anywhere in the Middle East. In fact, the Russian military has in its possession the most advanced arsenal of High Precision stand-off weapons which have been demonstrated in action for the whole world to see.

This is what makes the whole talk about “defeating” the Russian contingent in Syria very amateurish. War is much more than some shoot-out between belligerents, the war starts in the operational rooms and political offices well before any shot is fired. If the Russian contingent in Syria had been deployed there say in 2005, there would have been no problem in imagining Ralph Peters’ scenario. But it is not 2005 and an 800 pound gorilla, which many continue to ignore, in the room is Russia’s stand-off capability—it is simply much better than the American one and it opens an operational door, in case of a hypothetical conventional attack on Kheimim, for a massive retaliation against any US asset in the region.

Yesterday, in the wake of the death of Lieutenant General Asapov in Syria, allegedly with some “help” from the so called Coalition in the vicinity of the liberated Deir-ez-Zor, Russia’s strategic aviation launched long-range stealthy X-101 cruise missiles at ISIS targets in Syria. There is nothing new now in Russia’s using 5,500+ kilometer range cruise missile, nor is there news any more for the Russian Navy being able to launch 2,500+ kilometer range 3M14 of Kalibr family from anywhere in the Eastern Mediterranean or the Caspian Sea. These are ranges which are simply beyond the reach of any stand-off weapon in US arsenal with Tomahawk TLAM-A Block II having the maximum range of around 2,500 kilometers while TLAM Block IV, currently being most produced variety, having the range of 1,600 kilometers.

Raytheon says that these missiles are capable of loitering and that Tomahawk would be able to hit moving targets. It is all fine and dandy but the key is range and precision and here the US is not in the leading position to put it mildly. Range gives an unprecedented operational flexibility and yesterday’s launch from Russian Tu-95 Bears strategic bombers had a very serious message—not in terms of X-101′s range, even longer range cruise missiles are getting ready for procurement, with ranges in 10,000 kilometers vicinity. The message was in the fact that missiles were launched from Iranian and Iraqi aerospace. They didn’t have to do so, this could have been easily done from the area of the Caspian Sea. But Bears launched while being escorted in Iranian aerospace by Su-30s and Su-35s of Russian Air Space Forces and that, apart from obvious hint at Russian full capability to reach any US ground asset in the area, provided some ominous signs.

Iran knows for sure that should the unthinkable but not improbable happen, such as an American attack on the Russian forces in Syria, Iran will not be left standing on the side—she gets immediately “involved” whether she wants it or not. So, the logic goes, why not make the best of it when all bets, other than nuclear, will be off. Iran may as well have Russian forces on her side and in her airspace, which, obviously helps significantly. But that also opens another serious operational possibility in case of a real conventional conflict in the area between Russia and the US—a scenario Neocons, due to their military illiteracy and overall detachment from the strategic reality, are dreaming about. Putting inevitable emotions aside and looking at the factual side of things, Russia’s Military Doctrine since 2010, reaffirmed in 2014 Edition, views the use of stand-off High Precision as a key in strategic force containment, as Article 26 of a doctrine clearly states. Russia doesn’t want war with the US, but if push comes to shove Russia is totally capable of not only reaching US ground assets, such as CENTCOM’s Qatar forward installation but, what is even more significant, also the naval ones in the Persian Gulf.

Apart from 66 long-range strategic bombers, the Tu-160s and Tu-95s, Russia has at her disposal more than 100 TU-22M3 bombers many of which are capable of both inflight refueling and of carrying a rather intimidating weapon—the X-32 (Kh-32) cruise missile whose range is 1000 kilometers and the speed is in excess of Mach 4.2. This missile, apart from being able to attack anything on the ground, is capable in fact was designed primarily for the purpose, of hitting anything moving on the surface of the sea. The missile, let alone a salvo of those, is incredibly difficult if possible at all to intercept and as yesterday’s demonstration showed, Iran, most likely would have no problem with allowing these very TU-22M3s to operate from her airspace in case of the worst case scenario. Launched anywhere from Darab area the salvo will not only cover all of a Persian Gulf but will reliably close off Gulf of Oman for any naval force. No ship, no Carrier Battle Group will be able to enter this area in case of a conventional conflict with Russia in Syria—the strategic ramifications of this are enormous. Even the salvo of 3M14s from Caspian Sea on October 7, 2015 made such an impression that USS Theodore Roosevelt and her CBG almost immediately left the Gulf.

Moreover, this simple, single operational fact shows precisely why for two years a relatively small Russian military contingent has been able to operate so effectively in Syria and, in fact, dictate conditions on the ground and in the area of its operations. The answer is simple—many adrenaline junkies are lowered in a cage into the water to face sharks, with only metal rods separating them and sharks’ deadly jaws. Yet, up there, in the boat one can always put a man with a gun which can be used in case of emergency to a deadly effect should the cage give. The Russian military contingent in Syria is not just some military base—it is the force tightly integrated with Russian Armed Forces that have enough reach and capability to make anyone face some extremely unpleasant choices, including the fact that it is Russia, not the US, who controls escalation to a threshold and that can explain a non-stop anti-Russian hysteria in US media since the outcome of the war in Syria became clear. Let us only hope that all described above remains merely speculation and has no basis in real life—if those scenarios do not become reality, it is all for the better.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Iran, Russia, Syria 
Hide 217 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Randal says:

    From your lips to the ears of the US military regime, we must hope.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/russia-the-800-pound-gorilla/#comment-2022768
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Ron Unz says:

    In support of the strategic thesis advanced in this important article, I seem to recall that the original Russian military intervention in Syria was accompanied by a volley of ultra-long-range cruise missiles, whose capabilities greatly surprised American military analysts.

    At the time, such a high-tech attack on ISIS positions seemed rather cost-ineffective to me, but presumably a major purpose was to dissuade America (and Israel) from considering any future attack on what was a rather small and isolated Russian expeditionary force.

    Also, since Russia, Iran, and Iraq have become de facto allies in the Syria War, I’d think that the use of Iranian and Iraqi airspace as the launch point for the latest bombardment is also meant to raise much greater doubts in Trump’s military advisors about the huge risks in any future attack against Iran or attempt to forcefully renegotiate the existing nuclear treaty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    I believe it occurred even earlier, when a Russian warship intercepted an exploratory volley of cruise missiles fired from either a US or Israeli vessel and aimed at targets inside Syria.

    A few days later, a Syria-based Russian AA unit downed a Turkish fighter probing Syrian air defenses.
    , @Eagle Eye
    Thank you, Mr. Unz, for bringing these items - which are of fundamental strategic importance - to a wider public.

    Just found that the Russians actually released a video of the October 2015 cruise missile launches from the Caspian Sea.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/oct/07/russia-launches-missiles-on-isis-from-caspian-sea-video

    , @reiner Tor
    At the time I thought it was just a sales pitch for Russian arms exports, but this explanation also makes sense.
    , @Randal

    At the time, such a high-tech attack on ISIS positions seemed rather cost-ineffective to me, but presumably a major purpose was to dissuade America (and Israel) from considering any future attack on what was a rather small and isolated Russian expeditionary force.
     
    Clearly it made no sense in a tactical military sense to use cruise missiles when straightforward air attack was available, and the use of the Kalibrs in October 2015 was certainly motivated as a demonstration of capability. To what degree it was a warning to potential enemies (the US regime, Israel and the Gulf states, obviously, but also remember at the time still Turkey, though that brief hostility seems to have been managed out of existence, helped by the US turning to the Kurds as their proxies in Syria, since then), as opposed to a marketing pitch (the Russians have been selling export versions of these missiles for many years) is open to question - probably both.

    The issue is not so much the possession of cruise missiles - the Soviets had nuclear armed Tomahawk equivalents back in the 1980s, and it's always been assumed that those (the air and sea launched ones, anyway) were repurposed as conventionally armed missiles. It's having them, along with deployable launchers, in numbers and proving that they work reliably that was the issue. There's an understandable post-Soviet tendency in the US sphere to discount Russian capabilities in terms of high tech weapons. And in order to use cruise missiles in the way Martyanov describes here - basically as a base-denial weapon against a peer rival - you need plenty of them. To hit a US base and render it unusable with conventionally armed weapons, you have to hit it accurately and you have to hit it multiple times, evading or overloading the defences and counter-measures. To take out a carrier, you have to locate the target first, and then beat the counter-measures to hit it at least once and preferably several times, though one hit could be a mission kill. And in the case of the land base, you have to be able to do it again a few days later, and keep hitting it.

    So the Russians, with their repeated uses of cruise missiles and the introduction of more modern and potentially significantly more capable missiles that Martyanov refers to, have been building a credible case that the US can no longer count on escalation superiority in Syria to protect them.

    , @One Tribe
    First of all, thank you Andrei Martyanov for the very informative analysis/article.
    Also, thank you Ron Unz for this supporting addendum.

    I am very much interested in further information concerning the U.S. military establishments seeming (increasingly alluded to) weak assessment/intelligence of Russian military capability, especially armaments.

    Iraq is going to be a topic of (likely dramatically) increasing heat and attention (in the uncensored press which reports on the issues that are the most important to everyone alive, like this web site).
    The 'referendum' in the Kurdish dominated area of Iraq will make the 24 month long reverse polarization of Turkey (from NATO/US partner to Russian partner) look like an indecisive epic.

    If anyone thought the 'war' in Iraq was going poorly for the Americans before, 'they ain't seen nothing yet'! Also, the passing the point of no return for Turkey; they've had enough lies and disingenuous promises from the Euroangangstas; their future association to the U.S. and (western) Europe will be exclusively from the Eurasian-centric multi-polar world perspective, under which they will prosper as well or better than they ever have before.

    Iraq is a country, in which, even the most pro-American Iraqis (outside of the Kurdish dominated region), will, at this very moment (2017.09.28.17h03 NA EDT) be 100% deciding that they have been screwed! And not very nicely, at that.

    With all of this Russiaphobia (let us not forget that this emanating as a deflection from the revelations a corrupt candidate who was cheating to win a party's nomination for the U.S. presidential candidate), it is highly politically incorrect to reference how far ahead V. Putin's geopolitical movement is compared to the west, especially the civil war crippled U.S.A..

    One can see so much thoughtfulness and 'communication' in the completely unnecessary flight path, through Iraq of the bombers delivering their payloads.
    In fact, it could be the most telling aspect of the entire operation!

    Iraq is lost to the western empire.
    Unfortunately, the response to on-ground western-empire supported aggression in the Kurdish-dominated region of Iraq, and likely in other Kurdish dominated middle eastern regions (outside of Iran), will like be decisive and therefore brutal (but, alas, understandable).

    , @eirzl
    Agree. Don't know for sure, but having operated in that military-legislative influence sphere for a time, I'd almost guarantee that this $700B defense increase was driven by the "surprise" effectiveness of Russian weapons systems. I'd bet that it's almost exclusively an RDTE increase on top of the ongoing O&M war fighting (re: imperial) budget structure of the last 15 years. It's been zero sum between those two categories, but I suspect now that's no longer the case.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Advanced Russian cruise missiles–or at least should not be news to military planners.

    They were well known in Cold War times and discussed in Western defense publications such as Jane’s.

    The entire purpose of the failed F-111B and its replacement, the F-14, was to keep Soviet maritime bombers and their deadly cruise missiles as far away from the fleet as possible. A lesson obviously forgotten since the end of the Cold War.

    The existence of advanced military technology in Russia (or, really, anywhere outside of America) does appear to surprise American civilian leaders however, few of whom have any military expertise these days.

    The real question: how many working cruise missiles does Russia have in inventory? If Soviet stocks still exist the answer could be quite a lot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Advanced Russian cruise missiles–or at least should not be news to military planners.
     
    Second generation Anti-Shipping Missiles, starting from Malakhyt and ending with P-700 Granit are not news since 1980s. We are talking about latest generation of high precision land and surface attack weapons which make all previous Soviet weapons obsolete and look like amateurs. 3M14 and X-101 are a new word in TLAMs which, apart from Inertial, GLONASS and TERCOM guidance use other quirky things and, again--nothing was produced ever with combat range of 5,500+ kilometers. None. You are talking about mostly anti-shipping missiles. Among them today only P-1000 Voulkans are retained on old Missile Cruisers of Slava-class and P-700 Granits (NATO: SS-N-19 Shipwreck) carried by some Project 949A (Oscar-II class) SSGNs and Cruiser Peter The Great--most of those will be removed (some are being as I type it) and will have new generation of: P-800 Onyx, 3M54 Kalibr family and 3M22 Zircon hyper-sonic missiles installed. X-32 also is already fully operational for strategic aviation. Those are game changers. Once Mach=8 capable 3M22 Zircon comes on-line, it is pretty much over for the naval warfare as we know it. Real American military professionals know it, others only sense it.
    , @Kiza

    The existence of advanced military technology in Russia (or, really, anywhere outside of America) does appear to surprise American civilian leaders however, few of whom have any military expertise these days.
     
    Two separate illusions are to blame for not understanding the foreign, or particularly Russian military capability:
    1) the US population in general has been brainwashed that US is the technologically the most advanced country in the World; this may be true in many areas but it is far from being true in all areas, and
    2) the US population and its leaders believe that military superiority, especially the one based on technology, is proportional to the budget, which is totally non-sensical; it may be true within US, although the mergers of the MIC companies have reduced the competition to only a few, but it definitely does not apply even to the comparison with the efficiency of spending military funds even by Western allies of US, let alone to Russia and China.

    My top of the envelope estimate is that Russia spends its military budget about five times more efficiently than US, and about three times more efficiently than the EU/NATO allies of US. China is very similar, possibly even slightly more efficient than Russia. BTW, this efficiency is only partly due to lower labor costs, but this is a discussion which I had with Andrei before.
    , @Carroll Price
    Who's fooling who? What does it tell you about Russian military technology when the US can't put a weather satellite in orbit without first purchasing a Russian-built rocket engine?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. @Thorfinnsson
    Advanced Russian cruise missiles--or at least should not be news to military planners.

    They were well known in Cold War times and discussed in Western defense publications such as Jane's.

    The entire purpose of the failed F-111B and its replacement, the F-14, was to keep Soviet maritime bombers and their deadly cruise missiles as far away from the fleet as possible. A lesson obviously forgotten since the end of the Cold War.

    The existence of advanced military technology in Russia (or, really, anywhere outside of America) does appear to surprise American civilian leaders however, few of whom have any military expertise these days.

    The real question: how many working cruise missiles does Russia have in inventory? If Soviet stocks still exist the answer could be quite a lot.

    Advanced Russian cruise missiles–or at least should not be news to military planners.

    Second generation Anti-Shipping Missiles, starting from Malakhyt and ending with P-700 Granit are not news since 1980s. We are talking about latest generation of high precision land and surface attack weapons which make all previous Soviet weapons obsolete and look like amateurs. 3M14 and X-101 are a new word in TLAMs which, apart from Inertial, GLONASS and TERCOM guidance use other quirky things and, again–nothing was produced ever with combat range of 5,500+ kilometers. None. You are talking about mostly anti-shipping missiles. Among them today only P-1000 Voulkans are retained on old Missile Cruisers of Slava-class and P-700 Granits (NATO: SS-N-19 Shipwreck) carried by some Project 949A (Oscar-II class) SSGNs and Cruiser Peter The Great–most of those will be removed (some are being as I type it) and will have new generation of: P-800 Onyx, 3M54 Kalibr family and 3M22 Zircon hyper-sonic missiles installed. X-32 also is already fully operational for strategic aviation. Those are game changers. Once Mach=8 capable 3M22 Zircon comes on-line, it is pretty much over for the naval warfare as we know it. Real American military professionals know it, others only sense it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Pardon the pun, but converting anti-ship missiles into land attack missiles doesn't sound like rocket science.

    Even if the Soviet Union didn't have advanced land-attack cruise missiles in the 80s, it should still have been obvious to anyone that their anti-ship missiles could be developed into land attack missiles.

    We're really just talking about a different guidance package, and depending on the sensors involved that can be as simple as a software change. GLONASS began to enter service in 1982, and the first test of a satellite guided bomb was conducted in 1993. Any idiot should've been able to put two and two together here, and at least some Western writers have been warning about increasingly sophisticated Russian weapons for more than a decade.

    Whether or not anti-ship missiles make surface warships obsolete I do not know. My hunch is certainly yes (and the future obsolescence of surface warships was predicted already before the war), but this is one of those things we won't truly know until we see it done.

    For that matter I'm not sure that hypersonic missiles are game changers for naval warfare...presumably one could simply saturate any naval task force with cheaper subsonic missiles and overwhelm defenses. If none of the of the ships in the task force have low frequency radars, stealth aircraft could drop laser guided bombs right down the blind stack directly on top of warships. A 2,000 pound high explosive bomb would sink more or less any warship afloat today. The Australian theorist Carlo Kopp proposed this for the F-22 as part of his pet cause to get his country to acquire F-22s.

    It has long struck me as idiotic that modern surface warships are largely unarmored, and I also find it curious how few CIWS Western warships have compared to Russian ones.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @Ron Unz
    In support of the strategic thesis advanced in this important article, I seem to recall that the original Russian military intervention in Syria was accompanied by a volley of ultra-long-range cruise missiles, whose capabilities greatly surprised American military analysts.

    At the time, such a high-tech attack on ISIS positions seemed rather cost-ineffective to me, but presumably a major purpose was to dissuade America (and Israel) from considering any future attack on what was a rather small and isolated Russian expeditionary force.

    Also, since Russia, Iran, and Iraq have become de facto allies in the Syria War, I'd think that the use of Iranian and Iraqi airspace as the launch point for the latest bombardment is also meant to raise much greater doubts in Trump's military advisors about the huge risks in any future attack against Iran or attempt to forcefully renegotiate the existing nuclear treaty.

    I believe it occurred even earlier, when a Russian warship intercepted an exploratory volley of cruise missiles fired from either a US or Israeli vessel and aimed at targets inside Syria.

    A few days later, a Syria-based Russian AA unit downed a Turkish fighter probing Syrian air defenses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheJester
    Your sources, please.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. What nations need to develop is the satellite missile system. Load a satellite with huge bombs, missiles, and even nukes. Send them into space and fly them over enemy nations. And if a nation attacks you, bomb it from the satellite. Like in Bubblegum Crisis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yeah
    "What nations need to develop is the satellite missile system. Load a satellite with huge bombs, missiles, and even nukes. Send them into space and fly them over enemy nations. And if a nation attacks you, bomb it from the satellite. Like in Bubblegum Crisis. "

    Wish, hope, and pray that such "progress" never comes about. By the time I came to your allusion to bubblegum crisis, my heart was already pounding at this horror of horrors, at this mad scramble to effect mass human extinction. Some things should never ever be joked about, even in this age when no holies are left. Peace.
    , @Talha
    Wow - if it comes to that, I believe the crisis would have well expanded beyond just bubble gum - I would imagine lollipops and cotton candy would also be in peril!!!

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. From last year but still relevant.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG

    As bad as that is, isn’t Russia even more corrupt?

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I think that you are in the US and so you should be familiar with the phrase, follow the money. That the US outspends the rest of the planet combined on its military yet it nevertheless always seems to be lacking whenever and wherever it flexes its "muscle", and that the Russians seem to spend quite a bit less by orders of magnitude and yet still produce cutting edge weaponry, as it certainly appears to, should answer your question for you.
    , @Wally
    Got proof?
    , @Rabbitnexus
    No. You're thinking about the former Soviet Union. Russia is not the same thing. Also no, the USA military exists for no other purpose than profit making. It is the most corrupt on earth by its definition. The pentagon pays thousands of dollars for a bolt which exists with the same part number in a GM catalogue for less than ten dollars. That was years old but typical of the utter joke the US military is. Did we forget the 6 trillion dollars the Pentagon lost the day before 9/11 in 2001? Or the more recent announcement of a similar amount LOST? Nobody else even has a budget the size of the missing money in the US one.
    , @Anonymous
    Russia is very corrupt in some ways - but it has cleaned up on the military side. Remember that the US is only less corrupt because we define lobbying to be legal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. yeah says:
    @Priss Factor
    What nations need to develop is the satellite missile system. Load a satellite with huge bombs, missiles, and even nukes. Send them into space and fly them over enemy nations. And if a nation attacks you, bomb it from the satellite. Like in Bubblegum Crisis.

    https://youtu.be/I5Ck0pfyG9o?t=23m

    “What nations need to develop is the satellite missile system. Load a satellite with huge bombs, missiles, and even nukes. Send them into space and fly them over enemy nations. And if a nation attacks you, bomb it from the satellite. Like in Bubblegum Crisis. ”

    Wish, hope, and pray that such “progress” never comes about. By the time I came to your allusion to bubblegum crisis, my heart was already pounding at this horror of horrors, at this mad scramble to effect mass human extinction. Some things should never ever be joked about, even in this age when no holies are left. Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Trump will slaughter the Russians in Syria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    And OJ is innocent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @Priss Factor
    From last year but still relevant.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG

    As bad as that is, isn't Russia even more corrupt?

    I think that you are in the US and so you should be familiar with the phrase, follow the money. That the US outspends the rest of the planet combined on its military yet it nevertheless always seems to be lacking whenever and wherever it flexes its “muscle”, and that the Russians seem to spend quite a bit less by orders of magnitude and yet still produce cutting edge weaponry, as it certainly appears to, should answer your question for you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. peterAUS says:

    Read the article.

    Interesting.

    Say it’s all true. So what?

    MAD was assured during Cold War.So what? Soviet/Warsaw Pact was superior in conventional capability then NATO. So what? The end result was dissolution of not only Warsaw Pact but Soviet Union itself.

    And that’s precisely what’s going on here. Not an all out war with Russia. I mean, it can happen but neither party would want it. If it happens it will be one of those “oh SHIT!” moments. Anyway.

    The purpose of war in Syria, from US (OK…Zionist Empire/whatever) point is ongoing chaos in that region. Chaos……in…………that…………region.

    Russia can not make that chaos go away. Or if it can, well….fine. I just don’t see it.

    All this missiles/high tech/who has a bigger dick thing is …….just…….irrelevant.

    The Professor is doing a fine job of spinning positive image on that General (and some other people) death here and that’s fine. Not a bad job.

    But the game which killed the General will go on. And on……..and on…..and it won’t be solved by advanced missiles and what not.

    Russia is in Syria to prop its strategic ally and keep the presence there. The presence there is the objective.

    Russia can keep the presence—–US (yes..sorry..Zionist Empire) will maintain chaos. Both winners.

    Military personnel on both sides will keep being killed and mutilated. Part of the job. High tech assassinations and just bad luck.

    And Islamists from all over the world will keep fulfilling their destiny.

    The Syrians, though………..mice and elephants.

    Long term goal for US…I meant Zionist Empire, is weakening the regime in Moscow and executing a regime change. Long term goal for Russia is enduring and waiting/hoping for US..umph…Zionist Empire implosion.

    All fine. Unless one is a Syrian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Nowadays the US and the little Israeli boys don't do well when they suffer even relatively few deaths, casualties.

    The US / Israeli "embedded" media might not publish many pictures of military coffins anymore, but the loss of an entire base or aircraft carrier to Russian attack could not be overlooked.

    , @unit472
    Indeed, high tech ( and expensive) weaponry is almost useless against groups like the Taliban or ISIS. Unless you are willing to wage a Mosul type campaign and slaughter civilians on an industrial scale rooting out bands of armed brigands requires infantry. A $ 10 million drone firing a $100,000 missile may take out a terrorist 'leader' but these guys are not indispensable. OTOH some guy driving a car or wearing a suicide vest can take out a whole bunch of highly trained military professionals.
    , @Vidi

    The purpose of war in Syria, from US (OK…Zionist Empire/whatever) point is ongoing chaos in that region. Chaos……in…………that…………region. Russia can not make that chaos go away.
     
    Chaos has a bad habit of expanding and can be extremely bloody and difficult to control; see the Thirty Years War. Does Israel really want to risk this in the country next door?
    , @Frankie P
    You miss the more immediate goal of the Anglozionist Empire, namely the prevention of the Shia Crescent becoming a stable and calm area, protected and strengthened by well-trained, battle-hardened, united forces, including of course the SAA, Iran, the Iraqi militias, and Hezzbollah. For although as you mentioned the Zionist narcissistic great evil and its Yinon Plan to destabilize the entire Middle East / North Africa has long been a goal, we see once again that reality presents them having bitten off more than they could chew, and actions like the Iraq War, a neocon feast of overconfidence and bluster, ended up strengthening the true resistance, the true danger to their regional hegemonic plans. They doubled down, as psychopathic narcissists are prone to do, in Syria, and the resulting action by a stronger and more aggressive Russia has shone the light on the folly of their ways. The resistance has now become The Resistance, and with America's continuing belligerence pushing Russia and China ever closer, we will soon be calling it THE RESISTANCE.

    Frankie P
    , @bb.

    Russia can not make that chaos go away. Or if it can, well….fine. I just don’t see it.
     
    TBH i don't realistically see it either, but if you think about it, it's kind of a win win situation for them anyways. My thinking goes like this (correct me pls if I am off)

    If Russia can stabilize the region on the helm of a coalition of Iran-Iraq-semiTurkey(bc. you never know what the turk will do) it would achieve a massive win in the trade war against the petrodollar. (Meanwhile China is making moves in Africa to secure the pipelines)

    If Russia fails to stabilize the region, it would mean rising oil prices, which again, is free money for them in the medium term.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Nobody voted for Trump to advocate a dreamer amnesty, and nobody voted for Trump to continue the neocon’s foreign policy. So right now Trump has two big black marks against him. I hope Trump can be convinced to back off from his military brinkmanship but with the generals in his administration I am not optimistic. Russia is on the right side of the Syrian conflict.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    It is likely that President Trump is unaware of the NeoCon hijinks in Syria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Wally says:
    @Priss Factor
    From last year but still relevant.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG

    As bad as that is, isn't Russia even more corrupt?

    Got proof?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Wally says: • Website
    @peterAUS
    Read the article.

    Interesting.

    Say it's all true. So what?

    MAD was assured during Cold War.So what? Soviet/Warsaw Pact was superior in conventional capability then NATO. So what? The end result was dissolution of not only Warsaw Pact but Soviet Union itself.

    And that's precisely what's going on here. Not an all out war with Russia. I mean, it can happen but neither party would want it. If it happens it will be one of those "oh SHIT!" moments. Anyway.

    The purpose of war in Syria, from US (OK...Zionist Empire/whatever) point is ongoing chaos in that region. Chaos......in............that............region.

    Russia can not make that chaos go away. Or if it can, well....fine. I just don't see it.

    All this missiles/high tech/who has a bigger dick thing is .......just.......irrelevant.

    The Professor is doing a fine job of spinning positive image on that General (and some other people) death here and that's fine. Not a bad job.

    But the game which killed the General will go on. And on........and on.....and it won't be solved by advanced missiles and what not.

    Russia is in Syria to prop its strategic ally and keep the presence there. The presence there is the objective.

    Russia can keep the presence-----US (yes..sorry..Zionist Empire) will maintain chaos. Both winners.

    Military personnel on both sides will keep being killed and mutilated. Part of the job. High tech assassinations and just bad luck.

    And Islamists from all over the world will keep fulfilling their destiny.

    The Syrians, though...........mice and elephants.

    Long term goal for US...I meant Zionist Empire, is weakening the regime in Moscow and executing a regime change. Long term goal for Russia is enduring and waiting/hoping for US..umph...Zionist Empire implosion.

    All fine. Unless one is a Syrian.

    Nowadays the US and the little Israeli boys don’t do well when they suffer even relatively few deaths, casualties.

    The US / Israeli “embedded” media might not publish many pictures of military coffins anymore, but the loss of an entire base or aircraft carrier to Russian attack could not be overlooked.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. unit472 says:
    @peterAUS
    Read the article.

    Interesting.

    Say it's all true. So what?

    MAD was assured during Cold War.So what? Soviet/Warsaw Pact was superior in conventional capability then NATO. So what? The end result was dissolution of not only Warsaw Pact but Soviet Union itself.

    And that's precisely what's going on here. Not an all out war with Russia. I mean, it can happen but neither party would want it. If it happens it will be one of those "oh SHIT!" moments. Anyway.

    The purpose of war in Syria, from US (OK...Zionist Empire/whatever) point is ongoing chaos in that region. Chaos......in............that............region.

    Russia can not make that chaos go away. Or if it can, well....fine. I just don't see it.

    All this missiles/high tech/who has a bigger dick thing is .......just.......irrelevant.

    The Professor is doing a fine job of spinning positive image on that General (and some other people) death here and that's fine. Not a bad job.

    But the game which killed the General will go on. And on........and on.....and it won't be solved by advanced missiles and what not.

    Russia is in Syria to prop its strategic ally and keep the presence there. The presence there is the objective.

    Russia can keep the presence-----US (yes..sorry..Zionist Empire) will maintain chaos. Both winners.

    Military personnel on both sides will keep being killed and mutilated. Part of the job. High tech assassinations and just bad luck.

    And Islamists from all over the world will keep fulfilling their destiny.

    The Syrians, though...........mice and elephants.

    Long term goal for US...I meant Zionist Empire, is weakening the regime in Moscow and executing a regime change. Long term goal for Russia is enduring and waiting/hoping for US..umph...Zionist Empire implosion.

    All fine. Unless one is a Syrian.

    Indeed, high tech ( and expensive) weaponry is almost useless against groups like the Taliban or ISIS. Unless you are willing to wage a Mosul type campaign and slaughter civilians on an industrial scale rooting out bands of armed brigands requires infantry. A $ 10 million drone firing a $100,000 missile may take out a terrorist ‘leader’ but these guys are not indispensable. OTOH some guy driving a car or wearing a suicide vest can take out a whole bunch of highly trained military professionals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. peterAUS says:

    the loss of an entire base or aircraft carrier to Russian attack could not be overlooked.

    Yeah……

    That….idea……..seems somehow popular around.

    So, what do you think, what could be the next steps in that play?
    Just out of curiosity.

    Anyone else is welcome to chime in.

    Say
    “Loss of an entire base or aircraft carrier to Russian attack”.

    What happens next?

    Oh, BTW, maybe irrelevant, but I do remember Cold War “war games”.

    Go ahead, please…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frankie P
    Nuclear Armageddon would be the short answer.
    , @The Alarmist

    "Say
    “Loss of an entire base or aircraft carrier to Russian attack”.

    What happens next?

    Oh, BTW, maybe irrelevant, but I do remember Cold War “war games”.
     
    Polo Hat seems like the most likely analogue for the response.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. unit472 says:

    Sinking a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier has not yet been done. They are pretty resilient ships and unless you can catch them with their decks full of fueled and armed aircraft as happened to the Japanese at Midway or hole them with torpedoes they tend to stay afloat even after being hit with conventional explosives.

    The Forrestal survived multiple detonations and explosions on its flight deck back in 1967 though over 100 sailors died. Smaller US WW2 era carriers survived direct hits from Kamikazi attacks so it is one thing to knock them out of action but another to sink them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Sinking a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier has not yet been done.
     
    And hopefully will not be done in the future--let's keep our fingers crossed.

    The Forrestal survived multiple detonations and explosions on its flight deck back in 1967 though over 100 sailors died
     
    Tragic scenario which still rendered USS Forrestal nonoperational. But then again: E=(mv^2)/2 . If to discount explosives, kinetic energy alone of Mach=3 (not to mention Mach=7+) of a single missile will surpass anything what Forestall or, for that matter, USS Enterprise endured in 1969. But here we get into the main issue of "leaker" and this is the problem which any US naval air defense system is not capable of solving. You may read more on the issue on US Naval Institute written by me.

    https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/08/28/aircraft-carriers-drama
    , @Talha
    Hey unit472,

    one thing to knock them out of action but another to sink them
     
    A carrier with an inoperable flight deck is pretty much a floating slab of metal (other than being a communication point for command and control) - am I right? I've not read of any aircraft carriers loaded with offensive weapons like surface-to-air missiles, cannons, etc.

    If so, it's totally unnecessary to put all the effort into sinking the damn thing other than as a morale-crippling move.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Check out this article and video of a Russian cruise missile launch, hitting ISIS targets a thousand miles away. Very impressive. This was from the Deir al-Zor operation from a few weeks ago. In the comments section there is dispute as to weather the USN has this same vertical launch system capability (launch rate).

    VIDEO: Russian Frigate Fires 3 Cruise Missiles on ISIS Targets in Syria

    https://news.usni.org/2017/09/05/video-russian-frigate-fires-3-cruise-missiles-isis-targets-syria

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Eagle Eye says:
    @Ron Unz
    In support of the strategic thesis advanced in this important article, I seem to recall that the original Russian military intervention in Syria was accompanied by a volley of ultra-long-range cruise missiles, whose capabilities greatly surprised American military analysts.

    At the time, such a high-tech attack on ISIS positions seemed rather cost-ineffective to me, but presumably a major purpose was to dissuade America (and Israel) from considering any future attack on what was a rather small and isolated Russian expeditionary force.

    Also, since Russia, Iran, and Iraq have become de facto allies in the Syria War, I'd think that the use of Iranian and Iraqi airspace as the launch point for the latest bombardment is also meant to raise much greater doubts in Trump's military advisors about the huge risks in any future attack against Iran or attempt to forcefully renegotiate the existing nuclear treaty.

    Thank you, Mr. Unz, for bringing these items – which are of fundamental strategic importance – to a wider public.

    Just found that the Russians actually released a video of the October 2015 cruise missile launches from the Caspian Sea.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/oct/07/russia-launches-missiles-on-isis-from-caspian-sea-video

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Vidi says:
    @peterAUS
    Read the article.

    Interesting.

    Say it's all true. So what?

    MAD was assured during Cold War.So what? Soviet/Warsaw Pact was superior in conventional capability then NATO. So what? The end result was dissolution of not only Warsaw Pact but Soviet Union itself.

    And that's precisely what's going on here. Not an all out war with Russia. I mean, it can happen but neither party would want it. If it happens it will be one of those "oh SHIT!" moments. Anyway.

    The purpose of war in Syria, from US (OK...Zionist Empire/whatever) point is ongoing chaos in that region. Chaos......in............that............region.

    Russia can not make that chaos go away. Or if it can, well....fine. I just don't see it.

    All this missiles/high tech/who has a bigger dick thing is .......just.......irrelevant.

    The Professor is doing a fine job of spinning positive image on that General (and some other people) death here and that's fine. Not a bad job.

    But the game which killed the General will go on. And on........and on.....and it won't be solved by advanced missiles and what not.

    Russia is in Syria to prop its strategic ally and keep the presence there. The presence there is the objective.

    Russia can keep the presence-----US (yes..sorry..Zionist Empire) will maintain chaos. Both winners.

    Military personnel on both sides will keep being killed and mutilated. Part of the job. High tech assassinations and just bad luck.

    And Islamists from all over the world will keep fulfilling their destiny.

    The Syrians, though...........mice and elephants.

    Long term goal for US...I meant Zionist Empire, is weakening the regime in Moscow and executing a regime change. Long term goal for Russia is enduring and waiting/hoping for US..umph...Zionist Empire implosion.

    All fine. Unless one is a Syrian.

    The purpose of war in Syria, from US (OK…Zionist Empire/whatever) point is ongoing chaos in that region. Chaos……in…………that…………region. Russia can not make that chaos go away.

    Chaos has a bad habit of expanding and can be extremely bloody and difficult to control; see the Thirty Years War. Does Israel really want to risk this in the country next door?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    France did pretty well out of the Thirty Years' War.
    , @peterAUS
    Beats, options wise, having a stable Arab democracy next door, wouldn't you think?

    Democracy supported, most likely, by Russia and China.

    For both security of the state of Israel and The Empire strategy in ME, chaos is definitely much more preferable option.

    Definitely.
    , @byrresheim
    Providing chaos to Germany from 1618 to 1648 and beyond proved to be a winning strategy for the French, so ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Iran knows for sure that should the unthinkable but not improbable happen, such as an American attack on the Russian forces in Syria, Iran will not be left standing on the side—she gets immediately “involved” whether she wants it or not. So, the logic goes, why not make the best of it when all bets, other than nuclear, will be off. Iran may as well have Russian forces on her side and in her airspace, which, obviously helps significantly.

    “Whether she wants it or not”?

    “why not make the best of it”.

    Possibly, tovarich, you may ask the “her” in question if she shares your rather “provincial” romantic notions.

    Even the crazy mullahs of Iran are not so despicable as to let some Russian outfit in Kremlin determine the fate of the Iranian nation. Unless, of course, they are your moles.

    The “signal” regarding the Iranian “aerospace” that matters here is the uproar in Iran regarding the decision to let Russian planes use an Iranian airbase. What makes you think IRGC will let Russia dictate the direction of the defense of Iran? Russian base in Syria goes boom, well, that is YOUR problem. Iran is there to protect IRANIAN interests. It is not in Iran’s interest to have Russia use Iran as a forward base. Dream on, and quit hitting that vodka bottle.

    Iranians remember the parition of Iran between Russia and Britain the “great game”, Russian push for spinning away Azarbaijan and Kurdistan away from Iran after WWII and having to be forced out by the USA, and song and dance of “nuclear weapons” that resulted in Iran being subject to an IAEA regiment not directed against any other nation on Earth. (And Russia was there with the West when that went down, remember comrade?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @EugeneGur

    the uproar in Iran regarding the decision to let Russian planes use an Iranian airbase
     
    There is always somebody in any country who'd create an uproar whether it is in the interests of the country or not.

    In case you haven't noticed the author isn't talking about Russia dictating the defense of Iran but about Iran objectively being in the same boat as far as Western aggression is concerned. The animosity towards Iran in the USA is just as great as towards Russia - the difference is Russia is capable of defending itself, vodka bottle in hand, which is not at all certain about Iran.

    It is not in Iran’s interest to have Russia use Iran as a forward base. Dream on, and quit hitting that vodka bottle.
     
    By using the Iranian airspace, Russia isn't using Iran as a forward base but, on the contrary, signaling that Iran isn't alone - this is to your advantage, buddy, in case you haven't figured that out yet.

    If you guys want to dwell on the past insults, real or perceived, go right ahead, but remember - this is a loosing proposition unless, of course, you possess a time machine.

    If you think Iran'd be better off allied with the US - who is stopping you?
    , @Bayan
    Agree. In the long run the best thing for Iran is to stop its military involvement in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon; and limit its relations to culture and economy. Iranian military coming into battle with American forces in these countries is no good for Iran. Furthermore, eventually Iraqis and Syrians will rebel against Iranian domination of their countries despite their religious affinities to Iran. That is the nature of the nation state. Iranians should be smart enough to understand this. It is a question of when to begin the withdrawal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Frankie P says:
    @peterAUS
    Read the article.

    Interesting.

    Say it's all true. So what?

    MAD was assured during Cold War.So what? Soviet/Warsaw Pact was superior in conventional capability then NATO. So what? The end result was dissolution of not only Warsaw Pact but Soviet Union itself.

    And that's precisely what's going on here. Not an all out war with Russia. I mean, it can happen but neither party would want it. If it happens it will be one of those "oh SHIT!" moments. Anyway.

    The purpose of war in Syria, from US (OK...Zionist Empire/whatever) point is ongoing chaos in that region. Chaos......in............that............region.

    Russia can not make that chaos go away. Or if it can, well....fine. I just don't see it.

    All this missiles/high tech/who has a bigger dick thing is .......just.......irrelevant.

    The Professor is doing a fine job of spinning positive image on that General (and some other people) death here and that's fine. Not a bad job.

    But the game which killed the General will go on. And on........and on.....and it won't be solved by advanced missiles and what not.

    Russia is in Syria to prop its strategic ally and keep the presence there. The presence there is the objective.

    Russia can keep the presence-----US (yes..sorry..Zionist Empire) will maintain chaos. Both winners.

    Military personnel on both sides will keep being killed and mutilated. Part of the job. High tech assassinations and just bad luck.

    And Islamists from all over the world will keep fulfilling their destiny.

    The Syrians, though...........mice and elephants.

    Long term goal for US...I meant Zionist Empire, is weakening the regime in Moscow and executing a regime change. Long term goal for Russia is enduring and waiting/hoping for US..umph...Zionist Empire implosion.

    All fine. Unless one is a Syrian.

    You miss the more immediate goal of the Anglozionist Empire, namely the prevention of the Shia Crescent becoming a stable and calm area, protected and strengthened by well-trained, battle-hardened, united forces, including of course the SAA, Iran, the Iraqi militias, and Hezzbollah. For although as you mentioned the Zionist narcissistic great evil and its Yinon Plan to destabilize the entire Middle East / North Africa has long been a goal, we see once again that reality presents them having bitten off more than they could chew, and actions like the Iraq War, a neocon feast of overconfidence and bluster, ended up strengthening the true resistance, the true danger to their regional hegemonic plans. They doubled down, as psychopathic narcissists are prone to do, in Syria, and the resulting action by a stronger and more aggressive Russia has shone the light on the folly of their ways. The resistance has now become The Resistance, and with America’s continuing belligerence pushing Russia and China ever closer, we will soon be calling it THE RESISTANCE.

    Frankie P

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Sorry mate, you lost me at

    well-trained, battle-hardened, united forces, including of course the SAA
     
    If that's your assessment of that....something.......... called "SAA" let's agree to disagree and move on.

    But, surprisingly enough, you got

    Nuclear Armageddon would be the short answer
     
    right.
    , @Carroll Price

    They doubled down, as psychopathic narcissists are prone to do, in Syria, and the resulting action by a stronger and more aggressive Russia has shone the light on the folly of their ways. The resistance has now become The Resistance...
     
    Indeed. Relatively unknown (at the time) Hezbollah, who in 2006 put a royal shellacking on Israel, has not only survived, but emerged many magnitudes stronger and more confident than anyone could have ever imagined.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Frankie P says:
    @peterAUS

    the loss of an entire base or aircraft carrier to Russian attack could not be overlooked.
     
    Yeah......

    That....idea........seems somehow popular around.

    So, what do you think, what could be the next steps in that play?
    Just out of curiosity.

    Anyone else is welcome to chime in.

    Say
    "Loss of an entire base or aircraft carrier to Russian attack".

    What happens next?

    Oh, BTW, maybe irrelevant, but I do remember Cold War "war games".

    Go ahead, please.....

    Nuclear Armageddon would be the short answer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Ron Unz
    In support of the strategic thesis advanced in this important article, I seem to recall that the original Russian military intervention in Syria was accompanied by a volley of ultra-long-range cruise missiles, whose capabilities greatly surprised American military analysts.

    At the time, such a high-tech attack on ISIS positions seemed rather cost-ineffective to me, but presumably a major purpose was to dissuade America (and Israel) from considering any future attack on what was a rather small and isolated Russian expeditionary force.

    Also, since Russia, Iran, and Iraq have become de facto allies in the Syria War, I'd think that the use of Iranian and Iraqi airspace as the launch point for the latest bombardment is also meant to raise much greater doubts in Trump's military advisors about the huge risks in any future attack against Iran or attempt to forcefully renegotiate the existing nuclear treaty.

    At the time I thought it was just a sales pitch for Russian arms exports, but this explanation also makes sense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Randal says:

    So, what do you think, what could be the next steps in that play?

    OK let’s look at it a bit closer. But to do so we must recognise that we are moving to the realms of wider politics rather than its subset, war. At the level we are talking about, the decisions are always political rather than military, even when they are taken by military men in an overtly military regime.

    The context is what is discussed by Martyanov above – the US regime, presumably listening to some of the less wise amongst its senior military men and the less honestly motivated amongst its influential political and media figures, decides to try to defeat and destroy the Russian forces in Syria whilst counting on what they believe is the US’s general escalation superiority to constrain Russian responses and keep the open conflict contained to the region. After the initial probably devastating US attack on Russian forces in Syria, involving the overloading and suppression by various means including direct SEAD attacks of the limited air defences in theatre, the Russians respond with large standoff attacks that effectively destroy US bases and/or carriers used in the attack or in the vicinity. They would not have enough to keep all US and allied ships and bases from which attacks could be launched in Syria out of action, but they could presumably render several substantial bases unusable for significant periods and sink a number of ships including carriers, which would have to operate from more distant locations, rendering operations more costly and less effective.

    What does the US do next? Militarily it has to retaliate, but it can choose how far to escalate in doing so. The problem is that substantive retaliation presumably requires attacks on Russian bases inside Russia, which involves very high risks of uncontrolled escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange. Do they do that? If they launch limited attacks inside Russia (eg an attack on a base used to launch the strategic bombers, say), Russia has the strategic capability to carry out direct tit for tat responses.

    Given the likely involvement of the forces and bases of regional allies (though who really knows how enthusiastic Turkey would really be, these days), it seems likely the attack on Russian forces in Syria could still be prosecuted to completion with their effective destruction, and meaningful Russia reinforcements interdicted successfully, but that would now seem rather a sideshow. And meanwhile Iraqi and Iranian involvement would be likely, and not to the advantage of the US’s interests on the ground. Russian ships in the region and perhaps elsewhere could (certainly would in the case of ships in theatre) be engaged in full scale air/sea battles likely resulting in their fairly prompt destruction, but not without significant ongoing losses to US naval forces.

    While all this is going on, what is the political response that will drive the long term outcome? Imo that depends on the political context – is this Pearl Harbor or the Beirut bombings for the US regime? In Pearl Harbor the Japanese executed a “Bush Doctrine” preventive attack on US military forces intended to forestall what they probably correctly saw as an existential threat from a rival. The result was that although they did considerable military damage all they ultimately achieved was to provide the political context in which the US regime could do what it had not previously been capable of doing, namely to wage a total war to defeat and occupy its Pacific rival. In Beirut the US was interfering in a Lebanese conflict under the transparently false pretext of “peacekeeping”, and their enemies struck back at them by carrying out a large suicide bombing attack on their military base in theatre. The result was not the creation of a political motivation for invasion and occupation, but rather the discrediting of the intervention policy and the withdrawal of US military forces from Lebanon.

    In the context under discussion, would the loss of US bases and/or carriers, with massive loss of life and arguably even greater loss of prestige (and, it should be remembered, substantial loss of actual military intervention capability in theatre, even if that could be rebuilt and replaced over time), result in an American political determination to engage in a long, massive military confrontation to defeat Russia strategically (a WW2 Japan-style open war of invasion and occupation is ruled out by the modern nuclear peace), and would the US have the necessary global support in waging such a campaign to give it any chance of succeeding?

    Or would it result in a backlash, both domestic and international, against the US regime itself for attacking Russian forces in Syria and essentially provoking the Russian response?

    Much depends on propaganda – does the US regime and its various collaborating elites still have sufficient control of the global and domestic media environment to impose the necessary narrative of a dastardly Russian act of aggression (yes, incredibly enough that is how they try to would portray it – the Americans have demonstrated over the years a shocking degree of hypocrisy when it comes to viewing themselves as the victims in cases of retaliation against them for the actions of their own government and military)? But much also would depend upon the particular circumstances in which the initial American attacks took place and how they were justified (supposed chemical attacks, WMD, responses to provocations, etc).

    In the end, all the dithering in Washington over the past six years about how far to go in Syria has been in large part about who gets the blame if things go wrong.

    So would the result be some kind of strategic defeat for Russia (as for Japan in WW2), or political turmoil in the US resulting in a loss of stomach for further interference (as in Lebanon)? If the former, then you have to explain how such a defeat is realistically going to occur given the reality of the strategic nuclear deterrent Russia has against any massive military attack, and its very significant defensive conventional capabilities, as well as the reality that even if the US’s European and Pacific satellites might be willing to go along in such a venture (questionable in some cases, depending on the context), China and most of Asia, and much of Africa and South America, certainly would not, and these areas weigh much more heavily in the global economic balance than they did a few decades ago.

    The real lesson of all this, of course, is that the US regime would have to be profoundly stupid or desperate to risk attacking Russian forces in Syria. Sadly that’s not as reassuring as it ought to be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Thoughtful and civilized response...as expected.

    Rare quality, though, in this "fanboy" blathering.

    I'll try on the similar level (civilized, quality of thought is always debatable).

    First, overall, you are correct, BUT, I feel you've made a basic error in "The Mission" part of METT-T.
    All the rest, although correct, isn't relevant I am afraid.
    I'll explain below.

    OK let’s look at it a bit closer. But to do so we must recognise that we are moving to the realms of wider politics rather than its subset, war. At the level we are talking about, the decisions are always political rather than military, even when they are taken by military men in an overtly military regime.
     
    Agree.

    The context is what is discussed by Martyanov above – the US regime, presumably listening to some of the less wise amongst its senior military men and the less honestly motivated amongst its influential political and media figures, decides to try to defeat and destroy the Russian forces in Syria whilst counting on what they believe is the US’s general escalation superiority to constrain Russian responses and keep the open conflict contained to the region.
     
    THIS is the element I feel you got wrong.
    So, either that IS their intention/objective and you are correct.
    Or, that is NOT their intention/objective......

    My position is that is NOT their mission/objective.

    As I've stated before in other threads, I believe the objective is to bog Russia in quagmire in the region.
    The same strategy that dissolved Soviet Union . In this case the goal is to execute regime change in Moscow.

    All the rest is an interesting reading, but, I believe it is not relevant for the situation in Syria (or ME in general).

    Now, if we really want to go along that scenario (just as a chat) here is my 2 cents.

    After the initial probably devastating US attack on Russian forces in Syria, involving the overloading and suppression by various means including direct SEAD attacks of the limited air defences in theatre, the Russians respond with large standoff attacks that effectively destroy US bases and/or carriers used in the attack or in the vicinity. They would not have enough to keep all US and allied ships and bases from which attacks could be launched in Syria out of action, but they could presumably render several substantial bases unusable for significant periods and sink a number of ships including carriers, which would have to operate from more distant locations, rendering operations more costly and less effective.
     
    Agree.

    What does the US do next? Militarily it has to retaliate, but it can choose how far to escalate in doing so. The problem is that substantive retaliation presumably requires attacks on Russian bases inside Russia, which involves very high risks of uncontrolled escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange. Do they do that? If they launch limited attacks inside Russia (eg an attack on a base used to launch the strategic bombers, say), Russia has the strategic capability to carry out direct tit for tat responses.
     
    Agree.
    And from here on.............it can be fast drive into death of civilization as we see it.

    Given the likely involvement of the forces and bases of regional allies (though who really knows how enthusiastic Turkey would really be, these days), it seems likely the attack on Russian forces in Syria could still be prosecuted to completion with their effective destruction, and meaningful Russia reinforcements interdicted successfully, but that would now seem rather a sideshow. And meanwhile Iraqi and Iranian involvement would be likely, and not to the advantage of the US’s interests on the ground. Russian ships in the region and perhaps elsewhere could (certainly would in the case of ships in theatre) be engaged in full scale air/sea battles likely resulting in their fairly prompt destruction, but not without significant ongoing losses to US naval forces.
     
    Agree.

    While all this is going on, what is the political response that will drive the long term outcome? Imo that depends on the political context – is this Pearl Harbor or the Beirut bombings for the US regime? In Pearl Harbor the Japanese executed a “Bush Doctrine” preventive attack on US military forces intended to forestall what they probably correctly saw as an existential threat from a rival. The result was that although they did considerable military damage all they ultimately achieved was to provide the political context in which the US regime could do what it had not previously been capable of doing, namely to wage a total war to defeat and occupy its Pacific rival. In Beirut the US was interfering in a Lebanese conflict under the transparently false pretext of “peacekeeping”, and their enemies struck back at them by carrying out a large suicide bombing attack on their military base in theatre. The result was not the creation of a political motivation for invasion and occupation, but rather the discrediting of the intervention policy and the withdrawal of US military forces from Lebanon.
     
    Agree.

    In the context under discussion, would the loss of US bases and/or carriers, with massive loss of life and arguably even greater loss of prestige (and, it should be remembered, substantial loss of actual military intervention capability in theatre, even if that could be rebuilt and replaced over time), result in an American political determination to engage in a long, massive military confrontation to defeat Russia strategically (a WW2 Japan-style open war of invasion and occupation is ruled out by the modern nuclear peace), and would the US have the necessary global support in waging such a campaign to give it any chance of succeeding?

    Or would it result in a backlash, both domestic and international, against the US regime itself for attacking Russian forces in Syria and essentially provoking the Russian response?

    Much depends on propaganda – does the US regime and its various collaborating elites still have sufficient control of the global and domestic media environment to impose the necessary narrative of a dastardly Russian act of aggression (yes, incredibly enough that is how they try to would portray it – the Americans have demonstrated over the years a shocking degree of hypocrisy when it comes to viewing themselves as the victims in cases of retaliation against them for the actions of their own government and military)? But much also would depend upon the particular circumstances in which the initial American attacks took place and how they were justified (supposed chemical attacks, WMD, responses to provocations, etc).

    In the end, all the dithering in Washington over the past six years about how far to go in Syria has been in large part about who gets the blame if things go wrong.

     

    Agree.

    So would the result be some kind of strategic defeat for Russia (as for Japan in WW2), or political turmoil in the US resulting in a loss of stomach for further interference (as in Lebanon)? If the former, then you have to explain how such a defeat is realistically going to occur given the reality of the strategic nuclear deterrent Russia has against any massive military attack, and its very significant defensive conventional capabilities, as well as the reality that even if the US’s European and Pacific satellites might be willing to go along in such a venture (questionable in some cases, depending on the context), China and most of Asia, and much of Africa and South America, certainly would not, and these areas weigh much more heavily in the global economic balance than they did a few decades ago.

    The real lesson of all this, of course, is that the US regime would have to be profoundly stupid or desperate to risk attacking Russian forces in Syria. Sadly that’s not as reassuring as it ought to be.
     
    Agree.

    Well...isn't

    the US regime would have to be profoundly stupid or desperate to risk attacking Russian forces in Syria
     
    what's my basic premise here?

    I, personally, see the possibility of above, unfortunately, because of unbalanced decision making in Washington. THAT is the real problem here.
    Moscow decision making process (and execution) is much more stable and predictable then Washington.
    That launch on Syria by Trump was..........just......terrible in that regard.

    So, how about my scenario here:
    As the current situation continues it will be more death and mutilation of Russian personell there.
    Russians will absorb that and will NOT try to retaliate.
    But, sooner or later, by pure fog of war, a bomb/missile/shell will get Western SOF team on the ground. Not necessarily Russian....it can be simply a "speculative fire on that hill" by SAA.
    THEN we'll see what happens and God help us.

    With the current politics in Washington and Trump team decision making process what can we expect?
    A retaliatory attack on....what?
    How much of Russian men and material could be caught in it?

    From then on, yes, your scenario can spiral out in instant.

    So....time to get religious and start praying?
    , @Andrei Martyanov
    Just to augment your train of thought (I do not agree with everything in it, but it is a decent effort): get to the Google Maps, click on the middle of the Caspian Sea, then right click "Measure Distance", put cursor, say on Kandahar in Afghanistan, left click and a lot will become very clear. As per Eastern Med, well, it is a very funny thing because this will require literally counting for, say, number of hulls of the Submarines at piers in such places as main bases of Northern Fleet, if you know what I mean;-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. TheJester says:
    @godfree Roberts
    I believe it occurred even earlier, when a Russian warship intercepted an exploratory volley of cruise missiles fired from either a US or Israeli vessel and aimed at targets inside Syria.

    A few days later, a Syria-based Russian AA unit downed a Turkish fighter probing Syrian air defenses.

    Your sources, please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    I believe I read it in 2011-2012, but did not note it.

    I've asked The Saker if he can turn it up and, if he can, I'll let you know.

    On reflection, it does fit with what followed: nobody attempted to overfly Syrian cities, which is usually the first US tactic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. There are reasons why that rabid attack chihuahua Peters retired as a Lieutenant Colonel, not the least of which is an inability to grasp the meaning of tactical and strategic indicators and the differences between them. He undoubtedly makes great money giving Fox red-meat quotes for the Rah-Rah crowd who drive the advertising, but I doubt anyone who is anyone, except for a few of the dumbest neocons, takes anything he says seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    but I doubt anyone who is anyone, except for a few of the dumbest neocons, takes anything he says seriously.
     
    Here is the problem, Peters is not alone, in fact, a lot of his hysteria is echoed by such people as former SACEUR Phil Breedlove, today it is Dunford etc. Another matter, because those are still uniformed (or were recently) it is really bad idea to behave as psychopaths as Peters but all of them read from the same script, just the method of delivery differs, slightly at that. As per neocons--these are exact people who set foreign policies in D.C. Their military incompetence is appalling (which is expected from people with their backgrounds) and as such they are extremely dangerous. So I would dispute this thesis of yours. Militarily all neocons are dumb. For people who think that the history of Peloponnesian War (in their big honcho Kagan's version) has any relevance to the age of GPS/GLONASS and Combat Informational Control Systems with Stand-off weapons--these people should be looked at very seriously by psychiatrist.

    for the Rah-Rah crowd
     
    So, we agree--it is 99% of American military, political and, so called, intellectual elite, right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @peterAUS

    the loss of an entire base or aircraft carrier to Russian attack could not be overlooked.
     
    Yeah......

    That....idea........seems somehow popular around.

    So, what do you think, what could be the next steps in that play?
    Just out of curiosity.

    Anyone else is welcome to chime in.

    Say
    "Loss of an entire base or aircraft carrier to Russian attack".

    What happens next?

    Oh, BTW, maybe irrelevant, but I do remember Cold War "war games".

    Go ahead, please.....

    “Say
    “Loss of an entire base or aircraft carrier to Russian attack”.

    What happens next?

    Oh, BTW, maybe irrelevant, but I do remember Cold War “war games”.

    Polo Hat seems like the most likely analogue for the response.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. bb. says:
    @peterAUS
    Read the article.

    Interesting.

    Say it's all true. So what?

    MAD was assured during Cold War.So what? Soviet/Warsaw Pact was superior in conventional capability then NATO. So what? The end result was dissolution of not only Warsaw Pact but Soviet Union itself.

    And that's precisely what's going on here. Not an all out war with Russia. I mean, it can happen but neither party would want it. If it happens it will be one of those "oh SHIT!" moments. Anyway.

    The purpose of war in Syria, from US (OK...Zionist Empire/whatever) point is ongoing chaos in that region. Chaos......in............that............region.

    Russia can not make that chaos go away. Or if it can, well....fine. I just don't see it.

    All this missiles/high tech/who has a bigger dick thing is .......just.......irrelevant.

    The Professor is doing a fine job of spinning positive image on that General (and some other people) death here and that's fine. Not a bad job.

    But the game which killed the General will go on. And on........and on.....and it won't be solved by advanced missiles and what not.

    Russia is in Syria to prop its strategic ally and keep the presence there. The presence there is the objective.

    Russia can keep the presence-----US (yes..sorry..Zionist Empire) will maintain chaos. Both winners.

    Military personnel on both sides will keep being killed and mutilated. Part of the job. High tech assassinations and just bad luck.

    And Islamists from all over the world will keep fulfilling their destiny.

    The Syrians, though...........mice and elephants.

    Long term goal for US...I meant Zionist Empire, is weakening the regime in Moscow and executing a regime change. Long term goal for Russia is enduring and waiting/hoping for US..umph...Zionist Empire implosion.

    All fine. Unless one is a Syrian.

    Russia can not make that chaos go away. Or if it can, well….fine. I just don’t see it.

    TBH i don’t realistically see it either, but if you think about it, it’s kind of a win win situation for them anyways. My thinking goes like this (correct me pls if I am off)

    If Russia can stabilize the region on the helm of a coalition of Iran-Iraq-semiTurkey(bc. you never know what the turk will do) it would achieve a massive win in the trade war against the petrodollar. (Meanwhile China is making moves in Africa to secure the pipelines)

    If Russia fails to stabilize the region, it would mean rising oil prices, which again, is free money for them in the medium term.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @TheJester
    Your sources, please.

    I believe I read it in 2011-2012, but did not note it.

    I’ve asked The Saker if he can turn it up and, if he can, I’ll let you know.

    On reflection, it does fit with what followed: nobody attempted to overfly Syrian cities, which is usually the first US tactic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Rather than a direct attack on Russian forces, it is more probable that the US will resort to sneaky backstabbings, with deniability potential. Direct attacks on the Syrian army could escalate, on the other hand.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. @The Alarmist
    There are reasons why that rabid attack chihuahua Peters retired as a Lieutenant Colonel, not the least of which is an inability to grasp the meaning of tactical and strategic indicators and the differences between them. He undoubtedly makes great money giving Fox red-meat quotes for the Rah-Rah crowd who drive the advertising, but I doubt anyone who is anyone, except for a few of the dumbest neocons, takes anything he says seriously.

    but I doubt anyone who is anyone, except for a few of the dumbest neocons, takes anything he says seriously.

    Here is the problem, Peters is not alone, in fact, a lot of his hysteria is echoed by such people as former SACEUR Phil Breedlove, today it is Dunford etc. Another matter, because those are still uniformed (or were recently) it is really bad idea to behave as psychopaths as Peters but all of them read from the same script, just the method of delivery differs, slightly at that. As per neocons–these are exact people who set foreign policies in D.C. Their military incompetence is appalling (which is expected from people with their backgrounds) and as such they are extremely dangerous. So I would dispute this thesis of yours. Militarily all neocons are dumb. For people who think that the history of Peloponnesian War (in their big honcho Kagan’s version) has any relevance to the age of GPS/GLONASS and Combat Informational Control Systems with Stand-off weapons–these people should be looked at very seriously by psychiatrist.

    for the Rah-Rah crowd

    So, we agree–it is 99% of American military, political and, so called, intellectual elite, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    There are reasons why Breedlove was pushed out. I've been out of the "war" for a couple decades, so my confidence that there are saner heads where it counts might be misplaced.

    I wouldn't say 99%, but the number is non-trivial, and that is alarming. Peters is aimed at the folks who buy the medicines and other crap hawked on Fox. It helps sell his fiction to people who used to read Tom Clancy but now have to take a step down. If he were taken seriously, he'd be doing more appearances on the Sunday shows.

    Stoltenberg's militancy is distressing, but I again hope his masters have him on a short leash, meaning he will bark but he won't bite.

    The neocons are a problem. I think they've largely been kept in check by calmer heads in the military, which has to do the fighting and occasional dying in the fights the neocons want to pick, which in my opinion is why the neocons have gone about achieving their aims using the Company and its assets.

    DoD has undoubtedly seen and assessed the standoff capability of the Russians, which is why their involvement has been somewhat muted, but yeah, there are some rabid types down the chain who are itching to try their toys on the only real adversaries we have in the world, and given the independence we often give field commanders, they can get us in trouble.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Randal says:
    @Ron Unz
    In support of the strategic thesis advanced in this important article, I seem to recall that the original Russian military intervention in Syria was accompanied by a volley of ultra-long-range cruise missiles, whose capabilities greatly surprised American military analysts.

    At the time, such a high-tech attack on ISIS positions seemed rather cost-ineffective to me, but presumably a major purpose was to dissuade America (and Israel) from considering any future attack on what was a rather small and isolated Russian expeditionary force.

    Also, since Russia, Iran, and Iraq have become de facto allies in the Syria War, I'd think that the use of Iranian and Iraqi airspace as the launch point for the latest bombardment is also meant to raise much greater doubts in Trump's military advisors about the huge risks in any future attack against Iran or attempt to forcefully renegotiate the existing nuclear treaty.

    At the time, such a high-tech attack on ISIS positions seemed rather cost-ineffective to me, but presumably a major purpose was to dissuade America (and Israel) from considering any future attack on what was a rather small and isolated Russian expeditionary force.

    Clearly it made no sense in a tactical military sense to use cruise missiles when straightforward air attack was available, and the use of the Kalibrs in October 2015 was certainly motivated as a demonstration of capability. To what degree it was a warning to potential enemies (the US regime, Israel and the Gulf states, obviously, but also remember at the time still Turkey, though that brief hostility seems to have been managed out of existence, helped by the US turning to the Kurds as their proxies in Syria, since then), as opposed to a marketing pitch (the Russians have been selling export versions of these missiles for many years) is open to question – probably both.

    The issue is not so much the possession of cruise missiles – the Soviets had nuclear armed Tomahawk equivalents back in the 1980s, and it’s always been assumed that those (the air and sea launched ones, anyway) were repurposed as conventionally armed missiles. It’s having them, along with deployable launchers, in numbers and proving that they work reliably that was the issue. There’s an understandable post-Soviet tendency in the US sphere to discount Russian capabilities in terms of high tech weapons. And in order to use cruise missiles in the way Martyanov describes here – basically as a base-denial weapon against a peer rival – you need plenty of them. To hit a US base and render it unusable with conventionally armed weapons, you have to hit it accurately and you have to hit it multiple times, evading or overloading the defences and counter-measures. To take out a carrier, you have to locate the target first, and then beat the counter-measures to hit it at least once and preferably several times, though one hit could be a mission kill. And in the case of the land base, you have to be able to do it again a few days later, and keep hitting it.

    So the Russians, with their repeated uses of cruise missiles and the introduction of more modern and potentially significantly more capable missiles that Martyanov refers to, have been building a credible case that the US can no longer count on escalation superiority in Syria to protect them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    There's an understandable post-Soviet tendency in the US sphere to discount Russian capabilities in terms of high tech weapons.
     
    There could be books written about the complete failure of the US to foresee Russia's achievement of parity+ with the West in advanced weaponry. The Donald Cook incident in 2014 gave a shock about Russian EW capabilities on the order of the shock the U2 incident gave about Soviet air defense capabilities. Something quietly queered the TLAM attack on the Syrian airbase earlier this year. The image that the US kept of Russia was left over from the 1980s, that the Soviet Army was a mighty but unwieldy big iron force with plenty of firepower but wanting in capabilities related to advanced technology. During the first Chechen War in 1996, the Russian Army was referred to in US media as a "glorified Third World army." That's an exact quote. The performance of Soviet-designed aerial weaponry, largely during the mideast wars of 1973 to 1982, gave a distinct impression of a disadvantage related to avionics. But that may have been misleading, as the performance of export aircraft could have been inferior to that of the home fleet. Either the US estimate of Soviet technology in the 1980s was way off or post-Soviet Russia developed advanced technology at a remarkable pace, even more so since it occurred during such chaotic times.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @unit472
    Sinking a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier has not yet been done. They are pretty resilient ships and unless you can catch them with their decks full of fueled and armed aircraft as happened to the Japanese at Midway or hole them with torpedoes they tend to stay afloat even after being hit with conventional explosives.

    The Forrestal survived multiple detonations and explosions on its flight deck back in 1967 though over 100 sailors died. Smaller US WW2 era carriers survived direct hits from Kamikazi attacks so it is one thing to knock them out of action but another to sink them.

    Sinking a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier has not yet been done.

    And hopefully will not be done in the future–let’s keep our fingers crossed.

    The Forrestal survived multiple detonations and explosions on its flight deck back in 1967 though over 100 sailors died

    Tragic scenario which still rendered USS Forrestal nonoperational. But then again: E=(mv^2)/2 . If to discount explosives, kinetic energy alone of Mach=3 (not to mention Mach=7+) of a single missile will surpass anything what Forestall or, for that matter, USS Enterprise endured in 1969. But here we get into the main issue of “leaker” and this is the problem which any US naval air defense system is not capable of solving. You may read more on the issue on US Naval Institute written by me.

    https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/08/28/aircraft-carriers-drama

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Andrei,

    Going off of my comment about simply making an aircraft carrier inoperable as opposed to sinking it; what do you know of Russia's forays (if they're even into this) into developing an EMP device. I would imagine you could take out a capital ship plus a few others in a fleet if you could detonate something that had a radius of say quarter mile or so:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg/305px-Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg

    Peace.

    , @SimplePseudonymicHandle

    And hopefully will not be done in the future–let’s keep our fingers crossed.
     
    An admirable sentiment, or outcome of rational, moral principle.
    Maybe the wisest statement in this whole OP + comment thread.

    If grown-ups are in charge in Russia, China and then U.S., then it is the case for all three that:

    1. Their foreign and military policies are intended to advance, sometimes forcefully, their national interests
    2. Their military, forceful, national interest is defined as being sufficiently powerful to deter one another from the use of force ... specifically with the intention of preventing an outcome from ever happening where one or the other is in open conflict
    3. Because, open conflict with one or another is an outcome that's wholly incompatible with #1

    Sooooooo many words people toss about finding n-more ways to peal the onion of US/Russia/China power, but really just two things that matter:

    1. The US is always paying too much for its military, regardless of what it gets for what it paid
    2. The most worrisome thing on the world stage is a US leader or person in the US decision-making chain of command, losing his cool, and acting rashly, out of irrational fear that US dominance is threatened or the infantile possession of a belief that US dominance means dominance over near-peer partnersaries

    In any case - if the US blanketed Russian military positions in Syria:

    A. Definite outcome - somewhere on the planet Russia would face-savingly even the score by sinking (or otherwise destroying) a carrier ... yes they are difficult to sink but a Syria debacle would create a will for a partnersary with ways
    B. Unclear outcome - whether it would stop there

    Because of B, this must never happen. Let's hope to God our leaders understand that.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. This sort of “Russia is invincable” bluster is old hat. It suggests that Putin’s American supporters are getting nervous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Pay attention.

    The Russians are still in Syria and Syria has taken back most of it's territory because of it.

    , @Carroll Price
    Dream on. The fact that Russia has won the war in Syria, and will likely remain there indefinitely, tells me the US considers them invincible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Now I see how shooting from Iranian airspace increases salvo.missiles with shorter range can be used which could not have been used from Russian airspace. Now the logic behind longer range missiles is also clear to avoid being dependent on allies too. Those are not reliable
    One can only say in retrospective that were it not for what happened in 90s soviet/ Russian stand off capabilities would be absolutely crushing strong long time ago. Now, combined with EW capabilities, air defences and fast moving hard hitting land forces all this United by computerized control it must be something.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. @Andrei Martyanov

    but I doubt anyone who is anyone, except for a few of the dumbest neocons, takes anything he says seriously.
     
    Here is the problem, Peters is not alone, in fact, a lot of his hysteria is echoed by such people as former SACEUR Phil Breedlove, today it is Dunford etc. Another matter, because those are still uniformed (or were recently) it is really bad idea to behave as psychopaths as Peters but all of them read from the same script, just the method of delivery differs, slightly at that. As per neocons--these are exact people who set foreign policies in D.C. Their military incompetence is appalling (which is expected from people with their backgrounds) and as such they are extremely dangerous. So I would dispute this thesis of yours. Militarily all neocons are dumb. For people who think that the history of Peloponnesian War (in their big honcho Kagan's version) has any relevance to the age of GPS/GLONASS and Combat Informational Control Systems with Stand-off weapons--these people should be looked at very seriously by psychiatrist.

    for the Rah-Rah crowd
     
    So, we agree--it is 99% of American military, political and, so called, intellectual elite, right?

    There are reasons why Breedlove was pushed out. I’ve been out of the “war” for a couple decades, so my confidence that there are saner heads where it counts might be misplaced.

    I wouldn’t say 99%, but the number is non-trivial, and that is alarming. Peters is aimed at the folks who buy the medicines and other crap hawked on Fox. It helps sell his fiction to people who used to read Tom Clancy but now have to take a step down. If he were taken seriously, he’d be doing more appearances on the Sunday shows.

    Stoltenberg’s militancy is distressing, but I again hope his masters have him on a short leash, meaning he will bark but he won’t bite.

    The neocons are a problem. I think they’ve largely been kept in check by calmer heads in the military, which has to do the fighting and occasional dying in the fights the neocons want to pick, which in my opinion is why the neocons have gone about achieving their aims using the Company and its assets.

    DoD has undoubtedly seen and assessed the standoff capability of the Russians, which is why their involvement has been somewhat muted, but yeah, there are some rabid types down the chain who are itching to try their toys on the only real adversaries we have in the world, and given the independence we often give field commanders, they can get us in trouble.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    I can only hope that you are right. I do know that there are many good level professionals on mid to mid-high levels in DoD.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Andrei Martyanov

    Advanced Russian cruise missiles–or at least should not be news to military planners.
     
    Second generation Anti-Shipping Missiles, starting from Malakhyt and ending with P-700 Granit are not news since 1980s. We are talking about latest generation of high precision land and surface attack weapons which make all previous Soviet weapons obsolete and look like amateurs. 3M14 and X-101 are a new word in TLAMs which, apart from Inertial, GLONASS and TERCOM guidance use other quirky things and, again--nothing was produced ever with combat range of 5,500+ kilometers. None. You are talking about mostly anti-shipping missiles. Among them today only P-1000 Voulkans are retained on old Missile Cruisers of Slava-class and P-700 Granits (NATO: SS-N-19 Shipwreck) carried by some Project 949A (Oscar-II class) SSGNs and Cruiser Peter The Great--most of those will be removed (some are being as I type it) and will have new generation of: P-800 Onyx, 3M54 Kalibr family and 3M22 Zircon hyper-sonic missiles installed. X-32 also is already fully operational for strategic aviation. Those are game changers. Once Mach=8 capable 3M22 Zircon comes on-line, it is pretty much over for the naval warfare as we know it. Real American military professionals know it, others only sense it.

    Pardon the pun, but converting anti-ship missiles into land attack missiles doesn’t sound like rocket science.

    Even if the Soviet Union didn’t have advanced land-attack cruise missiles in the 80s, it should still have been obvious to anyone that their anti-ship missiles could be developed into land attack missiles.

    We’re really just talking about a different guidance package, and depending on the sensors involved that can be as simple as a software change. GLONASS began to enter service in 1982, and the first test of a satellite guided bomb was conducted in 1993. Any idiot should’ve been able to put two and two together here, and at least some Western writers have been warning about increasingly sophisticated Russian weapons for more than a decade.

    Whether or not anti-ship missiles make surface warships obsolete I do not know. My hunch is certainly yes (and the future obsolescence of surface warships was predicted already before the war), but this is one of those things we won’t truly know until we see it done.

    For that matter I’m not sure that hypersonic missiles are game changers for naval warfare…presumably one could simply saturate any naval task force with cheaper subsonic missiles and overwhelm defenses. If none of the of the ships in the task force have low frequency radars, stealth aircraft could drop laser guided bombs right down the blind stack directly on top of warships. A 2,000 pound high explosive bomb would sink more or less any warship afloat today. The Australian theorist Carlo Kopp proposed this for the F-22 as part of his pet cause to get his country to acquire F-22s.

    It has long struck me as idiotic that modern surface warships are largely unarmored, and I also find it curious how few CIWS Western warships have compared to Russian ones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Pardon the pun, but converting anti-ship missiles into land attack missiles doesn’t sound like rocket science.
     
    Converting P-700 with its inertial guidance and active seeker designed specifically to work against radio-contrast targets (yes P-700s recently were launched at coastal targets but that is not their main mode) and installing guidance packages for TLAM functions are two very different things. In the end P-700 range is around 700 kilometers, 3M14 is, officially, 2,500+. Moreover, 3M14 is naval missile, X-101 is air-launched, same as X-32.

    For that matter I’m not sure that hypersonic missiles are game changers for naval warfare…presumably one could simply saturate any naval task force with cheaper subsonic missiles and overwhelm defenses.
     
    It is much easier to achieve leaker with fewer missiles (hence increased survivability of launch platforms) and in much shorter time in case of hyper-sonic not to mention sea-skimmer. Some probabilities are already made public. Yes, saturation MO also is a viable option (in fact that is how models for First Operation in 1970s and 1980s were calculated) but ALL options must be considered. Generally, saturation threshold for a single Aegis DDG or Cruiser is known in case of SUBsonic salvo.
    , @The Alarmist

    "Whether or not anti-ship missiles make surface warships obsolete I do not know. My hunch is certainly yes ..:."
     
    Shhh! We're still making money with that product line.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. The Zionist neocons who control the U.S. are used to invading and destroying small countries with no regard for international law and killing millions of civilians including men , women and children, this is what the Zionist neocons do or rather this is what they make the American military do.

    America is run by a Zionist crime cabal that operates much as Hitler and the Nazis did with no regard for life or limb, ie a rogue nation that creates terror groups such as ISIS and AL CIADA that it uses to wreck countries and pretends to fight this self created terror.

    The Zionist warmongers are going to destroy America and in case of war with Russia both nations will be destroyed and fools like col. ralph peters are typical of the toy officer contingent that is harbored in the military, and who are puppets of Israel.

    The real GORILLA is the Zionists and Israel who have driven American foreign policy for decades and who are going to destroy America as just as a parasite destroys its host so shall Zionist Israel destroy America.

    GOD BLESS RUSSIA AND SYRIA

    Read More
    • Replies: @hunor
    " the Zionist warmongers are going to destroy America and in case of war with Russia both
    nations will be destroyed...."

    You nailed it that is the plan! Stack up the best and brightest of the Caucasian males against
    each other, Nato vs. Russia , with modern weapons they will most effectively wipe out each other.
    They are the only ones who can hinder the plan of NWO. , so they have to be discarded. the remaining goyims will be forcefully crossbred , and microchiped , hence NWO. Nirvana for some
    lunatics , humanity for none.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Kiza says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Advanced Russian cruise missiles--or at least should not be news to military planners.

    They were well known in Cold War times and discussed in Western defense publications such as Jane's.

    The entire purpose of the failed F-111B and its replacement, the F-14, was to keep Soviet maritime bombers and their deadly cruise missiles as far away from the fleet as possible. A lesson obviously forgotten since the end of the Cold War.

    The existence of advanced military technology in Russia (or, really, anywhere outside of America) does appear to surprise American civilian leaders however, few of whom have any military expertise these days.

    The real question: how many working cruise missiles does Russia have in inventory? If Soviet stocks still exist the answer could be quite a lot.

    The existence of advanced military technology in Russia (or, really, anywhere outside of America) does appear to surprise American civilian leaders however, few of whom have any military expertise these days.

    Two separate illusions are to blame for not understanding the foreign, or particularly Russian military capability:
    1) the US population in general has been brainwashed that US is the technologically the most advanced country in the World; this may be true in many areas but it is far from being true in all areas, and
    2) the US population and its leaders believe that military superiority, especially the one based on technology, is proportional to the budget, which is totally non-sensical; it may be true within US, although the mergers of the MIC companies have reduced the competition to only a few, but it definitely does not apply even to the comparison with the efficiency of spending military funds even by Western allies of US, let alone to Russia and China.

    My top of the envelope estimate is that Russia spends its military budget about five times more efficiently than US, and about three times more efficiently than the EU/NATO allies of US. China is very similar, possibly even slightly more efficient than Russia. BTW, this efficiency is only partly due to lower labor costs, but this is a discussion which I had with Andrei before.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Vidi

    The purpose of war in Syria, from US (OK…Zionist Empire/whatever) point is ongoing chaos in that region. Chaos……in…………that…………region. Russia can not make that chaos go away.
     
    Chaos has a bad habit of expanding and can be extremely bloody and difficult to control; see the Thirty Years War. Does Israel really want to risk this in the country next door?

    France did pretty well out of the Thirty Years’ War.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    But the Frenchmen actually fought.

    On the other hand, the wimpy Israelis are good at killing women & children who throw stones, but then run home to mommy when they take a few hits.

    Witness Hezbollah / Lebanon, 2006 ... a rout.

    , @Vidi

    France did pretty well out of the Thirty Years’ War.
     
    Israel is not France.
    Israel is not even at the Hezbollah level.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Thorfinnsson
    Pardon the pun, but converting anti-ship missiles into land attack missiles doesn't sound like rocket science.

    Even if the Soviet Union didn't have advanced land-attack cruise missiles in the 80s, it should still have been obvious to anyone that their anti-ship missiles could be developed into land attack missiles.

    We're really just talking about a different guidance package, and depending on the sensors involved that can be as simple as a software change. GLONASS began to enter service in 1982, and the first test of a satellite guided bomb was conducted in 1993. Any idiot should've been able to put two and two together here, and at least some Western writers have been warning about increasingly sophisticated Russian weapons for more than a decade.

    Whether or not anti-ship missiles make surface warships obsolete I do not know. My hunch is certainly yes (and the future obsolescence of surface warships was predicted already before the war), but this is one of those things we won't truly know until we see it done.

    For that matter I'm not sure that hypersonic missiles are game changers for naval warfare...presumably one could simply saturate any naval task force with cheaper subsonic missiles and overwhelm defenses. If none of the of the ships in the task force have low frequency radars, stealth aircraft could drop laser guided bombs right down the blind stack directly on top of warships. A 2,000 pound high explosive bomb would sink more or less any warship afloat today. The Australian theorist Carlo Kopp proposed this for the F-22 as part of his pet cause to get his country to acquire F-22s.

    It has long struck me as idiotic that modern surface warships are largely unarmored, and I also find it curious how few CIWS Western warships have compared to Russian ones.

    Pardon the pun, but converting anti-ship missiles into land attack missiles doesn’t sound like rocket science.

    Converting P-700 with its inertial guidance and active seeker designed specifically to work against radio-contrast targets (yes P-700s recently were launched at coastal targets but that is not their main mode) and installing guidance packages for TLAM functions are two very different things. In the end P-700 range is around 700 kilometers, 3M14 is, officially, 2,500+. Moreover, 3M14 is naval missile, X-101 is air-launched, same as X-32.

    For that matter I’m not sure that hypersonic missiles are game changers for naval warfare…presumably one could simply saturate any naval task force with cheaper subsonic missiles and overwhelm defenses.

    It is much easier to achieve leaker with fewer missiles (hence increased survivability of launch platforms) and in much shorter time in case of hyper-sonic not to mention sea-skimmer. Some probabilities are already made public. Yes, saturation MO also is a viable option (in fact that is how models for First Operation in 1970s and 1980s were calculated) but ALL options must be considered. Generally, saturation threshold for a single Aegis DDG or Cruiser is known in case of SUBsonic salvo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Converting P-700 with its inertial guidance and active seeker designed specifically to work against radio-contrast targets (yes P-700s recently were launched at coastal targets but that is not their main mode) and installing guidance packages for TLAM functions are two very different things. In the end P-700 range is around 700 kilometers, 3M14 is, officially, 2,500+. Moreover, 3M14 is naval missile, X-101 is air-launched, same as X-32.
     
    Again, this just doesn't sound terribly challenging. Writing software for the new guidance package and then testing the missile is obviously laborious, but it's an order of magnitude simpler than the engineering of the original anti-ship missile.

    Adapting a naval missile for air launch consists of adding a mechanical device to connect to a hard point. Big whoop.

    Any analyst could've figured out these weapons were coming. Unfortunately Western civilian leaders are wholly ignorant of...well everything (and this is not to praise the fruit salad plastered dweebs in the officer corps).

    It is much easier to achieve leaker with fewer missiles (hence increased survivability of launch platforms) and in much shorter time in case of hyper-sonic not to mention sea-skimmer. Some probabilities are already made public. Yes, saturation MO also is a viable option (in fact that is how models for First Operation in 1970s and 1980s were calculated) but ALL options must be considered. Generally, saturation threshold for a single Aegis DDG or Cruiser is known in case of SUBsonic salvo.

     

    Sure, it's obviously a useful weapon and adds more options for the attacker. A sea-skimming hypersonic anti-ship missile seems particularly useful for a surprise attack for instance. The odds of current CIWS intercepting a hypersonic sea skimmer seem to be close to zero. Best hope is that the missile simply misses. No hope of surviving a hit since current surface warships are fragile and the large number of women on Western warships means damage control will be futile.

    @Talha

    Hey Andrei,

    Going off of my comment about simply making an aircraft carrier inoperable as opposed to sinking it; what do you know of Russia’s forays (if they’re even into this) into developing an EMP device. I would imagine you could take out a capital ship plus a few others in a fleet if you could detonate something that had a radius of say quarter mile or so:
     
    Boeing has developed such a weapon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electronics_High_Power_Microwave_Advanced_Missile_Project

    Raytheon is developing a higher powered version.

    I'm skeptical of non-nuclear EMP device producing enough energy to disable major warships other than exposed radio transmitters as the on-board ICs are likely both shielded and rad-hardened.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Thorfinnsson
    Pardon the pun, but converting anti-ship missiles into land attack missiles doesn't sound like rocket science.

    Even if the Soviet Union didn't have advanced land-attack cruise missiles in the 80s, it should still have been obvious to anyone that their anti-ship missiles could be developed into land attack missiles.

    We're really just talking about a different guidance package, and depending on the sensors involved that can be as simple as a software change. GLONASS began to enter service in 1982, and the first test of a satellite guided bomb was conducted in 1993. Any idiot should've been able to put two and two together here, and at least some Western writers have been warning about increasingly sophisticated Russian weapons for more than a decade.

    Whether or not anti-ship missiles make surface warships obsolete I do not know. My hunch is certainly yes (and the future obsolescence of surface warships was predicted already before the war), but this is one of those things we won't truly know until we see it done.

    For that matter I'm not sure that hypersonic missiles are game changers for naval warfare...presumably one could simply saturate any naval task force with cheaper subsonic missiles and overwhelm defenses. If none of the of the ships in the task force have low frequency radars, stealth aircraft could drop laser guided bombs right down the blind stack directly on top of warships. A 2,000 pound high explosive bomb would sink more or less any warship afloat today. The Australian theorist Carlo Kopp proposed this for the F-22 as part of his pet cause to get his country to acquire F-22s.

    It has long struck me as idiotic that modern surface warships are largely unarmored, and I also find it curious how few CIWS Western warships have compared to Russian ones.

    “Whether or not anti-ship missiles make surface warships obsolete I do not know. My hunch is certainly yes ..:.”

    Shhh! We’re still making money with that product line.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    During congressional hearings in the 1970s, Admiral Hyman Rickover considered aircraft carriers as being obsolete targets. It's more than obvious to any reader of this forum why they continue being produced.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @The Alarmist
    There are reasons why Breedlove was pushed out. I've been out of the "war" for a couple decades, so my confidence that there are saner heads where it counts might be misplaced.

    I wouldn't say 99%, but the number is non-trivial, and that is alarming. Peters is aimed at the folks who buy the medicines and other crap hawked on Fox. It helps sell his fiction to people who used to read Tom Clancy but now have to take a step down. If he were taken seriously, he'd be doing more appearances on the Sunday shows.

    Stoltenberg's militancy is distressing, but I again hope his masters have him on a short leash, meaning he will bark but he won't bite.

    The neocons are a problem. I think they've largely been kept in check by calmer heads in the military, which has to do the fighting and occasional dying in the fights the neocons want to pick, which in my opinion is why the neocons have gone about achieving their aims using the Company and its assets.

    DoD has undoubtedly seen and assessed the standoff capability of the Russians, which is why their involvement has been somewhat muted, but yeah, there are some rabid types down the chain who are itching to try their toys on the only real adversaries we have in the world, and given the independence we often give field commanders, they can get us in trouble.

    I can only hope that you are right. I do know that there are many good level professionals on mid to mid-high levels in DoD.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Talha says:
    @unit472
    Sinking a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier has not yet been done. They are pretty resilient ships and unless you can catch them with their decks full of fueled and armed aircraft as happened to the Japanese at Midway or hole them with torpedoes they tend to stay afloat even after being hit with conventional explosives.

    The Forrestal survived multiple detonations and explosions on its flight deck back in 1967 though over 100 sailors died. Smaller US WW2 era carriers survived direct hits from Kamikazi attacks so it is one thing to knock them out of action but another to sink them.

    Hey unit472,

    one thing to knock them out of action but another to sink them

    A carrier with an inoperable flight deck is pretty much a floating slab of metal (other than being a communication point for command and control) – am I right? I’ve not read of any aircraft carriers loaded with offensive weapons like surface-to-air missiles, cannons, etc.

    If so, it’s totally unnecessary to put all the effort into sinking the damn thing other than as a morale-crippling move.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov
    • Replies: @unit472
    It depends on your war scenario. A US carrier hit by Iran might make its way home and be repaired. That was how the US Navy operated in WW2 before armored flight decks. Interestingly the British carriers operating off Okinawa absorbed kamikazi attacks and stayed on station while the wooden flight decks on American carriers were not so robust.

    Today in a major war I tend to believe you go to war with what you have on day one and who can hit hardest in the first few days will prevail. There will be no time to move factories beyond the Urals or create an 'Arsenal of Democracy' out of range of enemy attack. In that scenario a carrier becomes, like everything else, an expendable platform.
    , @reiner Tor

    I’ve not read of any aircraft carriers loaded with offensive weapons
     
    Maybe not American carriers, but there's at least one carrier with such weapons: The cruiser role is facilitated by Admiral Kuznetsov's complement of 12 long-range surface-to-surface anti-ship P-700 Granit (NATO reporting name: Shipwreck) cruise missiles.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Talha says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Sinking a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier has not yet been done.
     
    And hopefully will not be done in the future--let's keep our fingers crossed.

    The Forrestal survived multiple detonations and explosions on its flight deck back in 1967 though over 100 sailors died
     
    Tragic scenario which still rendered USS Forrestal nonoperational. But then again: E=(mv^2)/2 . If to discount explosives, kinetic energy alone of Mach=3 (not to mention Mach=7+) of a single missile will surpass anything what Forestall or, for that matter, USS Enterprise endured in 1969. But here we get into the main issue of "leaker" and this is the problem which any US naval air defense system is not capable of solving. You may read more on the issue on US Naval Institute written by me.

    https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/08/28/aircraft-carriers-drama

    Hey Andrei,

    Going off of my comment about simply making an aircraft carrier inoperable as opposed to sinking it; what do you know of Russia’s forays (if they’re even into this) into developing an EMP device. I would imagine you could take out a capital ship plus a few others in a fleet if you could detonate something that had a radius of say quarter mile or so:

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sharrukin
    I assume you mean a non-nuclear EMP missile and I have thought that this might be a rather useful concept. I would think that the naval ships are somewhat protected from such attacks, but even a partial effect or temporary interference with the complicated radars and electronics in a carrier battle group during an antishipping missile attack could turn a minor attack into a knockout blow.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Andrei Martyanov

    Sinking a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier has not yet been done.
     
    And hopefully will not be done in the future--let's keep our fingers crossed.

    The Forrestal survived multiple detonations and explosions on its flight deck back in 1967 though over 100 sailors died
     
    Tragic scenario which still rendered USS Forrestal nonoperational. But then again: E=(mv^2)/2 . If to discount explosives, kinetic energy alone of Mach=3 (not to mention Mach=7+) of a single missile will surpass anything what Forestall or, for that matter, USS Enterprise endured in 1969. But here we get into the main issue of "leaker" and this is the problem which any US naval air defense system is not capable of solving. You may read more on the issue on US Naval Institute written by me.

    https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/08/28/aircraft-carriers-drama

    And hopefully will not be done in the future–let’s keep our fingers crossed.

    An admirable sentiment, or outcome of rational, moral principle.
    Maybe the wisest statement in this whole OP + comment thread.

    If grown-ups are in charge in Russia, China and then U.S., then it is the case for all three that:

    1. Their foreign and military policies are intended to advance, sometimes forcefully, their national interests
    2. Their military, forceful, national interest is defined as being sufficiently powerful to deter one another from the use of force … specifically with the intention of preventing an outcome from ever happening where one or the other is in open conflict
    3. Because, open conflict with one or another is an outcome that’s wholly incompatible with #1

    Sooooooo many words people toss about finding n-more ways to peal the onion of US/Russia/China power, but really just two things that matter:

    1. The US is always paying too much for its military, regardless of what it gets for what it paid
    2. The most worrisome thing on the world stage is a US leader or person in the US decision-making chain of command, losing his cool, and acting rashly, out of irrational fear that US dominance is threatened or the infantile possession of a belief that US dominance means dominance over near-peer partnersaries

    In any case – if the US blanketed Russian military positions in Syria:

    A. Definite outcome – somewhere on the planet Russia would face-savingly even the score by sinking (or otherwise destroying) a carrier … yes they are difficult to sink but a Syria debacle would create a will for a partnersary with ways
    B. Unclear outcome – whether it would stop there

    Because of B, this must never happen. Let’s hope to God our leaders understand that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Wally says:
    @Anonymous
    Trump will slaughter the Russians in Syria.

    And OJ is innocent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Don't you know that as soon as he is released, OJ shall be resuming his quest to locate and apprehend the real killers?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Wally says:
    @Anon
    France did pretty well out of the Thirty Years' War.

    But the Frenchmen actually fought.

    On the other hand, the wimpy Israelis are good at killing women & children who throw stones, but then run home to mommy when they take a few hits.

    Witness Hezbollah / Lebanon, 2006 … a rout.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Wally says:
    @Michael Kenny
    This sort of "Russia is invincable" bluster is old hat. It suggests that Putin's American supporters are getting nervous.

    Pay attention.

    The Russians are still in Syria and Syria has taken back most of it’s territory because of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    If we funded the FSA to the extent that we did the Mujahadeen, the Russians would be on their heels. If we had actual boots on the ground, it would be game, set, and match.

    In short, Assad got back territory thanks to Russia, it's true, but that's only because Russia has not been seriously opposed.

    Not that we should intervene. Just saying that it's an incomplete picture being drawn.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Andrei Martyanov

    Pardon the pun, but converting anti-ship missiles into land attack missiles doesn’t sound like rocket science.
     
    Converting P-700 with its inertial guidance and active seeker designed specifically to work against radio-contrast targets (yes P-700s recently were launched at coastal targets but that is not their main mode) and installing guidance packages for TLAM functions are two very different things. In the end P-700 range is around 700 kilometers, 3M14 is, officially, 2,500+. Moreover, 3M14 is naval missile, X-101 is air-launched, same as X-32.

    For that matter I’m not sure that hypersonic missiles are game changers for naval warfare…presumably one could simply saturate any naval task force with cheaper subsonic missiles and overwhelm defenses.
     
    It is much easier to achieve leaker with fewer missiles (hence increased survivability of launch platforms) and in much shorter time in case of hyper-sonic not to mention sea-skimmer. Some probabilities are already made public. Yes, saturation MO also is a viable option (in fact that is how models for First Operation in 1970s and 1980s were calculated) but ALL options must be considered. Generally, saturation threshold for a single Aegis DDG or Cruiser is known in case of SUBsonic salvo.

    Converting P-700 with its inertial guidance and active seeker designed specifically to work against radio-contrast targets (yes P-700s recently were launched at coastal targets but that is not their main mode) and installing guidance packages for TLAM functions are two very different things. In the end P-700 range is around 700 kilometers, 3M14 is, officially, 2,500+. Moreover, 3M14 is naval missile, X-101 is air-launched, same as X-32.

    Again, this just doesn’t sound terribly challenging. Writing software for the new guidance package and then testing the missile is obviously laborious, but it’s an order of magnitude simpler than the engineering of the original anti-ship missile.

    Adapting a naval missile for air launch consists of adding a mechanical device to connect to a hard point. Big whoop.

    Any analyst could’ve figured out these weapons were coming. Unfortunately Western civilian leaders are wholly ignorant of…well everything (and this is not to praise the fruit salad plastered dweebs in the officer corps).

    It is much easier to achieve leaker with fewer missiles (hence increased survivability of launch platforms) and in much shorter time in case of hyper-sonic not to mention sea-skimmer. Some probabilities are already made public. Yes, saturation MO also is a viable option (in fact that is how models for First Operation in 1970s and 1980s were calculated) but ALL options must be considered. Generally, saturation threshold for a single Aegis DDG or Cruiser is known in case of SUBsonic salvo.

    Sure, it’s obviously a useful weapon and adds more options for the attacker. A sea-skimming hypersonic anti-ship missile seems particularly useful for a surprise attack for instance. The odds of current CIWS intercepting a hypersonic sea skimmer seem to be close to zero. Best hope is that the missile simply misses. No hope of surviving a hit since current surface warships are fragile and the large number of women on Western warships means damage control will be futile.

    Hey Andrei,

    Going off of my comment about simply making an aircraft carrier inoperable as opposed to sinking it; what do you know of Russia’s forays (if they’re even into this) into developing an EMP device. I would imagine you could take out a capital ship plus a few others in a fleet if you could detonate something that had a radius of say quarter mile or so:

    Boeing has developed such a weapon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electronics_High_Power_Microwave_Advanced_Missile_Project

    Raytheon is developing a higher powered version.

    I’m skeptical of non-nuclear EMP device producing enough energy to disable major warships other than exposed radio transmitters as the on-board ICs are likely both shielded and rad-hardened.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Again, this just doesn’t sound terribly challenging. Writing software for the new guidance package and then testing the missile is obviously laborious, but it’s an order of magnitude simpler than the engineering of the original anti-ship missile.
     
    If you look at P-700 Granit--it is rather a very laborious process to update it to what you are talking about when the talk is about multiple platforms. Each Oscar II carries 24 of those. I will not disclose you any secret if tell you that launch systems of P-700s on all Project 1144 (Kirov-class) cruisers required a flooding (exactly as it happens on Oscar-class subs) before launch. It is a wet start, with flooding of the cells, even on the surface ships which testifies to the fact that things are not as simple as they seem. Moreover, Granits are genuine supersonic missiles with even cruising speeds in well in excess of Mach=1.5, with terminal up to Mach=2.5, all that, mind you--on very low flight profiles, this immediately imposes a rather different limitations both on an air-frame and combat load, than it would be the case with something like subsonic Harpoon or was the case with initial Tomahawks which WERE conceived initially namely as a anti-shipping missiles. G-loads and temperatures anti-shipping missiles, such as crazy violent maneuvering on terminal older SS-N-22 Sunburn (Moskit) or newer P-800 or 3M54, experience--no TLAM will survive it, it will simply disintegrate. No matter how well the code is written.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Ram says:

    Russia in effect has far more valuable very vulnerable targets in the area than the US does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price

    Russia in effect has far more valuable very vulnerable targets in the area than the US does.

     

    That's why Russia ringed their military assets with S-400 batteries, the most advanced anti-aircraft, anti-missile system ever deployed. The fact they have not been called upon to show it's capabilities, is proof that the US fully understands it's capabilities.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Wally
    And OJ is innocent.

    Don’t you know that as soon as he is released, OJ shall be resuming his quest to locate and apprehend the real killers?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Pay attention.

    The Russians are still in Syria and Syria has taken back most of it's territory because of it.

    If we funded the FSA to the extent that we did the Mujahadeen, the Russians would be on their heels. If we had actual boots on the ground, it would be game, set, and match.

    In short, Assad got back territory thanks to Russia, it’s true, but that’s only because Russia has not been seriously opposed.

    Not that we should intervene. Just saying that it’s an incomplete picture being drawn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {... but that’s only because Russia has not been seriously opposed.}

    Who would seriously oppose Russia?
    How?

    I think it was either [TheSaker] or [Karlin] who noted that both NATO and/or Israel can bring to bear assets at least 10X what Russia has in Syria.
    But obviously something gives NATO/US and/or Israel 2nd thoughts.
    I have no idea what it is, but the reason there is no interference with Russia is not because NATO/US/Israel are charitably disposed towards Russia.
    Clearly they are concerned (or worried) about something.

    The pending defeat of the Reptiles in Syria is a BIG deal.
    It throws of giant monkey wrench in the PINAC plan to redraw the Middle East for Eretz Yisrael.
    Short of directly attacking Russia - with unpredictable consequences - they tried pretty much everything:.
    - Chemical attack and mass murder of Syrian civilians by Turks and ISIS (...blamed on Assad).
    - Shootdown of RuAF Su-24 by Turkey/NATO.
    - Several attacks on SAA by US either by 'mistake' or directly.
    - Blatant violation of Syrian airspace by NATO pirates.
    ......

    Despite all that, SAA+Russia+Iran+Hezbollah are relentlessly grinding down the cannibalistic invaders. Israel-firsters and anti-American slime who have invested the State dept, Pentagon, and CIA are apoplectic.

    But clearly they don't know what to do.
    Otherwise, they would have done it already.

    , @yeah
    There were boots a plenty on the ground in Vietnam - and how did that one end? In case you missed Vietnam, Iraq has had plenty of boots on the ground as well; this one hasn't still officially ended but has not been going well, not well at all. And Afghanistan. And Korea in the fifties.

    As to Russia not having been seriously opposed in Syria: well, short of all-out war with Russia what else could have been done? If we try to understand the real game being played, we would be very concerned. From a Machiavellian perspective, the US strategy has been succeeding brilliantly. Boots on the ground did not succeed in Vietnam, but the Machiavellian plan certainly did. Allow me to elaborate a little below.

    Let us stop this knee-jerk, rah-rah rooting for the home team and try to think coolly. The first thing that comes to mind is that there isn't really any home team. This whole ball-game is not about wining once and for all, it is about keeping these crises going - all the time, everywhere. Russia is also learning how to play this game: after all, it, too, has to put on a game for its citizens lest they start getting all sorts of wrong ideas. So the powers that be collude, and keep these fires smouldering so that they can continue to collect protection fees from their respective citizens and client states.

    Who suffers? People who end up being boots on the ground. People who pay taxes. People who want a strong, but noble and inspiring, America. People who want to live and let others live.

    , @Carroll Price
    I don't think so, and apparently neither does the US military. The 1980s are long gone.
    , @Wally
    Anon said:

    "If we funded the FSA to the extent that we did the Mujahadeen, the Russians would be on their heels. If we had actual boots on the ground, it would be game, set, and match."

    Laughable.

    I suggest you actually read the article under discussion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. peterAUS says:
    @Vidi

    The purpose of war in Syria, from US (OK…Zionist Empire/whatever) point is ongoing chaos in that region. Chaos……in…………that…………region. Russia can not make that chaos go away.
     
    Chaos has a bad habit of expanding and can be extremely bloody and difficult to control; see the Thirty Years War. Does Israel really want to risk this in the country next door?

    Beats, options wise, having a stable Arab democracy next door, wouldn’t you think?

    Democracy supported, most likely, by Russia and China.

    For both security of the state of Israel and The Empire strategy in ME, chaos is definitely much more preferable option.

    Definitely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vidi

    For both security of the state of Israel and The Empire strategy in ME, chaos is definitely much more preferable option.
     
    Not if the chaos draws in all the powers in the region by proxy, including Turkey and Iran, and Israel is engulfed in the flames.

    Not even Uncle Sam will be able to save the little country. The US could threaten the major nations in the area, but they will shrug and say they have no control of the chaotic situation. Israel will wish it had never listened to the neocons who started the flames in the neighborhood.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. peterAUS says:
    @Frankie P
    You miss the more immediate goal of the Anglozionist Empire, namely the prevention of the Shia Crescent becoming a stable and calm area, protected and strengthened by well-trained, battle-hardened, united forces, including of course the SAA, Iran, the Iraqi militias, and Hezzbollah. For although as you mentioned the Zionist narcissistic great evil and its Yinon Plan to destabilize the entire Middle East / North Africa has long been a goal, we see once again that reality presents them having bitten off more than they could chew, and actions like the Iraq War, a neocon feast of overconfidence and bluster, ended up strengthening the true resistance, the true danger to their regional hegemonic plans. They doubled down, as psychopathic narcissists are prone to do, in Syria, and the resulting action by a stronger and more aggressive Russia has shone the light on the folly of their ways. The resistance has now become The Resistance, and with America's continuing belligerence pushing Russia and China ever closer, we will soon be calling it THE RESISTANCE.

    Frankie P

    Sorry mate, you lost me at

    well-trained, battle-hardened, united forces, including of course the SAA

    If that’s your assessment of that….something………. called “SAA” let’s agree to disagree and move on.

    But, surprisingly enough, you got

    Nuclear Armageddon would be the short answer

    right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. utu says:

    It all comes down to the nuclear deterrence which mask the actual level of imbalance in conventional weapons between Russia and the US. Neither Russia nor the US may demonstrate conventional weapons advantage in an actual exchange to prevent the opponent from being forced to resorting to the use of nuclear weapons. Thus the Saving Face Exit Option (SFEO) will be always left by the stronger one for the weaker one. This means that we will not find out about the actual conventional strike and counter strike capabilities. It will be left to speculations, phantasies, disinformation and propaganda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    It all comes down to the nuclear deterrence which mask the actual level of imbalance in conventional weapons between Russia and the US. Neither Russia nor the US may demonstrate conventional weapons advantage in an actual exchange to prevent the opponent from being forced to resorting to the use of nuclear weapons.
     
    Agree.

    Thus the Saving Face Exit Option (SFEO) will be always left by the stronger one for the weaker one. This means that we will not find out about the actual conventional strike and counter strike capabilities. It will be left to speculations, phantasies, disinformation and propaganda.
     
    Hopefully.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    So, what do you think, what could be the next steps in that play?
     
    OK let's look at it a bit closer. But to do so we must recognise that we are moving to the realms of wider politics rather than its subset, war. At the level we are talking about, the decisions are always political rather than military, even when they are taken by military men in an overtly military regime.

    The context is what is discussed by Martyanov above - the US regime, presumably listening to some of the less wise amongst its senior military men and the less honestly motivated amongst its influential political and media figures, decides to try to defeat and destroy the Russian forces in Syria whilst counting on what they believe is the US's general escalation superiority to constrain Russian responses and keep the open conflict contained to the region. After the initial probably devastating US attack on Russian forces in Syria, involving the overloading and suppression by various means including direct SEAD attacks of the limited air defences in theatre, the Russians respond with large standoff attacks that effectively destroy US bases and/or carriers used in the attack or in the vicinity. They would not have enough to keep all US and allied ships and bases from which attacks could be launched in Syria out of action, but they could presumably render several substantial bases unusable for significant periods and sink a number of ships including carriers, which would have to operate from more distant locations, rendering operations more costly and less effective.

    What does the US do next? Militarily it has to retaliate, but it can choose how far to escalate in doing so. The problem is that substantive retaliation presumably requires attacks on Russian bases inside Russia, which involves very high risks of uncontrolled escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange. Do they do that? If they launch limited attacks inside Russia (eg an attack on a base used to launch the strategic bombers, say), Russia has the strategic capability to carry out direct tit for tat responses.

    Given the likely involvement of the forces and bases of regional allies (though who really knows how enthusiastic Turkey would really be, these days), it seems likely the attack on Russian forces in Syria could still be prosecuted to completion with their effective destruction, and meaningful Russia reinforcements interdicted successfully, but that would now seem rather a sideshow. And meanwhile Iraqi and Iranian involvement would be likely, and not to the advantage of the US's interests on the ground. Russian ships in the region and perhaps elsewhere could (certainly would in the case of ships in theatre) be engaged in full scale air/sea battles likely resulting in their fairly prompt destruction, but not without significant ongoing losses to US naval forces.

    While all this is going on, what is the political response that will drive the long term outcome? Imo that depends on the political context - is this Pearl Harbor or the Beirut bombings for the US regime? In Pearl Harbor the Japanese executed a "Bush Doctrine" preventive attack on US military forces intended to forestall what they probably correctly saw as an existential threat from a rival. The result was that although they did considerable military damage all they ultimately achieved was to provide the political context in which the US regime could do what it had not previously been capable of doing, namely to wage a total war to defeat and occupy its Pacific rival. In Beirut the US was interfering in a Lebanese conflict under the transparently false pretext of "peacekeeping", and their enemies struck back at them by carrying out a large suicide bombing attack on their military base in theatre. The result was not the creation of a political motivation for invasion and occupation, but rather the discrediting of the intervention policy and the withdrawal of US military forces from Lebanon.

    In the context under discussion, would the loss of US bases and/or carriers, with massive loss of life and arguably even greater loss of prestige (and, it should be remembered, substantial loss of actual military intervention capability in theatre, even if that could be rebuilt and replaced over time), result in an American political determination to engage in a long, massive military confrontation to defeat Russia strategically (a WW2 Japan-style open war of invasion and occupation is ruled out by the modern nuclear peace), and would the US have the necessary global support in waging such a campaign to give it any chance of succeeding?

    Or would it result in a backlash, both domestic and international, against the US regime itself for attacking Russian forces in Syria and essentially provoking the Russian response?

    Much depends on propaganda - does the US regime and its various collaborating elites still have sufficient control of the global and domestic media environment to impose the necessary narrative of a dastardly Russian act of aggression (yes, incredibly enough that is how they try to would portray it - the Americans have demonstrated over the years a shocking degree of hypocrisy when it comes to viewing themselves as the victims in cases of retaliation against them for the actions of their own government and military)? But much also would depend upon the particular circumstances in which the initial American attacks took place and how they were justified (supposed chemical attacks, WMD, responses to provocations, etc).

    In the end, all the dithering in Washington over the past six years about how far to go in Syria has been in large part about who gets the blame if things go wrong.

    So would the result be some kind of strategic defeat for Russia (as for Japan in WW2), or political turmoil in the US resulting in a loss of stomach for further interference (as in Lebanon)? If the former, then you have to explain how such a defeat is realistically going to occur given the reality of the strategic nuclear deterrent Russia has against any massive military attack, and its very significant defensive conventional capabilities, as well as the reality that even if the US's European and Pacific satellites might be willing to go along in such a venture (questionable in some cases, depending on the context), China and most of Asia, and much of Africa and South America, certainly would not, and these areas weigh much more heavily in the global economic balance than they did a few decades ago.

    The real lesson of all this, of course, is that the US regime would have to be profoundly stupid or desperate to risk attacking Russian forces in Syria. Sadly that's not as reassuring as it ought to be.

    Thoughtful and civilized response…as expected.

    Rare quality, though, in this “fanboy” blathering.

    I’ll try on the similar level (civilized, quality of thought is always debatable).

    First, overall, you are correct, BUT, I feel you’ve made a basic error in “The Mission” part of METT-T.
    All the rest, although correct, isn’t relevant I am afraid.
    I’ll explain below.

    OK let’s look at it a bit closer. But to do so we must recognise that we are moving to the realms of wider politics rather than its subset, war. At the level we are talking about, the decisions are always political rather than military, even when they are taken by military men in an overtly military regime.

    Agree.

    The context is what is discussed by Martyanov above – the US regime, presumably listening to some of the less wise amongst its senior military men and the less honestly motivated amongst its influential political and media figures, decides to try to defeat and destroy the Russian forces in Syria whilst counting on what they believe is the US’s general escalation superiority to constrain Russian responses and keep the open conflict contained to the region.

    THIS is the element I feel you got wrong.
    So, either that IS their intention/objective and you are correct.
    Or, that is NOT their intention/objective……

    My position is that is NOT their mission/objective.

    As I’ve stated before in other threads, I believe the objective is to bog Russia in quagmire in the region.
    The same strategy that dissolved Soviet Union . In this case the goal is to execute regime change in Moscow.

    All the rest is an interesting reading, but, I believe it is not relevant for the situation in Syria (or ME in general).

    Now, if we really want to go along that scenario (just as a chat) here is my 2 cents.

    After the initial probably devastating US attack on Russian forces in Syria, involving the overloading and suppression by various means including direct SEAD attacks of the limited air defences in theatre, the Russians respond with large standoff attacks that effectively destroy US bases and/or carriers used in the attack or in the vicinity. They would not have enough to keep all US and allied ships and bases from which attacks could be launched in Syria out of action, but they could presumably render several substantial bases unusable for significant periods and sink a number of ships including carriers, which would have to operate from more distant locations, rendering operations more costly and less effective.

    Agree.

    What does the US do next? Militarily it has to retaliate, but it can choose how far to escalate in doing so. The problem is that substantive retaliation presumably requires attacks on Russian bases inside Russia, which involves very high risks of uncontrolled escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange. Do they do that? If they launch limited attacks inside Russia (eg an attack on a base used to launch the strategic bombers, say), Russia has the strategic capability to carry out direct tit for tat responses.

    Agree.
    And from here on………….it can be fast drive into death of civilization as we see it.

    Given the likely involvement of the forces and bases of regional allies (though who really knows how enthusiastic Turkey would really be, these days), it seems likely the attack on Russian forces in Syria could still be prosecuted to completion with their effective destruction, and meaningful Russia reinforcements interdicted successfully, but that would now seem rather a sideshow. And meanwhile Iraqi and Iranian involvement would be likely, and not to the advantage of the US’s interests on the ground. Russian ships in the region and perhaps elsewhere could (certainly would in the case of ships in theatre) be engaged in full scale air/sea battles likely resulting in their fairly prompt destruction, but not without significant ongoing losses to US naval forces.

    Agree.

    While all this is going on, what is the political response that will drive the long term outcome? Imo that depends on the political context – is this Pearl Harbor or the Beirut bombings for the US regime? In Pearl Harbor the Japanese executed a “Bush Doctrine” preventive attack on US military forces intended to forestall what they probably correctly saw as an existential threat from a rival. The result was that although they did considerable military damage all they ultimately achieved was to provide the political context in which the US regime could do what it had not previously been capable of doing, namely to wage a total war to defeat and occupy its Pacific rival. In Beirut the US was interfering in a Lebanese conflict under the transparently false pretext of “peacekeeping”, and their enemies struck back at them by carrying out a large suicide bombing attack on their military base in theatre. The result was not the creation of a political motivation for invasion and occupation, but rather the discrediting of the intervention policy and the withdrawal of US military forces from Lebanon.

    Agree.

    In the context under discussion, would the loss of US bases and/or carriers, with massive loss of life and arguably even greater loss of prestige (and, it should be remembered, substantial loss of actual military intervention capability in theatre, even if that could be rebuilt and replaced over time), result in an American political determination to engage in a long, massive military confrontation to defeat Russia strategically (a WW2 Japan-style open war of invasion and occupation is ruled out by the modern nuclear peace), and would the US have the necessary global support in waging such a campaign to give it any chance of succeeding?

    Or would it result in a backlash, both domestic and international, against the US regime itself for attacking Russian forces in Syria and essentially provoking the Russian response?

    Much depends on propaganda – does the US regime and its various collaborating elites still have sufficient control of the global and domestic media environment to impose the necessary narrative of a dastardly Russian act of aggression (yes, incredibly enough that is how they try to would portray it – the Americans have demonstrated over the years a shocking degree of hypocrisy when it comes to viewing themselves as the victims in cases of retaliation against them for the actions of their own government and military)? But much also would depend upon the particular circumstances in which the initial American attacks took place and how they were justified (supposed chemical attacks, WMD, responses to provocations, etc).

    In the end, all the dithering in Washington over the past six years about how far to go in Syria has been in large part about who gets the blame if things go wrong.

    Agree.

    So would the result be some kind of strategic defeat for Russia (as for Japan in WW2), or political turmoil in the US resulting in a loss of stomach for further interference (as in Lebanon)? If the former, then you have to explain how such a defeat is realistically going to occur given the reality of the strategic nuclear deterrent Russia has against any massive military attack, and its very significant defensive conventional capabilities, as well as the reality that even if the US’s European and Pacific satellites might be willing to go along in such a venture (questionable in some cases, depending on the context), China and most of Asia, and much of Africa and South America, certainly would not, and these areas weigh much more heavily in the global economic balance than they did a few decades ago.

    The real lesson of all this, of course, is that the US regime would have to be profoundly stupid or desperate to risk attacking Russian forces in Syria. Sadly that’s not as reassuring as it ought to be.

    Agree.

    Well…isn’t

    the US regime would have to be profoundly stupid or desperate to risk attacking Russian forces in Syria

    what’s my basic premise here?

    I, personally, see the possibility of above, unfortunately, because of unbalanced decision making in Washington. THAT is the real problem here.
    Moscow decision making process (and execution) is much more stable and predictable then Washington.
    That launch on Syria by Trump was……….just……terrible in that regard.

    So, how about my scenario here:
    As the current situation continues it will be more death and mutilation of Russian personell there.
    Russians will absorb that and will NOT try to retaliate.
    But, sooner or later, by pure fog of war, a bomb/missile/shell will get Western SOF team on the ground. Not necessarily Russian….it can be simply a “speculative fire on that hill” by SAA.
    THEN we’ll see what happens and God help us.

    With the current politics in Washington and Trump team decision making process what can we expect?
    A retaliatory attack on….what?
    How much of Russian men and material could be caught in it?

    From then on, yes, your scenario can spiral out in instant.

    So….time to get religious and start praying?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Just wondering; Have either of you military geniuses ever consider enrolling in the US War College?
    , @Thirdeye
    There's some speculation, based on the timing and the targeting, that the recent Russian cruise missile attacks in Idlib may have targeted US SOF in retaliation for Deir Ezzor and northern Hama. The US couldn't respond because to do so would be an admission that SOF are working with HTS and HTS-supporting groups.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/10/syria-russia-issues-third-warning-against-us-cooperation-with-terrorists.html?cid=6a00d8341c640e53ef01bb09ca6f1a970d#comment-form
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Avery says:
    @Anon
    If we funded the FSA to the extent that we did the Mujahadeen, the Russians would be on their heels. If we had actual boots on the ground, it would be game, set, and match.

    In short, Assad got back territory thanks to Russia, it's true, but that's only because Russia has not been seriously opposed.

    Not that we should intervene. Just saying that it's an incomplete picture being drawn.

    {… but that’s only because Russia has not been seriously opposed.}

    Who would seriously oppose Russia?
    How?

    I think it was either [TheSaker] or [Karlin] who noted that both NATO and/or Israel can bring to bear assets at least 10X what Russia has in Syria.
    But obviously something gives NATO/US and/or Israel 2nd thoughts.
    I have no idea what it is, but the reason there is no interference with Russia is not because NATO/US/Israel are charitably disposed towards Russia.
    Clearly they are concerned (or worried) about something.

    The pending defeat of the Reptiles in Syria is a BIG deal.
    It throws of giant monkey wrench in the PINAC plan to redraw the Middle East for Eretz Yisrael.
    Short of directly attacking Russia – with unpredictable consequences – they tried pretty much everything:.
    - Chemical attack and mass murder of Syrian civilians by Turks and ISIS (…blamed on Assad).
    - Shootdown of RuAF Su-24 by Turkey/NATO.
    - Several attacks on SAA by US either by ‘mistake’ or directly.
    - Blatant violation of Syrian airspace by NATO pirates.
    ……

    Despite all that, SAA+Russia+Iran+Hezbollah are relentlessly grinding down the cannibalistic invaders. Israel-firsters and anti-American slime who have invested the State dept, Pentagon, and CIA are apoplectic.

    But clearly they don’t know what to do.
    Otherwise, they would have done it already.

    Read More
    • Agree: Carroll Price
    • Replies: @Wally
    "But obviously something gives NATO/US and/or Israel 2nd thoughts.
    I have no idea what it is, but the reason there is no interference with Russia is not because NATO/US/Israel are charitably disposed towards Russia.
    Clearly they are concerned (or worried) about something.
    "

    It's called 'casualties' / losses.

    A base or aircraft carrier cannot be swept under the Zionist media's rug.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. peterAUS says:
    @utu
    It all comes down to the nuclear deterrence which mask the actual level of imbalance in conventional weapons between Russia and the US. Neither Russia nor the US may demonstrate conventional weapons advantage in an actual exchange to prevent the opponent from being forced to resorting to the use of nuclear weapons. Thus the Saving Face Exit Option (SFEO) will be always left by the stronger one for the weaker one. This means that we will not find out about the actual conventional strike and counter strike capabilities. It will be left to speculations, phantasies, disinformation and propaganda.

    It all comes down to the nuclear deterrence which mask the actual level of imbalance in conventional weapons between Russia and the US. Neither Russia nor the US may demonstrate conventional weapons advantage in an actual exchange to prevent the opponent from being forced to resorting to the use of nuclear weapons.

    Agree.

    Thus the Saving Face Exit Option (SFEO) will be always left by the stronger one for the weaker one. This means that we will not find out about the actual conventional strike and counter strike capabilities. It will be left to speculations, phantasies, disinformation and propaganda.

    Hopefully.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Thorfinnsson
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Converting P-700 with its inertial guidance and active seeker designed specifically to work against radio-contrast targets (yes P-700s recently were launched at coastal targets but that is not their main mode) and installing guidance packages for TLAM functions are two very different things. In the end P-700 range is around 700 kilometers, 3M14 is, officially, 2,500+. Moreover, 3M14 is naval missile, X-101 is air-launched, same as X-32.
     
    Again, this just doesn't sound terribly challenging. Writing software for the new guidance package and then testing the missile is obviously laborious, but it's an order of magnitude simpler than the engineering of the original anti-ship missile.

    Adapting a naval missile for air launch consists of adding a mechanical device to connect to a hard point. Big whoop.

    Any analyst could've figured out these weapons were coming. Unfortunately Western civilian leaders are wholly ignorant of...well everything (and this is not to praise the fruit salad plastered dweebs in the officer corps).

    It is much easier to achieve leaker with fewer missiles (hence increased survivability of launch platforms) and in much shorter time in case of hyper-sonic not to mention sea-skimmer. Some probabilities are already made public. Yes, saturation MO also is a viable option (in fact that is how models for First Operation in 1970s and 1980s were calculated) but ALL options must be considered. Generally, saturation threshold for a single Aegis DDG or Cruiser is known in case of SUBsonic salvo.

     

    Sure, it's obviously a useful weapon and adds more options for the attacker. A sea-skimming hypersonic anti-ship missile seems particularly useful for a surprise attack for instance. The odds of current CIWS intercepting a hypersonic sea skimmer seem to be close to zero. Best hope is that the missile simply misses. No hope of surviving a hit since current surface warships are fragile and the large number of women on Western warships means damage control will be futile.

    @Talha

    Hey Andrei,

    Going off of my comment about simply making an aircraft carrier inoperable as opposed to sinking it; what do you know of Russia’s forays (if they’re even into this) into developing an EMP device. I would imagine you could take out a capital ship plus a few others in a fleet if you could detonate something that had a radius of say quarter mile or so:
     
    Boeing has developed such a weapon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electronics_High_Power_Microwave_Advanced_Missile_Project

    Raytheon is developing a higher powered version.

    I'm skeptical of non-nuclear EMP device producing enough energy to disable major warships other than exposed radio transmitters as the on-board ICs are likely both shielded and rad-hardened.

    Again, this just doesn’t sound terribly challenging. Writing software for the new guidance package and then testing the missile is obviously laborious, but it’s an order of magnitude simpler than the engineering of the original anti-ship missile.

    If you look at P-700 Granit–it is rather a very laborious process to update it to what you are talking about when the talk is about multiple platforms. Each Oscar II carries 24 of those. I will not disclose you any secret if tell you that launch systems of P-700s on all Project 1144 (Kirov-class) cruisers required a flooding (exactly as it happens on Oscar-class subs) before launch. It is a wet start, with flooding of the cells, even on the surface ships which testifies to the fact that things are not as simple as they seem. Moreover, Granits are genuine supersonic missiles with even cruising speeds in well in excess of Mach=1.5, with terminal up to Mach=2.5, all that, mind you–on very low flight profiles, this immediately imposes a rather different limitations both on an air-frame and combat load, than it would be the case with something like subsonic Harpoon or was the case with initial Tomahawks which WERE conceived initially namely as a anti-shipping missiles. G-loads and temperatures anti-shipping missiles, such as crazy violent maneuvering on terminal older SS-N-22 Sunburn (Moskit) or newer P-800 or 3M54, experience–no TLAM will survive it, it will simply disintegrate. No matter how well the code is written.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    What does the Tomahawk have to do with this?

    It's well known that Western countries have lagged Russia in cruise missile development for decades now. I'm not even entirely sure why--more confidence in our sea and air power?

    The USA developed some of the first (perhaps the first?) supersonic cruise missiles all the way back in the 1960s, but there was no development since then. Today hypersonic weapons are seriously being pursued, however.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Frankie P
    You miss the more immediate goal of the Anglozionist Empire, namely the prevention of the Shia Crescent becoming a stable and calm area, protected and strengthened by well-trained, battle-hardened, united forces, including of course the SAA, Iran, the Iraqi militias, and Hezzbollah. For although as you mentioned the Zionist narcissistic great evil and its Yinon Plan to destabilize the entire Middle East / North Africa has long been a goal, we see once again that reality presents them having bitten off more than they could chew, and actions like the Iraq War, a neocon feast of overconfidence and bluster, ended up strengthening the true resistance, the true danger to their regional hegemonic plans. They doubled down, as psychopathic narcissists are prone to do, in Syria, and the resulting action by a stronger and more aggressive Russia has shone the light on the folly of their ways. The resistance has now become The Resistance, and with America's continuing belligerence pushing Russia and China ever closer, we will soon be calling it THE RESISTANCE.

    Frankie P

    They doubled down, as psychopathic narcissists are prone to do, in Syria, and the resulting action by a stronger and more aggressive Russia has shone the light on the folly of their ways. The resistance has now become The Resistance…

    Indeed. Relatively unknown (at the time) Hezbollah, who in 2006 put a royal shellacking on Israel, has not only survived, but emerged many magnitudes stronger and more confident than anyone could have ever imagined.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. yeah says:
    @Anon
    If we funded the FSA to the extent that we did the Mujahadeen, the Russians would be on their heels. If we had actual boots on the ground, it would be game, set, and match.

    In short, Assad got back territory thanks to Russia, it's true, but that's only because Russia has not been seriously opposed.

    Not that we should intervene. Just saying that it's an incomplete picture being drawn.

    There were boots a plenty on the ground in Vietnam – and how did that one end? In case you missed Vietnam, Iraq has had plenty of boots on the ground as well; this one hasn’t still officially ended but has not been going well, not well at all. And Afghanistan. And Korea in the fifties.

    As to Russia not having been seriously opposed in Syria: well, short of all-out war with Russia what else could have been done? If we try to understand the real game being played, we would be very concerned. From a Machiavellian perspective, the US strategy has been succeeding brilliantly. Boots on the ground did not succeed in Vietnam, but the Machiavellian plan certainly did. Allow me to elaborate a little below.

    Let us stop this knee-jerk, rah-rah rooting for the home team and try to think coolly. The first thing that comes to mind is that there isn’t really any home team. This whole ball-game is not about wining once and for all, it is about keeping these crises going – all the time, everywhere. Russia is also learning how to play this game: after all, it, too, has to put on a game for its citizens lest they start getting all sorts of wrong ideas. So the powers that be collude, and keep these fires smouldering so that they can continue to collect protection fees from their respective citizens and client states.

    Who suffers? People who end up being boots on the ground. People who pay taxes. People who want a strong, but noble and inspiring, America. People who want to live and let others live.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    This whole ball-game is not about wining once and for all, it is about keeping these crises going – all the time, everywhere. Russia is also learning how to play this game: after all, it, too, has to put on a game for its citizens lest they start getting all sorts of wrong ideas.
     
    Agree.

    So the powers that be collude, and keep these fires smouldering so that they can continue to collect protection fees from their respective citizens and client states.
     
    Collude on one level; compete on another.
    A fine game the current leadership in Washington could have a problem playing.

    Who suffers? People who end up being boots on the ground. People who pay taxes. People who want a strong, but noble and inspiring, America. People who want to live and let others live.
     
    Yup.
    Worked that way since Babylon.
    , @Anon
    We weren't fighting the Russians in Vietnam. We were fighting the Vietnamese and therein lies the difference.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Randal

    So, what do you think, what could be the next steps in that play?
     
    OK let's look at it a bit closer. But to do so we must recognise that we are moving to the realms of wider politics rather than its subset, war. At the level we are talking about, the decisions are always political rather than military, even when they are taken by military men in an overtly military regime.

    The context is what is discussed by Martyanov above - the US regime, presumably listening to some of the less wise amongst its senior military men and the less honestly motivated amongst its influential political and media figures, decides to try to defeat and destroy the Russian forces in Syria whilst counting on what they believe is the US's general escalation superiority to constrain Russian responses and keep the open conflict contained to the region. After the initial probably devastating US attack on Russian forces in Syria, involving the overloading and suppression by various means including direct SEAD attacks of the limited air defences in theatre, the Russians respond with large standoff attacks that effectively destroy US bases and/or carriers used in the attack or in the vicinity. They would not have enough to keep all US and allied ships and bases from which attacks could be launched in Syria out of action, but they could presumably render several substantial bases unusable for significant periods and sink a number of ships including carriers, which would have to operate from more distant locations, rendering operations more costly and less effective.

    What does the US do next? Militarily it has to retaliate, but it can choose how far to escalate in doing so. The problem is that substantive retaliation presumably requires attacks on Russian bases inside Russia, which involves very high risks of uncontrolled escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange. Do they do that? If they launch limited attacks inside Russia (eg an attack on a base used to launch the strategic bombers, say), Russia has the strategic capability to carry out direct tit for tat responses.

    Given the likely involvement of the forces and bases of regional allies (though who really knows how enthusiastic Turkey would really be, these days), it seems likely the attack on Russian forces in Syria could still be prosecuted to completion with their effective destruction, and meaningful Russia reinforcements interdicted successfully, but that would now seem rather a sideshow. And meanwhile Iraqi and Iranian involvement would be likely, and not to the advantage of the US's interests on the ground. Russian ships in the region and perhaps elsewhere could (certainly would in the case of ships in theatre) be engaged in full scale air/sea battles likely resulting in their fairly prompt destruction, but not without significant ongoing losses to US naval forces.

    While all this is going on, what is the political response that will drive the long term outcome? Imo that depends on the political context - is this Pearl Harbor or the Beirut bombings for the US regime? In Pearl Harbor the Japanese executed a "Bush Doctrine" preventive attack on US military forces intended to forestall what they probably correctly saw as an existential threat from a rival. The result was that although they did considerable military damage all they ultimately achieved was to provide the political context in which the US regime could do what it had not previously been capable of doing, namely to wage a total war to defeat and occupy its Pacific rival. In Beirut the US was interfering in a Lebanese conflict under the transparently false pretext of "peacekeeping", and their enemies struck back at them by carrying out a large suicide bombing attack on their military base in theatre. The result was not the creation of a political motivation for invasion and occupation, but rather the discrediting of the intervention policy and the withdrawal of US military forces from Lebanon.

    In the context under discussion, would the loss of US bases and/or carriers, with massive loss of life and arguably even greater loss of prestige (and, it should be remembered, substantial loss of actual military intervention capability in theatre, even if that could be rebuilt and replaced over time), result in an American political determination to engage in a long, massive military confrontation to defeat Russia strategically (a WW2 Japan-style open war of invasion and occupation is ruled out by the modern nuclear peace), and would the US have the necessary global support in waging such a campaign to give it any chance of succeeding?

    Or would it result in a backlash, both domestic and international, against the US regime itself for attacking Russian forces in Syria and essentially provoking the Russian response?

    Much depends on propaganda - does the US regime and its various collaborating elites still have sufficient control of the global and domestic media environment to impose the necessary narrative of a dastardly Russian act of aggression (yes, incredibly enough that is how they try to would portray it - the Americans have demonstrated over the years a shocking degree of hypocrisy when it comes to viewing themselves as the victims in cases of retaliation against them for the actions of their own government and military)? But much also would depend upon the particular circumstances in which the initial American attacks took place and how they were justified (supposed chemical attacks, WMD, responses to provocations, etc).

    In the end, all the dithering in Washington over the past six years about how far to go in Syria has been in large part about who gets the blame if things go wrong.

    So would the result be some kind of strategic defeat for Russia (as for Japan in WW2), or political turmoil in the US resulting in a loss of stomach for further interference (as in Lebanon)? If the former, then you have to explain how such a defeat is realistically going to occur given the reality of the strategic nuclear deterrent Russia has against any massive military attack, and its very significant defensive conventional capabilities, as well as the reality that even if the US's European and Pacific satellites might be willing to go along in such a venture (questionable in some cases, depending on the context), China and most of Asia, and much of Africa and South America, certainly would not, and these areas weigh much more heavily in the global economic balance than they did a few decades ago.

    The real lesson of all this, of course, is that the US regime would have to be profoundly stupid or desperate to risk attacking Russian forces in Syria. Sadly that's not as reassuring as it ought to be.

    Just to augment your train of thought (I do not agree with everything in it, but it is a decent effort): get to the Google Maps, click on the middle of the Caspian Sea, then right click “Measure Distance”, put cursor, say on Kandahar in Afghanistan, left click and a lot will become very clear. As per Eastern Med, well, it is a very funny thing because this will require literally counting for, say, number of hulls of the Submarines at piers in such places as main bases of Northern Fleet, if you know what I mean;-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Michael Kenny
    This sort of "Russia is invincable" bluster is old hat. It suggests that Putin's American supporters are getting nervous.

    Dream on. The fact that Russia has won the war in Syria, and will likely remain there indefinitely, tells me the US considers them invincible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. peterAUS says:
    @yeah
    There were boots a plenty on the ground in Vietnam - and how did that one end? In case you missed Vietnam, Iraq has had plenty of boots on the ground as well; this one hasn't still officially ended but has not been going well, not well at all. And Afghanistan. And Korea in the fifties.

    As to Russia not having been seriously opposed in Syria: well, short of all-out war with Russia what else could have been done? If we try to understand the real game being played, we would be very concerned. From a Machiavellian perspective, the US strategy has been succeeding brilliantly. Boots on the ground did not succeed in Vietnam, but the Machiavellian plan certainly did. Allow me to elaborate a little below.

    Let us stop this knee-jerk, rah-rah rooting for the home team and try to think coolly. The first thing that comes to mind is that there isn't really any home team. This whole ball-game is not about wining once and for all, it is about keeping these crises going - all the time, everywhere. Russia is also learning how to play this game: after all, it, too, has to put on a game for its citizens lest they start getting all sorts of wrong ideas. So the powers that be collude, and keep these fires smouldering so that they can continue to collect protection fees from their respective citizens and client states.

    Who suffers? People who end up being boots on the ground. People who pay taxes. People who want a strong, but noble and inspiring, America. People who want to live and let others live.

    This whole ball-game is not about wining once and for all, it is about keeping these crises going – all the time, everywhere. Russia is also learning how to play this game: after all, it, too, has to put on a game for its citizens lest they start getting all sorts of wrong ideas.

    Agree.

    So the powers that be collude, and keep these fires smouldering so that they can continue to collect protection fees from their respective citizens and client states.

    Collude on one level; compete on another.
    A fine game the current leadership in Washington could have a problem playing.

    Who suffers? People who end up being boots on the ground. People who pay taxes. People who want a strong, but noble and inspiring, America. People who want to live and let others live.

    Yup.
    Worked that way since Babylon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Thorfinnsson
    Advanced Russian cruise missiles--or at least should not be news to military planners.

    They were well known in Cold War times and discussed in Western defense publications such as Jane's.

    The entire purpose of the failed F-111B and its replacement, the F-14, was to keep Soviet maritime bombers and their deadly cruise missiles as far away from the fleet as possible. A lesson obviously forgotten since the end of the Cold War.

    The existence of advanced military technology in Russia (or, really, anywhere outside of America) does appear to surprise American civilian leaders however, few of whom have any military expertise these days.

    The real question: how many working cruise missiles does Russia have in inventory? If Soviet stocks still exist the answer could be quite a lot.

    Who’s fooling who? What does it tell you about Russian military technology when the US can’t put a weather satellite in orbit without first purchasing a Russian-built rocket engine?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Andrei Martyanov

    Again, this just doesn’t sound terribly challenging. Writing software for the new guidance package and then testing the missile is obviously laborious, but it’s an order of magnitude simpler than the engineering of the original anti-ship missile.
     
    If you look at P-700 Granit--it is rather a very laborious process to update it to what you are talking about when the talk is about multiple platforms. Each Oscar II carries 24 of those. I will not disclose you any secret if tell you that launch systems of P-700s on all Project 1144 (Kirov-class) cruisers required a flooding (exactly as it happens on Oscar-class subs) before launch. It is a wet start, with flooding of the cells, even on the surface ships which testifies to the fact that things are not as simple as they seem. Moreover, Granits are genuine supersonic missiles with even cruising speeds in well in excess of Mach=1.5, with terminal up to Mach=2.5, all that, mind you--on very low flight profiles, this immediately imposes a rather different limitations both on an air-frame and combat load, than it would be the case with something like subsonic Harpoon or was the case with initial Tomahawks which WERE conceived initially namely as a anti-shipping missiles. G-loads and temperatures anti-shipping missiles, such as crazy violent maneuvering on terminal older SS-N-22 Sunburn (Moskit) or newer P-800 or 3M54, experience--no TLAM will survive it, it will simply disintegrate. No matter how well the code is written.

    What does the Tomahawk have to do with this?

    It’s well known that Western countries have lagged Russia in cruise missile development for decades now. I’m not even entirely sure why–more confidence in our sea and air power?

    The USA developed some of the first (perhaps the first?) supersonic cruise missiles all the way back in the 1960s, but there was no development since then. Today hypersonic weapons are seriously being pursued, however.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    The USA developed some of the first (perhaps the first?) supersonic cruise missiles all the way back in the 1960s
     
    Regulus II, 1950s. The program was shut down and why it was so is well described in Elmo Zumwalt's excellent memoirs "On Watch".
    , @SimplePseudonymicHandle

    It’s well known that Western countries have lagged Russia in cruise missile development for decades now. I’m not even entirely sure why–more confidence in our sea and air power?
     
    It could be the rare example of the US military practicing the policy of "quantity is a quality all of its own". At least until recently they've had a lot of Tomahawks in inventory and while we hear all this squawking about how we need a 300 ship navy, fact is we can put to sea far more than pretty much everyone (how many are deployable due to other readiness criteria is another matter - but in terms of shear number - there's plenty of jaw to house the teeth).

    3500 Tomahawks is probably adequate to sink the Russian and Chinese navies, in a fairly short period of time, supersonic or no. The respective admiralties probably know that.

    That said: if it is a case of a good strategic decision around quantity/quality ... I would wager my money it is the right decision, for the wrong reason(s).

    , @Iain W
    Tomahawk is a dog slow museum piece. There is strong evidence that the Russians 'splashed' the first batch of Tomahawks fired at the Syrian airbase and that is why they had to fire a second batch. I think Russia 'EW' capabilities are not fully known and understood.

    I don't think I would want to be on any US naval assets and have to try and shoot down multiple missiles. As one strategist commented - there are targets and there are subs. The article did not mention that these missiles can be launched in a number of ways - from land, sea, under the sea and from the air and outside the defensive capabilities of the intended targets.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @The Alarmist

    "Whether or not anti-ship missiles make surface warships obsolete I do not know. My hunch is certainly yes ..:."
     
    Shhh! We're still making money with that product line.

    During congressional hearings in the 1970s, Admiral Hyman Rickover considered aircraft carriers as being obsolete targets. It’s more than obvious to any reader of this forum why they continue being produced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    For smashing up developing countries from a safe distance?

    Works well as long as the developing country in question doesn't have backup.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Anon
    If we funded the FSA to the extent that we did the Mujahadeen, the Russians would be on their heels. If we had actual boots on the ground, it would be game, set, and match.

    In short, Assad got back territory thanks to Russia, it's true, but that's only because Russia has not been seriously opposed.

    Not that we should intervene. Just saying that it's an incomplete picture being drawn.

    I don’t think so, and apparently neither does the US military. The 1980s are long gone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @peterAUS
    Thoughtful and civilized response...as expected.

    Rare quality, though, in this "fanboy" blathering.

    I'll try on the similar level (civilized, quality of thought is always debatable).

    First, overall, you are correct, BUT, I feel you've made a basic error in "The Mission" part of METT-T.
    All the rest, although correct, isn't relevant I am afraid.
    I'll explain below.

    OK let’s look at it a bit closer. But to do so we must recognise that we are moving to the realms of wider politics rather than its subset, war. At the level we are talking about, the decisions are always political rather than military, even when they are taken by military men in an overtly military regime.
     
    Agree.

    The context is what is discussed by Martyanov above – the US regime, presumably listening to some of the less wise amongst its senior military men and the less honestly motivated amongst its influential political and media figures, decides to try to defeat and destroy the Russian forces in Syria whilst counting on what they believe is the US’s general escalation superiority to constrain Russian responses and keep the open conflict contained to the region.
     
    THIS is the element I feel you got wrong.
    So, either that IS their intention/objective and you are correct.
    Or, that is NOT their intention/objective......

    My position is that is NOT their mission/objective.

    As I've stated before in other threads, I believe the objective is to bog Russia in quagmire in the region.
    The same strategy that dissolved Soviet Union . In this case the goal is to execute regime change in Moscow.

    All the rest is an interesting reading, but, I believe it is not relevant for the situation in Syria (or ME in general).

    Now, if we really want to go along that scenario (just as a chat) here is my 2 cents.

    After the initial probably devastating US attack on Russian forces in Syria, involving the overloading and suppression by various means including direct SEAD attacks of the limited air defences in theatre, the Russians respond with large standoff attacks that effectively destroy US bases and/or carriers used in the attack or in the vicinity. They would not have enough to keep all US and allied ships and bases from which attacks could be launched in Syria out of action, but they could presumably render several substantial bases unusable for significant periods and sink a number of ships including carriers, which would have to operate from more distant locations, rendering operations more costly and less effective.
     
    Agree.

    What does the US do next? Militarily it has to retaliate, but it can choose how far to escalate in doing so. The problem is that substantive retaliation presumably requires attacks on Russian bases inside Russia, which involves very high risks of uncontrolled escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange. Do they do that? If they launch limited attacks inside Russia (eg an attack on a base used to launch the strategic bombers, say), Russia has the strategic capability to carry out direct tit for tat responses.
     
    Agree.
    And from here on.............it can be fast drive into death of civilization as we see it.

    Given the likely involvement of the forces and bases of regional allies (though who really knows how enthusiastic Turkey would really be, these days), it seems likely the attack on Russian forces in Syria could still be prosecuted to completion with their effective destruction, and meaningful Russia reinforcements interdicted successfully, but that would now seem rather a sideshow. And meanwhile Iraqi and Iranian involvement would be likely, and not to the advantage of the US’s interests on the ground. Russian ships in the region and perhaps elsewhere could (certainly would in the case of ships in theatre) be engaged in full scale air/sea battles likely resulting in their fairly prompt destruction, but not without significant ongoing losses to US naval forces.
     
    Agree.

    While all this is going on, what is the political response that will drive the long term outcome? Imo that depends on the political context – is this Pearl Harbor or the Beirut bombings for the US regime? In Pearl Harbor the Japanese executed a “Bush Doctrine” preventive attack on US military forces intended to forestall what they probably correctly saw as an existential threat from a rival. The result was that although they did considerable military damage all they ultimately achieved was to provide the political context in which the US regime could do what it had not previously been capable of doing, namely to wage a total war to defeat and occupy its Pacific rival. In Beirut the US was interfering in a Lebanese conflict under the transparently false pretext of “peacekeeping”, and their enemies struck back at them by carrying out a large suicide bombing attack on their military base in theatre. The result was not the creation of a political motivation for invasion and occupation, but rather the discrediting of the intervention policy and the withdrawal of US military forces from Lebanon.
     
    Agree.

    In the context under discussion, would the loss of US bases and/or carriers, with massive loss of life and arguably even greater loss of prestige (and, it should be remembered, substantial loss of actual military intervention capability in theatre, even if that could be rebuilt and replaced over time), result in an American political determination to engage in a long, massive military confrontation to defeat Russia strategically (a WW2 Japan-style open war of invasion and occupation is ruled out by the modern nuclear peace), and would the US have the necessary global support in waging such a campaign to give it any chance of succeeding?

    Or would it result in a backlash, both domestic and international, against the US regime itself for attacking Russian forces in Syria and essentially provoking the Russian response?

    Much depends on propaganda – does the US regime and its various collaborating elites still have sufficient control of the global and domestic media environment to impose the necessary narrative of a dastardly Russian act of aggression (yes, incredibly enough that is how they try to would portray it – the Americans have demonstrated over the years a shocking degree of hypocrisy when it comes to viewing themselves as the victims in cases of retaliation against them for the actions of their own government and military)? But much also would depend upon the particular circumstances in which the initial American attacks took place and how they were justified (supposed chemical attacks, WMD, responses to provocations, etc).

    In the end, all the dithering in Washington over the past six years about how far to go in Syria has been in large part about who gets the blame if things go wrong.

     

    Agree.

    So would the result be some kind of strategic defeat for Russia (as for Japan in WW2), or political turmoil in the US resulting in a loss of stomach for further interference (as in Lebanon)? If the former, then you have to explain how such a defeat is realistically going to occur given the reality of the strategic nuclear deterrent Russia has against any massive military attack, and its very significant defensive conventional capabilities, as well as the reality that even if the US’s European and Pacific satellites might be willing to go along in such a venture (questionable in some cases, depending on the context), China and most of Asia, and much of Africa and South America, certainly would not, and these areas weigh much more heavily in the global economic balance than they did a few decades ago.

    The real lesson of all this, of course, is that the US regime would have to be profoundly stupid or desperate to risk attacking Russian forces in Syria. Sadly that’s not as reassuring as it ought to be.
     
    Agree.

    Well...isn't

    the US regime would have to be profoundly stupid or desperate to risk attacking Russian forces in Syria
     
    what's my basic premise here?

    I, personally, see the possibility of above, unfortunately, because of unbalanced decision making in Washington. THAT is the real problem here.
    Moscow decision making process (and execution) is much more stable and predictable then Washington.
    That launch on Syria by Trump was..........just......terrible in that regard.

    So, how about my scenario here:
    As the current situation continues it will be more death and mutilation of Russian personell there.
    Russians will absorb that and will NOT try to retaliate.
    But, sooner or later, by pure fog of war, a bomb/missile/shell will get Western SOF team on the ground. Not necessarily Russian....it can be simply a "speculative fire on that hill" by SAA.
    THEN we'll see what happens and God help us.

    With the current politics in Washington and Trump team decision making process what can we expect?
    A retaliatory attack on....what?
    How much of Russian men and material could be caught in it?

    From then on, yes, your scenario can spiral out in instant.

    So....time to get religious and start praying?

    Just wondering; Have either of you military geniuses ever consider enrolling in the US War College?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Just wondering; Have either of you military geniuses ever consider enrolling in the US War College?
     
    You just made my day;)) Excellent comment, Carroll!
    , @peterAUS
    A bit confused.
    Positive you'll help.

    You mean enroll as a student or you mean seek an employment as a lecturer and such?

    If student, well............why would one want to do that?

    If lecturer, again, why would one want to do that?

    Just one reason would suffice.

    I'll try to help:
    Pay is good?
    Career prospects?
    The highest level of (military related) expertise/wisdom gained?
    Just looks good in resume?
    Food is good there?
    Available.....entertainment.....affordable (depends of vice/sexual preference)?

    So...why...if you'd be so kind?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. EugeneGur says:
    @survey-of-disinfo


    Iran knows for sure that should the unthinkable but not improbable happen, such as an American attack on the Russian forces in Syria, Iran will not be left standing on the side—she gets immediately “involved” whether she wants it or not. So, the logic goes, why not make the best of it when all bets, other than nuclear, will be off. Iran may as well have Russian forces on her side and in her airspace, which, obviously helps significantly.

     

    "Whether she wants it or not"?

    "why not make the best of it".

    Possibly, tovarich, you may ask the "her" in question if she shares your rather "provincial" romantic notions.

    Even the crazy mullahs of Iran are not so despicable as to let some Russian outfit in Kremlin determine the fate of the Iranian nation. Unless, of course, they are your moles.

    The "signal" regarding the Iranian "aerospace" that matters here is the uproar in Iran regarding the decision to let Russian planes use an Iranian airbase. What makes you think IRGC will let Russia dictate the direction of the defense of Iran? Russian base in Syria goes boom, well, that is YOUR problem. Iran is there to protect IRANIAN interests. It is not in Iran's interest to have Russia use Iran as a forward base. Dream on, and quit hitting that vodka bottle.

    Iranians remember the parition of Iran between Russia and Britain the "great game", Russian push for spinning away Azarbaijan and Kurdistan away from Iran after WWII and having to be forced out by the USA, and song and dance of "nuclear weapons" that resulted in Iran being subject to an IAEA regiment not directed against any other nation on Earth. (And Russia was there with the West when that went down, remember comrade?)

    the uproar in Iran regarding the decision to let Russian planes use an Iranian airbase

    There is always somebody in any country who’d create an uproar whether it is in the interests of the country or not.

    In case you haven’t noticed the author isn’t talking about Russia dictating the defense of Iran but about Iran objectively being in the same boat as far as Western aggression is concerned. The animosity towards Iran in the USA is just as great as towards Russia – the difference is Russia is capable of defending itself, vodka bottle in hand, which is not at all certain about Iran.

    It is not in Iran’s interest to have Russia use Iran as a forward base. Dream on, and quit hitting that vodka bottle.

    By using the Iranian airspace, Russia isn’t using Iran as a forward base but, on the contrary, signaling that Iran isn’t alone – this is to your advantage, buddy, in case you haven’t figured that out yet.

    If you guys want to dwell on the past insults, real or perceived, go right ahead, but remember – this is a loosing proposition unless, of course, you possess a time machine.

    If you think Iran’d be better off allied with the US – who is stopping you?

    Read More
    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. ig says:

    I see a different context although the lookaside view into Persian gulf is also very real.
    I see a scenario, where X102 and not 101 would be launched. 101 and 102 have the same mechanics, but 2 is a nuclear version.

    imo it is a nice greeting to Tel Aviv for their threats against Putinˇs life.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. Sunbeam says:

    If you’ve got this kind of range on cruise missiles, and the kind of accuracy to hit what you are aiming at, there are other land based targets that are attractive as well.

    For purely military applications, things like fuel and ammo depots appear vulnerable. Hangars as well. Really can’t see anyone spending the money to harden these things against this sort of thing.

    As to whether a particular target is worth an expensive cruise missile, it depends I guess. Pretty easy to imagine a situation where losing 200 million in missiles to take out 10 million dollars worth of fuel, but paralyzing air operations for a few days is worth it. Without risking a single pilot or a plane that costs 200 million (B-2?).

    The second thing is targetting civilian targets. Refineries, ports, bridges, transit tunnels, rail tracks. Aside from directly curtailing civilian transportation, it also makes it more difficult to move around troops and hardware. Not ot mention shutting down a nation’s sole source of funds (say exporting petroleum) or just stopping trade untile a port can be repaired…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @yeah
    There were boots a plenty on the ground in Vietnam - and how did that one end? In case you missed Vietnam, Iraq has had plenty of boots on the ground as well; this one hasn't still officially ended but has not been going well, not well at all. And Afghanistan. And Korea in the fifties.

    As to Russia not having been seriously opposed in Syria: well, short of all-out war with Russia what else could have been done? If we try to understand the real game being played, we would be very concerned. From a Machiavellian perspective, the US strategy has been succeeding brilliantly. Boots on the ground did not succeed in Vietnam, but the Machiavellian plan certainly did. Allow me to elaborate a little below.

    Let us stop this knee-jerk, rah-rah rooting for the home team and try to think coolly. The first thing that comes to mind is that there isn't really any home team. This whole ball-game is not about wining once and for all, it is about keeping these crises going - all the time, everywhere. Russia is also learning how to play this game: after all, it, too, has to put on a game for its citizens lest they start getting all sorts of wrong ideas. So the powers that be collude, and keep these fires smouldering so that they can continue to collect protection fees from their respective citizens and client states.

    Who suffers? People who end up being boots on the ground. People who pay taxes. People who want a strong, but noble and inspiring, America. People who want to live and let others live.

    We weren’t fighting the Russians in Vietnam. We were fighting the Vietnamese and therein lies the difference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yeah
    Wow! So you think fighting the Russians would be easier than fighting the Vietnamese? If you do, there is little scope left for any rational talk.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Our military record is not so great.
    Russia, on the other hand, has held its lands for a millennia.

    The only war we (the USA) have truly won since the War of 1812 was the Pacific Theater of WWII.

    Everything else was done by others (WWII European Theater was mostly Russian work), or a miserable stand-off (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan) or a totally unnecessary fiasco (War Between The States, WWI, Iraq ) such that “winning” was no benefit to the “victor”.

    You might say the Mexican War gave us some good territory but the Mexicans are winning their Reconquista invasions while we sleep and dilly dally.

    The bloodthirsty neocons are dangerous fools. At least the Japanese Imperial Forces wore uniforms and flew their flag when attacking, even if a sneak attack. Neocons are silent killers of their host.

    Neocons are like clogged arteries – you know they will be a problem but failing to comprehend the danger, that heart attack can occur most unexpectedly, killing the host.

    You know you need to clean the crud out of those clogged arteries but you just don’t do what is needed to clean out and become safe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. peterAUS says:

    Regarding

    The 800 Pound Gorilla in Syria

    there is another, more pertinent one: Assad regime in general and SAA in particular.

    The problem for Russian main objective in Syria (maintaining presence there) is not the US/whatever high tech operational/strategic capability.
    The problem is SAA.

    They are, simply, incapable of anything serious.
    They, in essence, keep dragging this exercise on and on.

    Give any other…ahm…”army” (speaking of SAA) this level of support it would’ve eaten the opposition in 6 months tops.
    But not the Syrians…………

    I am positive that the regime in Moscow thought (as any reasonable people would) that the mission would’ve been completed in 6 months.
    Yes, they’ve read for sure “Arabs in war” (classic…), but, still, with THAT Russian support even Arabs can deliver against some militias.
    Well….no……….

    And that will keep to be the problem no high-tech Russian hardware could solve.
    Anybody’s hardware for that matter.

    As West/whatever is stuck with ….those people…in Afghanistan and Iraq, well, Russians are stuck in Syria.

    A cynic would think that focusing less on high-tech hardware and more on basic soldiering would benefit Russians more there.
    Trying to instill that in Syrians……..well….is apparently proving much harder then developing high-tech weaponry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. Even if Russia were militarily the weakest nation on earth, a US attack on the Russians would still be a colossal mistake.

    No American national interests or civilizational interests are advanced by attacking Russia.

    On the contrary, American lives and wealth would be wasted, and America’s reputation tarnished, in a war which would benefit America’s real enemies, Sunni jihadists such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS, while diminishing American export opportunities, providing a pretext for the ongoing migrant invasion of Europe, and ethnically cleansing Middle Eastern Christians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. @Carroll Price
    Just wondering; Have either of you military geniuses ever consider enrolling in the US War College?

    Just wondering; Have either of you military geniuses ever consider enrolling in the US War College?

    You just made my day;)) Excellent comment, Carroll!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Thorfinnsson
    What does the Tomahawk have to do with this?

    It's well known that Western countries have lagged Russia in cruise missile development for decades now. I'm not even entirely sure why--more confidence in our sea and air power?

    The USA developed some of the first (perhaps the first?) supersonic cruise missiles all the way back in the 1960s, but there was no development since then. Today hypersonic weapons are seriously being pursued, however.

    The USA developed some of the first (perhaps the first?) supersonic cruise missiles all the way back in the 1960s

    Regulus II, 1950s. The program was shut down and why it was so is well described in Elmo Zumwalt’s excellent memoirs “On Watch”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. peterAUS says:
    @Carroll Price
    Just wondering; Have either of you military geniuses ever consider enrolling in the US War College?

    A bit confused.
    Positive you’ll help.

    You mean enroll as a student or you mean seek an employment as a lecturer and such?

    If student, well…………why would one want to do that?

    If lecturer, again, why would one want to do that?

    Just one reason would suffice.

    I’ll try to help:
    Pay is good?
    Career prospects?
    The highest level of (military related) expertise/wisdom gained?
    Just looks good in resume?
    Food is good there?
    Available…..entertainment…..affordable (depends of vice/sexual preference)?

    So…why…if you’d be so kind?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price

    You mean enroll as a student or you mean seek an employment as a lecturer and such?
     
    In your case, probably all three - simultaneously .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. One Tribe says:
    @Ron Unz
    In support of the strategic thesis advanced in this important article, I seem to recall that the original Russian military intervention in Syria was accompanied by a volley of ultra-long-range cruise missiles, whose capabilities greatly surprised American military analysts.

    At the time, such a high-tech attack on ISIS positions seemed rather cost-ineffective to me, but presumably a major purpose was to dissuade America (and Israel) from considering any future attack on what was a rather small and isolated Russian expeditionary force.

    Also, since Russia, Iran, and Iraq have become de facto allies in the Syria War, I'd think that the use of Iranian and Iraqi airspace as the launch point for the latest bombardment is also meant to raise much greater doubts in Trump's military advisors about the huge risks in any future attack against Iran or attempt to forcefully renegotiate the existing nuclear treaty.

    First of all, thank you Andrei Martyanov for the very informative analysis/article.
    Also, thank you Ron Unz for this supporting addendum.

    I am very much interested in further information concerning the U.S. military establishments seeming (increasingly alluded to) weak assessment/intelligence of Russian military capability, especially armaments.

    Iraq is going to be a topic of (likely dramatically) increasing heat and attention (in the uncensored press which reports on the issues that are the most important to everyone alive, like this web site).
    The ‘referendum’ in the Kurdish dominated area of Iraq will make the 24 month long reverse polarization of Turkey (from NATO/US partner to Russian partner) look like an indecisive epic.

    If anyone thought the ‘war’ in Iraq was going poorly for the Americans before, ‘they ain’t seen nothing yet’! Also, the passing the point of no return for Turkey; they’ve had enough lies and disingenuous promises from the Euroangangstas; their future association to the U.S. and (western) Europe will be exclusively from the Eurasian-centric multi-polar world perspective, under which they will prosper as well or better than they ever have before.

    Iraq is a country, in which, even the most pro-American Iraqis (outside of the Kurdish dominated region), will, at this very moment (2017.09.28.17h03 NA EDT) be 100% deciding that they have been screwed! And not very nicely, at that.

    With all of this Russiaphobia (let us not forget that this emanating as a deflection from the revelations a corrupt candidate who was cheating to win a party’s nomination for the U.S. presidential candidate), it is highly politically incorrect to reference how far ahead V. Putin’s geopolitical movement is compared to the west, especially the civil war crippled U.S.A..

    One can see so much thoughtfulness and ‘communication’ in the completely unnecessary flight path, through Iraq of the bombers delivering their payloads.
    In fact, it could be the most telling aspect of the entire operation!

    Iraq is lost to the western empire.
    Unfortunately, the response to on-ground western-empire supported aggression in the Kurdish-dominated region of Iraq, and likely in other Kurdish dominated middle eastern regions (outside of Iran), will like be decisive and therefore brutal (but, alas, understandable).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Very informative article. It looks like 3D even 4D planning now. Not for amateurs for sure. Each factor is interconnected with others. What worries me is that USA side those who make decisions get those subtle and not so subtle messages. Hope everybody understands ramifications of making bad and hasty decisions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. Sun Tzu says:

    The Russian salvo of 26 cruise missiles from Caspian Sea sent a subliminal message to the Teddy Roosevelt CBG. Whether scheduled or not the Teddy Roosevelt CBG departed the theater shortly after. Remember that Teddy Roosevelt was the 26th POTUS.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. @peterAUS
    A bit confused.
    Positive you'll help.

    You mean enroll as a student or you mean seek an employment as a lecturer and such?

    If student, well............why would one want to do that?

    If lecturer, again, why would one want to do that?

    Just one reason would suffice.

    I'll try to help:
    Pay is good?
    Career prospects?
    The highest level of (military related) expertise/wisdom gained?
    Just looks good in resume?
    Food is good there?
    Available.....entertainment.....affordable (depends of vice/sexual preference)?

    So...why...if you'd be so kind?

    You mean enroll as a student or you mean seek an employment as a lecturer and such?

    In your case, probably all three – simultaneously .

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Ram
    Russia in effect has far more valuable very vulnerable targets in the area than the US does.

    Russia in effect has far more valuable very vulnerable targets in the area than the US does.

    That’s why Russia ringed their military assets with S-400 batteries, the most advanced anti-aircraft, anti-missile system ever deployed. The fact they have not been called upon to show it’s capabilities, is proof that the US fully understands it’s capabilities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    This is not true. It could be that Russia does not want to demonstrate the deficiencies of the S400 systems.

    It is such a pity we have not been given a demonstration of their capabilities when the shit hits the fan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    EugeneGur says:
    September 28, 2017 at 7:21 pm GMT • 200 Words

    In case you haven’t noticed the author isn’t talking about Russia dictating the defense of Iran but about Iran objectively being in the same boat as far as Western aggression is concerned. The animosity towards Iran in the USA is just as great as towards Russia – the difference is Russia is capable of defending itself, vodka bottle in hand, which is not at all certain about Iran.

    The author who is too shy (or tongue tied, comrade?) to rely except to agree with you, is saying that but Iran is not in the same boat as Russia.

    As for Iran not being able to defend itself, that is no thanks to the Russians and their mañana, mañana about S300. Note how quickly the S400 deal with Turks was signed. Iran certainly noted that! :)

    As for Russia being able to decent herself, well bully for her. Just do it from Russian territory and go easy on the vodka, tovarich :)

    As for “animosity towards Iran in the USA”, it is fueled by the same Jews who run Russia, so it’s a wash.

    By using the Iranian airspace, Russia isn’t using Iran as a forward base but, on the contrary, signaling that Iran isn’t alone – this is to your advantage, buddy, in case you haven’t figured that out yet.

    Tell that to the Syrians getting bombed by Israelis :)

    Our advantage, “buddy”, is our independence, our valor, our smarts, and our tendency to asymmetric thinking.

    There is NO advantage to Iran allowing Russian military to strike American assets in the area. The entire military doctrine of Iran is deterrence based.

    At a basic personal level, an American and an Iranian can relate and understand each other. But the Russians are cold fish and were it come down to choosing one hegemony over another, the American brand is just more attractive. Sorry, comrades.

    The substantial majority of Iranian people are pro-American. A less substantial subset are fully aware of the historic aggression of Russians against the Iranian nation. 1953 is peanuts compared to years of Russian meddling in Iranian affairs.

    History matters.

    There is not a single record of a Russian, for example, coming to aid of Iranians, but to this day an American who fought with Iranians in the revolution of early 20th c. is honored in Iran.

    Culture matters.

    Russia wants Syria because with her secret ally, the Zionist entity, the control of Syria gives Russia a veto power over energy and goods transfer from Asia to Europe. (Listen up, China.)

    A strong and independent Iran is completely unpalatable to Russia. Why do you think Russia is in Syria? Because an Iranian gas pipeline to Europe would undermine Russian energy hegemony over Europe.

    Why does nutty yahoo fly to Moscow with meetings with Putin? Because they need to communicate securely.

    Is Hezbollah smart enough to note and nullify Russian attempt to penetrate their organization via Syria? Nassurllah looks and sounds plenty smart to me! :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    History matters...Culture matters.
     
    Very true, which is why Iran will have an easier time working with a post-Communist Russia in which traditional religion is respected versus the post-modernist craziness that the elite from the US seem to want to promote everywhere.

    Worrying over what some Tsar did to the Qajar dynasty centuries ago is interesting but people need to have serious perspective about what really counts in the time that we live in. Sure, these are marriages of convenience from both sides - which is fine as long as both net a positive benefit.


    A strong and independent Iran is completely unpalatable to Russia.
     
    Possibly - but that's going to require some serious soul-searching within the various Muslim countries of the region to come to the table in a more cooperative posture. They have the resources and strength to go it alone without outside interference if they can be united. Barring that, they will always be a feather in someone else's hat.

    Peace.

    , @Sun Tzu
    Russia defends the JCPOA but Israel and USA wants to renege on it. Russia agreed to General Soleiman's request to provide support for Syria. Russia and Iran are under economic sanctions from you know who and barter oil and gas in non dollar trade. Russia nixed Netanyahoo's request to keep Iran and PMUs or Hezbollah out of Quneitra. But according to you Russia is big bad wolf and Iran is sheep.
    , @Anonymous
    You're deranged.

    Russians at least punch you in the mouth. Americans backstab.
    , @EugeneGur

    the American brand is just more attractive. Sorry, comrades.
     
    When go for it. You leaders, however, appear to be smarter and understand better what usually happens to the ones choosing such "attractive brand".

    A strong and independent Iran is completely unpalatable to Russia. Why do you think Russia is in Syria? Because an Iranian gas pipeline to Europe would undermine Russian energy hegemony over Europe.
     
    Of course. And that is precisely why Russia was instrumental in pushing that Iranian agreement through, the agreement that would lift the Iranian sanctions and allow Iran to sell its oil again. BTW your "attractive brand" people are trying their damnedest to renege on that deal.

    Why does nutty yahoo fly to Moscow with meetings with Putin? Because they need to communicate securely.
     
    If you mean Netanyahu, then of course he did want to meet in secret, because he tried to convince Putin to boot Iran out of Syria. Israel is getting positively hysterical about the Iranian presence in Syria. Iran, in case you haven't noticed, has not just the US but also Israel as its enemy. Putin, however, sent Netanyahu on his way. Russia maintains reasonably friendly relations with Israel but not about to let Israel dictate its actions.
    , @Anonymous

    Why does nutty yahoo fly to Moscow with meetings with Putin? Because they need to communicate securely.
     
    You don't think they know how to use SSL?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Vidi says:
    @peterAUS
    Beats, options wise, having a stable Arab democracy next door, wouldn't you think?

    Democracy supported, most likely, by Russia and China.

    For both security of the state of Israel and The Empire strategy in ME, chaos is definitely much more preferable option.

    Definitely.

    For both security of the state of Israel and The Empire strategy in ME, chaos is definitely much more preferable option.

    Not if the chaos draws in all the powers in the region by proxy, including Turkey and Iran, and Israel is engulfed in the flames.

    Not even Uncle Sam will be able to save the little country. The US could threaten the major nations in the area, but they will shrug and say they have no control of the chaotic situation. Israel will wish it had never listened to the neocons who started the flames in the neighborhood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Vidi says:
    @Anon
    France did pretty well out of the Thirty Years' War.

    France did pretty well out of the Thirty Years’ War.

    Israel is not France.
    Israel is not even at the Hezbollah level.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    And France today is not France of the thirty years war.

    For one thing, they are in the thrall of a parasite people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. yeah says:
    @Anon
    We weren't fighting the Russians in Vietnam. We were fighting the Vietnamese and therein lies the difference.

    Wow! So you think fighting the Russians would be easier than fighting the Vietnamese? If you do, there is little scope left for any rational talk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The Russians don't have real skin in the game in Syria, like they didn't in Afghanistan, which is why the Muhajadeen could beat them. Compare that to Barbarossa or Napoleon's war -- home turf makes a big difference.

    We could plow over the NVA anywhere but Vietnam -- short of nuking the place we were never going to beat them at home.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Talha says:
    @Anonymous
    EugeneGur says:
    September 28, 2017 at 7:21 pm GMT • 200 Words
    @survey-of-disinfo


    In case you haven’t noticed the author isn’t talking about Russia dictating the defense of Iran but about Iran objectively being in the same boat as far as Western aggression is concerned. The animosity towards Iran in the USA is just as great as towards Russia – the difference is Russia is capable of defending itself, vodka bottle in hand, which is not at all certain about Iran.

     

    The author who is too shy (or tongue tied, comrade?) to rely except to agree with you, is saying that but Iran is not in the same boat as Russia.

    As for Iran not being able to defend itself, that is no thanks to the Russians and their mañana, mañana about S300. Note how quickly the S400 deal with Turks was signed. Iran certainly noted that! :)

    As for Russia being able to decent herself, well bully for her. Just do it from Russian territory and go easy on the vodka, tovarich :)

    As for "animosity towards Iran in the USA", it is fueled by the same Jews who run Russia, so it's a wash.


    By using the Iranian airspace, Russia isn’t using Iran as a forward base but, on the contrary, signaling that Iran isn’t alone – this is to your advantage, buddy, in case you haven’t figured that out yet.

     

    Tell that to the Syrians getting bombed by Israelis :)

    Our advantage, "buddy", is our independence, our valor, our smarts, and our tendency to asymmetric thinking.

    There is NO advantage to Iran allowing Russian military to strike American assets in the area. The entire military doctrine of Iran is deterrence based.

    At a basic personal level, an American and an Iranian can relate and understand each other. But the Russians are cold fish and were it come down to choosing one hegemony over another, the American brand is just more attractive. Sorry, comrades.

    The substantial majority of Iranian people are pro-American. A less substantial subset are fully aware of the historic aggression of Russians against the Iranian nation. 1953 is peanuts compared to years of Russian meddling in Iranian affairs.

    History matters.

    There is not a single record of a Russian, for example, coming to aid of Iranians, but to this day an American who fought with Iranians in the revolution of early 20th c. is honored in Iran.

    Culture matters.

    Russia wants Syria because with her secret ally, the Zionist entity, the control of Syria gives Russia a veto power over energy and goods transfer from Asia to Europe. (Listen up, China.)

    A strong and independent Iran is completely unpalatable to Russia. Why do you think Russia is in Syria? Because an Iranian gas pipeline to Europe would undermine Russian energy hegemony over Europe.

    Why does nutty yahoo fly to Moscow with meetings with Putin? Because they need to communicate securely.

    Is Hezbollah smart enough to note and nullify Russian attempt to penetrate their organization via Syria? Nassurllah looks and sounds plenty smart to me! :)

    History matters…Culture matters.

    Very true, which is why Iran will have an easier time working with a post-Communist Russia in which traditional religion is respected versus the post-modernist craziness that the elite from the US seem to want to promote everywhere.

    Worrying over what some Tsar did to the Qajar dynasty centuries ago is interesting but people need to have serious perspective about what really counts in the time that we live in. Sure, these are marriages of convenience from both sides – which is fine as long as both net a positive benefit.

    A strong and independent Iran is completely unpalatable to Russia.

    Possibly – but that’s going to require some serious soul-searching within the various Muslim countries of the region to come to the table in a more cooperative posture. They have the resources and strength to go it alone without outside interference if they can be united. Barring that, they will always be a feather in someone else’s hat.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @SimpleHandle
    Nobody voted for Trump to advocate a dreamer amnesty, and nobody voted for Trump to continue the neocon's foreign policy. So right now Trump has two big black marks against him. I hope Trump can be convinced to back off from his military brinkmanship but with the generals in his administration I am not optimistic. Russia is on the right side of the Syrian conflict.

    It is likely that President Trump is unaware of the NeoCon hijinks in Syria.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Vidi

    France did pretty well out of the Thirty Years’ War.
     
    Israel is not France.
    Israel is not even at the Hezbollah level.

    And France today is not France of the thirty years war.

    For one thing, they are in the thrall of a parasite people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. It is unfortunate that we have not been treated to a demonstration of the capabilities (or lack thereof) of the S400 system(s) in Syria.

    It would be so illuminating.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  95. @Carroll Price

    Russia in effect has far more valuable very vulnerable targets in the area than the US does.

     

    That's why Russia ringed their military assets with S-400 batteries, the most advanced anti-aircraft, anti-missile system ever deployed. The fact they have not been called upon to show it's capabilities, is proof that the US fully understands it's capabilities.

    This is not true. It could be that Russia does not want to demonstrate the deficiencies of the S400 systems.

    It is such a pity we have not been given a demonstration of their capabilities when the shit hits the fan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Hopefully, we'll never find out. In the meantime, successful bluffs are as good, if not better than the real thing.
    , @Kiza
    Ok, what you say is true - there has been no proof of S400 capabilities. This may be:
    A) because Russia did not want to reveal its capabilities in the heavily monitored Syrian military theater, to avoid giving US and Israel a chance to develop counter measures
    B) because they could not find a volunteer, such as you, till now who is willing to verify how poor the performance of S400 is by flying a military plane into its defensive zone.

    Perhaps, the Russians also wanted to know how effective S400 would be in detecting F22 Raptors flying from Incirlik. Smaller Radar Cross Section typically means only detection at a reduced distance, not invisibility as the US MIC marketing says. This could have been an even more important task, relevant to the whole of mother Russia, than defending the Russian contingent in Syria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Sorry Talha, but your “post-Communist” Russia with “traditional religions” is sci-fi to me.

    Remember: “The Believer is discerning”. (Hadith)

    The Russian approach to ethnic fabric of their expansionist quilt is entirely practical. First principle is “cultural disconnect” whereby Crylic alphabet replaces ethnic alphabet. This is to counter cultural continuity. The second principle is “Mommy/Daddy state overseer” of “traditional religions”. Chechnya is a pri

    Worrying over what some Tsar did to the Qajar dynasty centuries ago is interesting

    Come now, Talha, Uncle Joe was not a Tsar. Russia going along with the West with the charade of “nuclear threat” from Iran was not a Tsarist project. We will omit for the moment the role of USSR in the agitations that resulted in ’79 revolution, but there also that little matter.

    Possibly – but that’s going to require some serious soul-searching within the various Muslim countries of the region to come to the table in a more cooperative posture. They have the resources and strength to go it alone without outside interference if they can be united. Barring that, they will always be a feather in someone else’s hat.

    The 57 Muslim nations would be an amazing block and definitively counter the devious war mongers. That is the answer. Not Russia. Not China. Not US. Not EU. The 57 Muslim Nations are an incredible power block.

    Were these nations ruled by rational people, they would forge an alliance between Turkey and Iran, unifying the Sunni-Shia Muslim world. China would applaud this as it would guarantee passage to EU outside of Russian control. Russia would not like this. EU would not like this. US would not like this. Zionist would not like this.

    > “Peace”

    Salaam always sounded better to me and fills me with spiritual delight (just like OM), Talha. Also, as you must know, Salaam means more than just “peace”. It means HARMONY, EQUANIMITY, and HEALTH.

    (You know, I have entertained the idea if whether the close phonetics of “Peace” and “Piss” — try French, if you prefer Latin languages with Paix and Pisse– have something to do with the approach of the related people to the idea of “peace” … )

    Don’t be shy brother. After all, ALLAH revealed the Quran in Arabic tonque for a reason. Say Salaam as God intended you to say it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Salaam Bro,

    Didn't know you were Muslim.

    Remember: “The Believer is discerning”. (Hadith) The Russian approach to ethnic fabric of their expansionist quilt is entirely practical.
     
    Agree with both. However, one must give credit where it is due - this may be realpolitik, but Russia and her Orthodox authorities have been fairly good about acknowledging Islam as a natural part of the Russia milieu (this goes all the way back to Catherine the Great). For sure they will promote an Islam that is not a threat to their political structure, but that is to be expected. Generally though, mosques are going up everywhere and traditional Islam is on the rise among the populace and Russia is even giving a kind of leeway in how the various Muslims administer their own localities. Just recently, there was an agreement to open up a new Islamic university in Grozny that will be in conjunction with the Syrian ulema.

    Uncle Joe was not a Tsar.
     
    He was not - and the Communist regime's crimes against both the Orthodox community and Muslims were tremendous. However, the Communists are gone - and, frankly, were a hiccup in Russia's long history. They have tried to start things anew - I think we owe it to the people of Russia to give it a go from our side:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRx-XQhDmjg

    Look, I don't like it that Russia is backing Assad, but honestly, it has always seen itself as the guarantor of the rights of Orthodox Christians in that area and when you think about what Daesh (which happened to be the strongest group against the regime) was doing to the historical minority communities in that area, you realize why they came into the conflict as they did. And frankly, part of me is kind of happy that there is now a Chechen tripwire force in Syria that will prevent Israel from taking advantage of the situation.

    It's a big mess - I don't know that there is one correct way to look at it - pray for the innocent.

    That is the answer. Not Russia. Not China. Not US. Not EU. The 57 Muslim Nations are an incredible power block.
     
    Agreed - and you probably only really need 6 to start a core - the rest of the smaller guys will follow; Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi and Indonesia. I might have added Iraq, but that place is a complete mess right now. Saudi is the tough one to get on board with anything and is stirring up a lot of trouble around the world (even next door in Yemen).

    Fi amanillah, wa salaam
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Peripatetic commenter
    This is not true. It could be that Russia does not want to demonstrate the deficiencies of the S400 systems.

    It is such a pity we have not been given a demonstration of their capabilities when the shit hits the fan.

    Hopefully, we’ll never find out. In the meantime, successful bluffs are as good, if not better than the real thing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Sun Tzu says:
    @Anonymous
    EugeneGur says:
    September 28, 2017 at 7:21 pm GMT • 200 Words
    @survey-of-disinfo


    In case you haven’t noticed the author isn’t talking about Russia dictating the defense of Iran but about Iran objectively being in the same boat as far as Western aggression is concerned. The animosity towards Iran in the USA is just as great as towards Russia – the difference is Russia is capable of defending itself, vodka bottle in hand, which is not at all certain about Iran.

     

    The author who is too shy (or tongue tied, comrade?) to rely except to agree with you, is saying that but Iran is not in the same boat as Russia.

    As for Iran not being able to defend itself, that is no thanks to the Russians and their mañana, mañana about S300. Note how quickly the S400 deal with Turks was signed. Iran certainly noted that! :)

    As for Russia being able to decent herself, well bully for her. Just do it from Russian territory and go easy on the vodka, tovarich :)

    As for "animosity towards Iran in the USA", it is fueled by the same Jews who run Russia, so it's a wash.


    By using the Iranian airspace, Russia isn’t using Iran as a forward base but, on the contrary, signaling that Iran isn’t alone – this is to your advantage, buddy, in case you haven’t figured that out yet.

     

    Tell that to the Syrians getting bombed by Israelis :)

    Our advantage, "buddy", is our independence, our valor, our smarts, and our tendency to asymmetric thinking.

    There is NO advantage to Iran allowing Russian military to strike American assets in the area. The entire military doctrine of Iran is deterrence based.

    At a basic personal level, an American and an Iranian can relate and understand each other. But the Russians are cold fish and were it come down to choosing one hegemony over another, the American brand is just more attractive. Sorry, comrades.

    The substantial majority of Iranian people are pro-American. A less substantial subset are fully aware of the historic aggression of Russians against the Iranian nation. 1953 is peanuts compared to years of Russian meddling in Iranian affairs.

    History matters.

    There is not a single record of a Russian, for example, coming to aid of Iranians, but to this day an American who fought with Iranians in the revolution of early 20th c. is honored in Iran.

    Culture matters.

    Russia wants Syria because with her secret ally, the Zionist entity, the control of Syria gives Russia a veto power over energy and goods transfer from Asia to Europe. (Listen up, China.)

    A strong and independent Iran is completely unpalatable to Russia. Why do you think Russia is in Syria? Because an Iranian gas pipeline to Europe would undermine Russian energy hegemony over Europe.

    Why does nutty yahoo fly to Moscow with meetings with Putin? Because they need to communicate securely.

    Is Hezbollah smart enough to note and nullify Russian attempt to penetrate their organization via Syria? Nassurllah looks and sounds plenty smart to me! :)

    Russia defends the JCPOA but Israel and USA wants to renege on it. Russia agreed to General Soleiman’s request to provide support for Syria. Russia and Iran are under economic sanctions from you know who and barter oil and gas in non dollar trade. Russia nixed Netanyahoo’s request to keep Iran and PMUs or Hezbollah out of Quneitra. But according to you Russia is big bad wolf and Iran is sheep.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    EugeneGur says:
    September 28, 2017 at 7:21 pm GMT • 200 Words
    @survey-of-disinfo


    In case you haven’t noticed the author isn’t talking about Russia dictating the defense of Iran but about Iran objectively being in the same boat as far as Western aggression is concerned. The animosity towards Iran in the USA is just as great as towards Russia – the difference is Russia is capable of defending itself, vodka bottle in hand, which is not at all certain about Iran.

     

    The author who is too shy (or tongue tied, comrade?) to rely except to agree with you, is saying that but Iran is not in the same boat as Russia.

    As for Iran not being able to defend itself, that is no thanks to the Russians and their mañana, mañana about S300. Note how quickly the S400 deal with Turks was signed. Iran certainly noted that! :)

    As for Russia being able to decent herself, well bully for her. Just do it from Russian territory and go easy on the vodka, tovarich :)

    As for "animosity towards Iran in the USA", it is fueled by the same Jews who run Russia, so it's a wash.


    By using the Iranian airspace, Russia isn’t using Iran as a forward base but, on the contrary, signaling that Iran isn’t alone – this is to your advantage, buddy, in case you haven’t figured that out yet.

     

    Tell that to the Syrians getting bombed by Israelis :)

    Our advantage, "buddy", is our independence, our valor, our smarts, and our tendency to asymmetric thinking.

    There is NO advantage to Iran allowing Russian military to strike American assets in the area. The entire military doctrine of Iran is deterrence based.

    At a basic personal level, an American and an Iranian can relate and understand each other. But the Russians are cold fish and were it come down to choosing one hegemony over another, the American brand is just more attractive. Sorry, comrades.

    The substantial majority of Iranian people are pro-American. A less substantial subset are fully aware of the historic aggression of Russians against the Iranian nation. 1953 is peanuts compared to years of Russian meddling in Iranian affairs.

    History matters.

    There is not a single record of a Russian, for example, coming to aid of Iranians, but to this day an American who fought with Iranians in the revolution of early 20th c. is honored in Iran.

    Culture matters.

    Russia wants Syria because with her secret ally, the Zionist entity, the control of Syria gives Russia a veto power over energy and goods transfer from Asia to Europe. (Listen up, China.)

    A strong and independent Iran is completely unpalatable to Russia. Why do you think Russia is in Syria? Because an Iranian gas pipeline to Europe would undermine Russian energy hegemony over Europe.

    Why does nutty yahoo fly to Moscow with meetings with Putin? Because they need to communicate securely.

    Is Hezbollah smart enough to note and nullify Russian attempt to penetrate their organization via Syria? Nassurllah looks and sounds plenty smart to me! :)

    You’re deranged.

    Russians at least punch you in the mouth. Americans backstab.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @yeah
    Wow! So you think fighting the Russians would be easier than fighting the Vietnamese? If you do, there is little scope left for any rational talk.

    The Russians don’t have real skin in the game in Syria, like they didn’t in Afghanistan, which is why the Muhajadeen could beat them. Compare that to Barbarossa or Napoleon’s war — home turf makes a big difference.

    We could plow over the NVA anywhere but Vietnam — short of nuking the place we were never going to beat them at home.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    The skin is quite real. Russia is learning lessons and prefer to fight enemies as far as possible before they attack or destabilize Russia proper. This whole article and stand off weapons is about Russia trying to fight enemies from a far and preventing threats from materializing destroying them before too late.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. peterAUS says:

    There is, perhaps, another possibility we might consider (Jack Ryan…..).

    Regarding Russian stand-off capability.

    If we assume that MAD prevents “employment” of such capability against US…ops…sorry…Zionist Empire…..maybe that capability isn’t just wasted.

    I mean…if Russsians made it, and they aren’t going to sell it, and they aren’t going to use it aganist “ZE”, and those resources could be used to be a bit more independent from Western consumer goods imports………well….

    How about using that capability against “little guys” inside Russian sphere of interest?

    Like “little guys” in former Warsaw pact for example?
    From Baltic to Bulgaria.

    I mean, “ZE” used similar capability against Yugoslavia ’99, for example.

    Why Russians wouldn’t use it against ….somebody……in Eastern Europe?

    Ah…yes….because they are good guys.
    Sure.

    Just a thought, mind you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. @Anon
    The Russians don't have real skin in the game in Syria, like they didn't in Afghanistan, which is why the Muhajadeen could beat them. Compare that to Barbarossa or Napoleon's war -- home turf makes a big difference.

    We could plow over the NVA anywhere but Vietnam -- short of nuking the place we were never going to beat them at home.

    The skin is quite real. Russia is learning lessons and prefer to fight enemies as far as possible before they attack or destabilize Russia proper. This whole article and stand off weapons is about Russia trying to fight enemies from a far and preventing threats from materializing destroying them before too late.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. KenH says:

    All the talk of technical specs and capabilities of the various weapons systems are above my pay grade, but my worst fears have been realized and it seems the U.S. and Israel are trying to provoke Russia into a reaction that will justify wider war for the purpose of “securing the realm”. Things in Syria were not to Israel’s liking and Syria will not be bifurcated nor does it appear that a puppet leader subservient to America and Israel will supplant Assad.

    This is probably why Israel attacked a Hezbollah position recently so they could stir things up a bit and try to regain some momentum towards their ultimate objective. Israel knows it can start another military conflagration then quietly exit the scene with little cost to itself while their American vassal will take over and do the rest. And if America doesn’t take the bait then Izzy’s innumerable agents in the media and Congress will scream anti-semitism and moan about how the president has turned his back on our greatest ally in the region until the desired outcome is achieved.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  104. @Thorfinnsson
    What does the Tomahawk have to do with this?

    It's well known that Western countries have lagged Russia in cruise missile development for decades now. I'm not even entirely sure why--more confidence in our sea and air power?

    The USA developed some of the first (perhaps the first?) supersonic cruise missiles all the way back in the 1960s, but there was no development since then. Today hypersonic weapons are seriously being pursued, however.

    It’s well known that Western countries have lagged Russia in cruise missile development for decades now. I’m not even entirely sure why–more confidence in our sea and air power?

    It could be the rare example of the US military practicing the policy of “quantity is a quality all of its own”. At least until recently they’ve had a lot of Tomahawks in inventory and while we hear all this squawking about how we need a 300 ship navy, fact is we can put to sea far more than pretty much everyone (how many are deployable due to other readiness criteria is another matter – but in terms of shear number – there’s plenty of jaw to house the teeth).

    3500 Tomahawks is probably adequate to sink the Russian and Chinese navies, in a fairly short period of time, supersonic or no. The respective admiralties probably know that.

    That said: if it is a case of a good strategic decision around quantity/quality … I would wager my money it is the right decision, for the wrong reason(s).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    "fact is we can put to sea far more than pretty much everyone"

    And sluggish floating targets they are.
    , @1RW
    All antiship tomahawks were withdrawn from service in the '90s.

    Brown people don't do boats, and with the Soviets gone and the Chicoms not yet a concern I guess the US navy decided that their job was attacking land targets, not sparring with Kirov class battle cruisers.

    Besides that, even antiship tomahawks wouldn't take out subs or aircraft - things Russians like to launch antiship missiles from.

    Finally, land attack Tomahawks might have trouble dealing with hardened targets, like one of those Chinese islands could be hardened to the point of impermeability to 1000 lb warheads and have enough missiles on it to keep planes and ships away.

    So I don't think that the USN brass are as cocky as you
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Talha says:
    @Priss Factor
    What nations need to develop is the satellite missile system. Load a satellite with huge bombs, missiles, and even nukes. Send them into space and fly them over enemy nations. And if a nation attacks you, bomb it from the satellite. Like in Bubblegum Crisis.

    https://youtu.be/I5Ck0pfyG9o?t=23m

    Wow – if it comes to that, I believe the crisis would have well expanded beyond just bubble gum – I would imagine lollipops and cotton candy would also be in peril!!!

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Bayan says:
    @survey-of-disinfo


    Iran knows for sure that should the unthinkable but not improbable happen, such as an American attack on the Russian forces in Syria, Iran will not be left standing on the side—she gets immediately “involved” whether she wants it or not. So, the logic goes, why not make the best of it when all bets, other than nuclear, will be off. Iran may as well have Russian forces on her side and in her airspace, which, obviously helps significantly.

     

    "Whether she wants it or not"?

    "why not make the best of it".

    Possibly, tovarich, you may ask the "her" in question if she shares your rather "provincial" romantic notions.

    Even the crazy mullahs of Iran are not so despicable as to let some Russian outfit in Kremlin determine the fate of the Iranian nation. Unless, of course, they are your moles.

    The "signal" regarding the Iranian "aerospace" that matters here is the uproar in Iran regarding the decision to let Russian planes use an Iranian airbase. What makes you think IRGC will let Russia dictate the direction of the defense of Iran? Russian base in Syria goes boom, well, that is YOUR problem. Iran is there to protect IRANIAN interests. It is not in Iran's interest to have Russia use Iran as a forward base. Dream on, and quit hitting that vodka bottle.

    Iranians remember the parition of Iran between Russia and Britain the "great game", Russian push for spinning away Azarbaijan and Kurdistan away from Iran after WWII and having to be forced out by the USA, and song and dance of "nuclear weapons" that resulted in Iran being subject to an IAEA regiment not directed against any other nation on Earth. (And Russia was there with the West when that went down, remember comrade?)

    Agree. In the long run the best thing for Iran is to stop its military involvement in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon; and limit its relations to culture and economy. Iranian military coming into battle with American forces in these countries is no good for Iran. Furthermore, eventually Iraqis and Syrians will rebel against Iranian domination of their countries despite their religious affinities to Iran. That is the nature of the nation state. Iranians should be smart enough to understand this. It is a question of when to begin the withdrawal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. hunor says:
    @DESERT FOX
    The Zionist neocons who control the U.S. are used to invading and destroying small countries with no regard for international law and killing millions of civilians including men , women and children, this is what the Zionist neocons do or rather this is what they make the American military do.

    America is run by a Zionist crime cabal that operates much as Hitler and the Nazis did with no regard for life or limb, ie a rogue nation that creates terror groups such as ISIS and AL CIADA that it uses to wreck countries and pretends to fight this self created terror.

    The Zionist warmongers are going to destroy America and in case of war with Russia both nations will be destroyed and fools like col. ralph peters are typical of the toy officer contingent that is harbored in the military, and who are puppets of Israel.

    The real GORILLA is the Zionists and Israel who have driven American foreign policy for decades and who are going to destroy America as just as a parasite destroys its host so shall Zionist Israel destroy America.

    GOD BLESS RUSSIA AND SYRIA

    ” the Zionist warmongers are going to destroy America and in case of war with Russia both
    nations will be destroyed….”

    You nailed it that is the plan! Stack up the best and brightest of the Caucasian males against
    each other, Nato vs. Russia , with modern weapons they will most effectively wipe out each other.
    They are the only ones who can hinder the plan of NWO. , so they have to be discarded. the remaining goyims will be forcefully crossbred , and microchiped , hence NWO. Nirvana for some
    lunatics , humanity for none.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Wally says:
    @Anon
    If we funded the FSA to the extent that we did the Mujahadeen, the Russians would be on their heels. If we had actual boots on the ground, it would be game, set, and match.

    In short, Assad got back territory thanks to Russia, it's true, but that's only because Russia has not been seriously opposed.

    Not that we should intervene. Just saying that it's an incomplete picture being drawn.

    Anon said:

    “If we funded the FSA to the extent that we did the Mujahadeen, the Russians would be on their heels. If we had actual boots on the ground, it would be game, set, and match.”

    Laughable.

    I suggest you actually read the article under discussion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Wally says:
    @Avery
    {... but that’s only because Russia has not been seriously opposed.}

    Who would seriously oppose Russia?
    How?

    I think it was either [TheSaker] or [Karlin] who noted that both NATO and/or Israel can bring to bear assets at least 10X what Russia has in Syria.
    But obviously something gives NATO/US and/or Israel 2nd thoughts.
    I have no idea what it is, but the reason there is no interference with Russia is not because NATO/US/Israel are charitably disposed towards Russia.
    Clearly they are concerned (or worried) about something.

    The pending defeat of the Reptiles in Syria is a BIG deal.
    It throws of giant monkey wrench in the PINAC plan to redraw the Middle East for Eretz Yisrael.
    Short of directly attacking Russia - with unpredictable consequences - they tried pretty much everything:.
    - Chemical attack and mass murder of Syrian civilians by Turks and ISIS (...blamed on Assad).
    - Shootdown of RuAF Su-24 by Turkey/NATO.
    - Several attacks on SAA by US either by 'mistake' or directly.
    - Blatant violation of Syrian airspace by NATO pirates.
    ......

    Despite all that, SAA+Russia+Iran+Hezbollah are relentlessly grinding down the cannibalistic invaders. Israel-firsters and anti-American slime who have invested the State dept, Pentagon, and CIA are apoplectic.

    But clearly they don't know what to do.
    Otherwise, they would have done it already.

    But obviously something gives NATO/US and/or Israel 2nd thoughts.
    I have no idea what it is, but the reason there is no interference with Russia is not because NATO/US/Israel are charitably disposed towards Russia.
    Clearly they are concerned (or worried) about something.

    It’s called ‘casualties’ / losses.

    A base or aircraft carrier cannot be swept under the Zionist media’s rug.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Wally says:
    @SimplePseudonymicHandle

    It’s well known that Western countries have lagged Russia in cruise missile development for decades now. I’m not even entirely sure why–more confidence in our sea and air power?
     
    It could be the rare example of the US military practicing the policy of "quantity is a quality all of its own". At least until recently they've had a lot of Tomahawks in inventory and while we hear all this squawking about how we need a 300 ship navy, fact is we can put to sea far more than pretty much everyone (how many are deployable due to other readiness criteria is another matter - but in terms of shear number - there's plenty of jaw to house the teeth).

    3500 Tomahawks is probably adequate to sink the Russian and Chinese navies, in a fairly short period of time, supersonic or no. The respective admiralties probably know that.

    That said: if it is a case of a good strategic decision around quantity/quality ... I would wager my money it is the right decision, for the wrong reason(s).

    “fact is we can put to sea far more than pretty much everyone”

    And sluggish floating targets they are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    That's not an argument.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Sharrukin says:
    @Talha
    Hey Andrei,

    Going off of my comment about simply making an aircraft carrier inoperable as opposed to sinking it; what do you know of Russia's forays (if they're even into this) into developing an EMP device. I would imagine you could take out a capital ship plus a few others in a fleet if you could detonate something that had a radius of say quarter mile or so:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg/305px-Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg

    Peace.

    I assume you mean a non-nuclear EMP missile and I have thought that this might be a rather useful concept. I would think that the naval ships are somewhat protected from such attacks, but even a partial effect or temporary interference with the complicated radars and electronics in a carrier battle group during an antishipping missile attack could turn a minor attack into a knockout blow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Sharrukin,

    These were my thoughts exactly. One wonders what the effect would be on aircraft carriers running on (multiple) nuclear reactors. I definitely wouldn't want to be around to find out.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Kiza says:
    @Peripatetic commenter
    This is not true. It could be that Russia does not want to demonstrate the deficiencies of the S400 systems.

    It is such a pity we have not been given a demonstration of their capabilities when the shit hits the fan.

    Ok, what you say is true – there has been no proof of S400 capabilities. This may be:
    A) because Russia did not want to reveal its capabilities in the heavily monitored Syrian military theater, to avoid giving US and Israel a chance to develop counter measures
    B) because they could not find a volunteer, such as you, till now who is willing to verify how poor the performance of S400 is by flying a military plane into its defensive zone.

    Perhaps, the Russians also wanted to know how effective S400 would be in detecting F22 Raptors flying from Incirlik. Smaller Radar Cross Section typically means only detection at a reduced distance, not invisibility as the US MIC marketing says. This could have been an even more important task, relevant to the whole of mother Russia, than defending the Russian contingent in Syria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter

    because they could not find a volunteer, such as you, till now who is willing to verify how poor the performance of S400 is by flying a military plane into its defensive zone.
     
    I am too old for that shit.

    Your second point about testing how well the S400s detect F22s and other stealth aircraft is interesting.

    I also suspect that the Russians do not have the issues with diversity that the US has. That is, when you have lower IQ diverse peoples in your forces and high-tech equipment you can expect their effectiveness to be lower than if you didn't have those lower IQ diverse people. I suspect you have to apply a penalty to diverse forces and it might be as much as 50%.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Dingo says: • Website

    Here we go again. Russian cruise missiles how good they are. How much help did they give to iraq when it was needed. So to syria when incursion by israel air force hit military targets where is the highly vaunted anti aircraft missiles russia has supposedly given syria . A couple of these fantastic cruise missiles sent back over the border to israel would wake the americans and israelis up. How come no response from russia _all talk no action.= russia fell part in the nineties.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    One of the parties involved gotta be sane to avoid really bad things happening. It is Russia
    You have to have similar historical experience and cultural background to understand and appreciate wisdom and restrain. Otherwise we all would have been like chimps throwing crap at each other at smallest cause, except we can throw a lot more dangerous things than doing.
    , @utu
    You are asking good questions. Already comrade Sergey Krieger answered you that you won't be able to understand the wisdom of Russia's actions or should we say inactions because you are not Russian. So stop bothering with western logic and rhetoric because their validity ceases to apply once it enters Russia's physical and mental space.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    I believe that an old saying with regards to Russian forces is that they are slow to saddle up but they ride very fast. This is advice to take to heart based on historical events alone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. unit472 says:
    @Talha
    Hey unit472,

    one thing to knock them out of action but another to sink them
     
    A carrier with an inoperable flight deck is pretty much a floating slab of metal (other than being a communication point for command and control) - am I right? I've not read of any aircraft carriers loaded with offensive weapons like surface-to-air missiles, cannons, etc.

    If so, it's totally unnecessary to put all the effort into sinking the damn thing other than as a morale-crippling move.

    Peace.

    It depends on your war scenario. A US carrier hit by Iran might make its way home and be repaired. That was how the US Navy operated in WW2 before armored flight decks. Interestingly the British carriers operating off Okinawa absorbed kamikazi attacks and stayed on station while the wooden flight decks on American carriers were not so robust.

    Today in a major war I tend to believe you go to war with what you have on day one and who can hit hardest in the first few days will prevail. There will be no time to move factories beyond the Urals or create an ‘Arsenal of Democracy’ out of range of enemy attack. In that scenario a carrier becomes, like everything else, an expendable platform.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unseated
    Required reading:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

    "Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World-War-II-style light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.

    "Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.
    At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed ..."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Talha
    Hey unit472,

    one thing to knock them out of action but another to sink them
     
    A carrier with an inoperable flight deck is pretty much a floating slab of metal (other than being a communication point for command and control) - am I right? I've not read of any aircraft carriers loaded with offensive weapons like surface-to-air missiles, cannons, etc.

    If so, it's totally unnecessary to put all the effort into sinking the damn thing other than as a morale-crippling move.

    Peace.

    I’ve not read of any aircraft carriers loaded with offensive weapons

    Maybe not American carriers, but there’s at least one carrier with such weapons: The cruiser role is facilitated by Admiral Kuznetsov’s complement of 12 long-range surface-to-surface anti-ship P-700 Granit (NATO reporting name: Shipwreck) cruise missiles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Thanks reiner Tor - very interesting. It seems a small payload of 12 anti-ship missiles is meant as a means of keeping a defensive posture.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Dingo
    Here we go again. Russian cruise missiles how good they are. How much help did they give to iraq when it was needed. So to syria when incursion by israel air force hit military targets where is the highly vaunted anti aircraft missiles russia has supposedly given syria . A couple of these fantastic cruise missiles sent back over the border to israel would wake the americans and israelis up. How come no response from russia _all talk no action.= russia fell part in the nineties.

    One of the parties involved gotta be sane to avoid really bad things happening. It is Russia
    You have to have similar historical experience and cultural background to understand and appreciate wisdom and restrain. Otherwise we all would have been like chimps throwing crap at each other at smallest cause, except we can throw a lot more dangerous things than doing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Talha says:
    @Sharrukin
    I assume you mean a non-nuclear EMP missile and I have thought that this might be a rather useful concept. I would think that the naval ships are somewhat protected from such attacks, but even a partial effect or temporary interference with the complicated radars and electronics in a carrier battle group during an antishipping missile attack could turn a minor attack into a knockout blow.

    Hey Sharrukin,

    These were my thoughts exactly. One wonders what the effect would be on aircraft carriers running on (multiple) nuclear reactors. I definitely wouldn’t want to be around to find out.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Talha says:
    @reiner Tor

    I’ve not read of any aircraft carriers loaded with offensive weapons
     
    Maybe not American carriers, but there's at least one carrier with such weapons: The cruiser role is facilitated by Admiral Kuznetsov's complement of 12 long-range surface-to-surface anti-ship P-700 Granit (NATO reporting name: Shipwreck) cruise missiles.

    Thanks reiner Tor – very interesting. It seems a small payload of 12 anti-ship missiles is meant as a means of keeping a defensive posture.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Talha says:
    @Anonymous
    Sorry Talha, but your "post-Communist" Russia with "traditional religions" is sci-fi to me.

    Remember: "The Believer is discerning". (Hadith)

    The Russian approach to ethnic fabric of their expansionist quilt is entirely practical. First principle is "cultural disconnect" whereby Crylic alphabet replaces ethnic alphabet. This is to counter cultural continuity. The second principle is "Mommy/Daddy state overseer" of "traditional religions". Chechnya is a pri

    Worrying over what some Tsar did to the Qajar dynasty centuries ago is interesting
     
    Come now, Talha, Uncle Joe was not a Tsar. Russia going along with the West with the charade of "nuclear threat" from Iran was not a Tsarist project. We will omit for the moment the role of USSR in the agitations that resulted in '79 revolution, but there also that little matter.

    Possibly – but that’s going to require some serious soul-searching within the various Muslim countries of the region to come to the table in a more cooperative posture. They have the resources and strength to go it alone without outside interference if they can be united. Barring that, they will always be a feather in someone else’s hat.

     

    The 57 Muslim nations would be an amazing block and definitively counter the devious war mongers. That is the answer. Not Russia. Not China. Not US. Not EU. The 57 Muslim Nations are an incredible power block.

    Were these nations ruled by rational people, they would forge an alliance between Turkey and Iran, unifying the Sunni-Shia Muslim world. China would applaud this as it would guarantee passage to EU outside of Russian control. Russia would not like this. EU would not like this. US would not like this. Zionist would not like this.

    > "Peace"

    Salaam always sounded better to me and fills me with spiritual delight (just like OM), Talha. Also, as you must know, Salaam means more than just "peace". It means HARMONY, EQUANIMITY, and HEALTH.

    (You know, I have entertained the idea if whether the close phonetics of "Peace" and "Piss" -- try French, if you prefer Latin languages with Paix and Pisse-- have something to do with the approach of the related people to the idea of "peace" ... )

    Don't be shy brother. After all, ALLAH revealed the Quran in Arabic tonque for a reason. Say Salaam as God intended you to say it.

    Salaam Bro,

    Didn’t know you were Muslim.

    Remember: “The Believer is discerning”. (Hadith) The Russian approach to ethnic fabric of their expansionist quilt is entirely practical.

    Agree with both. However, one must give credit where it is due – this may be realpolitik, but Russia and her Orthodox authorities have been fairly good about acknowledging Islam as a natural part of the Russia milieu (this goes all the way back to Catherine the Great). For sure they will promote an Islam that is not a threat to their political structure, but that is to be expected. Generally though, mosques are going up everywhere and traditional Islam is on the rise among the populace and Russia is even giving a kind of leeway in how the various Muslims administer their own localities. Just recently, there was an agreement to open up a new Islamic university in Grozny that will be in conjunction with the Syrian ulema.

    Uncle Joe was not a Tsar.

    He was not – and the Communist regime’s crimes against both the Orthodox community and Muslims were tremendous. However, the Communists are gone – and, frankly, were a hiccup in Russia’s long history. They have tried to start things anew – I think we owe it to the people of Russia to give it a go from our side:

    Look, I don’t like it that Russia is backing Assad, but honestly, it has always seen itself as the guarantor of the rights of Orthodox Christians in that area and when you think about what Daesh (which happened to be the strongest group against the regime) was doing to the historical minority communities in that area, you realize why they came into the conflict as they did. And frankly, part of me is kind of happy that there is now a Chechen tripwire force in Syria that will prevent Israel from taking advantage of the situation.

    It’s a big mess – I don’t know that there is one correct way to look at it – pray for the innocent.

    That is the answer. Not Russia. Not China. Not US. Not EU. The 57 Muslim Nations are an incredible power block.

    Agreed – and you probably only really need 6 to start a core – the rest of the smaller guys will follow; Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi and Indonesia. I might have added Iraq, but that place is a complete mess right now. Saudi is the tough one to get on board with anything and is stirring up a lot of trouble around the world (even next door in Yemen).

    Fi amanillah, wa salaam

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. EugeneGur says:
    @Anonymous
    EugeneGur says:
    September 28, 2017 at 7:21 pm GMT • 200 Words
    @survey-of-disinfo


    In case you haven’t noticed the author isn’t talking about Russia dictating the defense of Iran but about Iran objectively being in the same boat as far as Western aggression is concerned. The animosity towards Iran in the USA is just as great as towards Russia – the difference is Russia is capable of defending itself, vodka bottle in hand, which is not at all certain about Iran.

     

    The author who is too shy (or tongue tied, comrade?) to rely except to agree with you, is saying that but Iran is not in the same boat as Russia.

    As for Iran not being able to defend itself, that is no thanks to the Russians and their mañana, mañana about S300. Note how quickly the S400 deal with Turks was signed. Iran certainly noted that! :)

    As for Russia being able to decent herself, well bully for her. Just do it from Russian territory and go easy on the vodka, tovarich :)

    As for "animosity towards Iran in the USA", it is fueled by the same Jews who run Russia, so it's a wash.


    By using the Iranian airspace, Russia isn’t using Iran as a forward base but, on the contrary, signaling that Iran isn’t alone – this is to your advantage, buddy, in case you haven’t figured that out yet.

     

    Tell that to the Syrians getting bombed by Israelis :)

    Our advantage, "buddy", is our independence, our valor, our smarts, and our tendency to asymmetric thinking.

    There is NO advantage to Iran allowing Russian military to strike American assets in the area. The entire military doctrine of Iran is deterrence based.

    At a basic personal level, an American and an Iranian can relate and understand each other. But the Russians are cold fish and were it come down to choosing one hegemony over another, the American brand is just more attractive. Sorry, comrades.

    The substantial majority of Iranian people are pro-American. A less substantial subset are fully aware of the historic aggression of Russians against the Iranian nation. 1953 is peanuts compared to years of Russian meddling in Iranian affairs.

    History matters.

    There is not a single record of a Russian, for example, coming to aid of Iranians, but to this day an American who fought with Iranians in the revolution of early 20th c. is honored in Iran.

    Culture matters.

    Russia wants Syria because with her secret ally, the Zionist entity, the control of Syria gives Russia a veto power over energy and goods transfer from Asia to Europe. (Listen up, China.)

    A strong and independent Iran is completely unpalatable to Russia. Why do you think Russia is in Syria? Because an Iranian gas pipeline to Europe would undermine Russian energy hegemony over Europe.

    Why does nutty yahoo fly to Moscow with meetings with Putin? Because they need to communicate securely.

    Is Hezbollah smart enough to note and nullify Russian attempt to penetrate their organization via Syria? Nassurllah looks and sounds plenty smart to me! :)

    the American brand is just more attractive. Sorry, comrades.

    When go for it. You leaders, however, appear to be smarter and understand better what usually happens to the ones choosing such “attractive brand”.

    A strong and independent Iran is completely unpalatable to Russia. Why do you think Russia is in Syria? Because an Iranian gas pipeline to Europe would undermine Russian energy hegemony over Europe.

    Of course. And that is precisely why Russia was instrumental in pushing that Iranian agreement through, the agreement that would lift the Iranian sanctions and allow Iran to sell its oil again. BTW your “attractive brand” people are trying their damnedest to renege on that deal.

    Why does nutty yahoo fly to Moscow with meetings with Putin? Because they need to communicate securely.

    If you mean Netanyahu, then of course he did want to meet in secret, because he tried to convince Putin to boot Iran out of Syria. Israel is getting positively hysterical about the Iranian presence in Syria. Iran, in case you haven’t noticed, has not just the US but also Israel as its enemy. Putin, however, sent Netanyahu on his way. Russia maintains reasonably friendly relations with Israel but not about to let Israel dictate its actions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    "fact is we can put to sea far more than pretty much everyone"

    And sluggish floating targets they are.

    That’s not an argument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    That's a quote from Monty Python's Flying Circus and anyway, it was a comment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. utu says:
    @Dingo
    Here we go again. Russian cruise missiles how good they are. How much help did they give to iraq when it was needed. So to syria when incursion by israel air force hit military targets where is the highly vaunted anti aircraft missiles russia has supposedly given syria . A couple of these fantastic cruise missiles sent back over the border to israel would wake the americans and israelis up. How come no response from russia _all talk no action.= russia fell part in the nineties.

    You are asking good questions. Already comrade Sergey Krieger answered you that you won’t be able to understand the wisdom of Russia’s actions or should we say inactions because you are not Russian. So stop bothering with western logic and rhetoric because their validity ceases to apply once it enters Russia’s physical and mental space.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    How ironic. Meanwhile looks like that it has been working just fine for Rusian side which deployed miniscule resources in the region. The thing is that outcome pretty much confirms who is right and who is wrong. There is also no need to make rush moves at the moment. Things are going in right direction. It is not dick swinging contest if you have not noticed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. 1RW says:
    @SimplePseudonymicHandle

    It’s well known that Western countries have lagged Russia in cruise missile development for decades now. I’m not even entirely sure why–more confidence in our sea and air power?
     
    It could be the rare example of the US military practicing the policy of "quantity is a quality all of its own". At least until recently they've had a lot of Tomahawks in inventory and while we hear all this squawking about how we need a 300 ship navy, fact is we can put to sea far more than pretty much everyone (how many are deployable due to other readiness criteria is another matter - but in terms of shear number - there's plenty of jaw to house the teeth).

    3500 Tomahawks is probably adequate to sink the Russian and Chinese navies, in a fairly short period of time, supersonic or no. The respective admiralties probably know that.

    That said: if it is a case of a good strategic decision around quantity/quality ... I would wager my money it is the right decision, for the wrong reason(s).

    All antiship tomahawks were withdrawn from service in the ’90s.

    Brown people don’t do boats, and with the Soviets gone and the Chicoms not yet a concern I guess the US navy decided that their job was attacking land targets, not sparring with Kirov class battle cruisers.

    Besides that, even antiship tomahawks wouldn’t take out subs or aircraft – things Russians like to launch antiship missiles from.

    Finally, land attack Tomahawks might have trouble dealing with hardened targets, like one of those Chinese islands could be hardened to the point of impermeability to 1000 lb warheads and have enough missiles on it to keep planes and ships away.

    So I don’t think that the USN brass are as cocky as you

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Not just the islands. Even Chinese ships have anti-missile defenses - this was several years ago.

    https://www.defensetech.org/2011/05/20/the-ten-barreled-ciws-of-chinas-aircraft-carrier/

    Its now standard on the PLAN 052D and coordinated with their versions of AEGIS. The world doesn't stop developing weapons just because the US has gone dumb, you know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. When Bismarck was asked how he would defend German interests in Africa from French encroachment, he replied: “A sortie from Metz”.

    Nato has handily placed its toe in places where the Russians can slam a door on it whenever they need to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  125. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @1RW
    All antiship tomahawks were withdrawn from service in the '90s.

    Brown people don't do boats, and with the Soviets gone and the Chicoms not yet a concern I guess the US navy decided that their job was attacking land targets, not sparring with Kirov class battle cruisers.

    Besides that, even antiship tomahawks wouldn't take out subs or aircraft - things Russians like to launch antiship missiles from.

    Finally, land attack Tomahawks might have trouble dealing with hardened targets, like one of those Chinese islands could be hardened to the point of impermeability to 1000 lb warheads and have enough missiles on it to keep planes and ships away.

    So I don't think that the USN brass are as cocky as you

    Not just the islands. Even Chinese ships have anti-missile defenses – this was several years ago.

    https://www.defensetech.org/2011/05/20/the-ten-barreled-ciws-of-chinas-aircraft-carrier/

    Its now standard on the PLAN 052D and coordinated with their versions of AEGIS. The world doesn’t stop developing weapons just because the US has gone dumb, you know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Kiza
    Ok, what you say is true - there has been no proof of S400 capabilities. This may be:
    A) because Russia did not want to reveal its capabilities in the heavily monitored Syrian military theater, to avoid giving US and Israel a chance to develop counter measures
    B) because they could not find a volunteer, such as you, till now who is willing to verify how poor the performance of S400 is by flying a military plane into its defensive zone.

    Perhaps, the Russians also wanted to know how effective S400 would be in detecting F22 Raptors flying from Incirlik. Smaller Radar Cross Section typically means only detection at a reduced distance, not invisibility as the US MIC marketing says. This could have been an even more important task, relevant to the whole of mother Russia, than defending the Russian contingent in Syria.

    because they could not find a volunteer, such as you, till now who is willing to verify how poor the performance of S400 is by flying a military plane into its defensive zone.

    I am too old for that shit.

    Your second point about testing how well the S400s detect F22s and other stealth aircraft is interesting.

    I also suspect that the Russians do not have the issues with diversity that the US has. That is, when you have lower IQ diverse peoples in your forces and high-tech equipment you can expect their effectiveness to be lower than if you didn’t have those lower IQ diverse people. I suspect you have to apply a penalty to diverse forces and it might be as much as 50%.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. unseated says:
    @unit472
    It depends on your war scenario. A US carrier hit by Iran might make its way home and be repaired. That was how the US Navy operated in WW2 before armored flight decks. Interestingly the British carriers operating off Okinawa absorbed kamikazi attacks and stayed on station while the wooden flight decks on American carriers were not so robust.

    Today in a major war I tend to believe you go to war with what you have on day one and who can hit hardest in the first few days will prevail. There will be no time to move factories beyond the Urals or create an 'Arsenal of Democracy' out of range of enemy attack. In that scenario a carrier becomes, like everything else, an expendable platform.

    Required reading:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

    “Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue’s sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World-War-II-style light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.

    “Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue’s approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue’s fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces’ electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue’s navy was “sunk” by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue’s inability to detect them as well as expected.
    At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue’s ships were “re-floated”, and the rules of engagement were changed …”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Dingo
    Here we go again. Russian cruise missiles how good they are. How much help did they give to iraq when it was needed. So to syria when incursion by israel air force hit military targets where is the highly vaunted anti aircraft missiles russia has supposedly given syria . A couple of these fantastic cruise missiles sent back over the border to israel would wake the americans and israelis up. How come no response from russia _all talk no action.= russia fell part in the nineties.

    I believe that an old saying with regards to Russian forces is that they are slow to saddle up but they ride very fast. This is advice to take to heart based on historical events alone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. eirzl says:
    @Ron Unz
    In support of the strategic thesis advanced in this important article, I seem to recall that the original Russian military intervention in Syria was accompanied by a volley of ultra-long-range cruise missiles, whose capabilities greatly surprised American military analysts.

    At the time, such a high-tech attack on ISIS positions seemed rather cost-ineffective to me, but presumably a major purpose was to dissuade America (and Israel) from considering any future attack on what was a rather small and isolated Russian expeditionary force.

    Also, since Russia, Iran, and Iraq have become de facto allies in the Syria War, I'd think that the use of Iranian and Iraqi airspace as the launch point for the latest bombardment is also meant to raise much greater doubts in Trump's military advisors about the huge risks in any future attack against Iran or attempt to forcefully renegotiate the existing nuclear treaty.

    Agree. Don’t know for sure, but having operated in that military-legislative influence sphere for a time, I’d almost guarantee that this $700B defense increase was driven by the “surprise” effectiveness of Russian weapons systems. I’d bet that it’s almost exclusively an RDTE increase on top of the ongoing O&M war fighting (re: imperial) budget structure of the last 15 years. It’s been zero sum between those two categories, but I suspect now that’s no longer the case.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. peterAUS says:

    Reading all that feels just……….great.
    To certain “fanboys” around.
    That’s O.K.

    Those in business of not feeling great, as some of us addressed in certain other threads, could take all that with a grain of salt (like one tonne size of grain).

    One could think like:
    Well, that was 2002, Iraqi walkover was in 2003 and nothing of the sort happened.
    Navies of all the big players keep building big surface ships (including Chinese). Including aircraft carriers. BIG carriers.

    Bottom line: that exercise addressed “Iran thing”.

    Should it come to “Iran thing”, all mentioned in the exercise won’t mean anything.

    As addressed already several times on this site, the only problem in that “thing” could be clearing sea lines from mines in Hormuz.
    All the rest………easy……….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  131. @Anon
    That's not an argument.

    That’s a quote from Monty Python’s Flying Circus and anyway, it was a comment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Iain W says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    What does the Tomahawk have to do with this?

    It's well known that Western countries have lagged Russia in cruise missile development for decades now. I'm not even entirely sure why--more confidence in our sea and air power?

    The USA developed some of the first (perhaps the first?) supersonic cruise missiles all the way back in the 1960s, but there was no development since then. Today hypersonic weapons are seriously being pursued, however.

    Tomahawk is a dog slow museum piece. There is strong evidence that the Russians ‘splashed’ the first batch of Tomahawks fired at the Syrian airbase and that is why they had to fire a second batch. I think Russia ‘EW’ capabilities are not fully known and understood.

    I don’t think I would want to be on any US naval assets and have to try and shoot down multiple missiles. As one strategist commented – there are targets and there are subs. The article did not mention that these missiles can be launched in a number of ways – from land, sea, under the sea and from the air and outside the defensive capabilities of the intended targets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @utu
    You are asking good questions. Already comrade Sergey Krieger answered you that you won't be able to understand the wisdom of Russia's actions or should we say inactions because you are not Russian. So stop bothering with western logic and rhetoric because their validity ceases to apply once it enters Russia's physical and mental space.

    How ironic. Meanwhile looks like that it has been working just fine for Rusian side which deployed miniscule resources in the region. The thing is that outcome pretty much confirms who is right and who is wrong. There is also no need to make rush moves at the moment. Things are going in right direction. It is not dick swinging contest if you have not noticed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    It is not dick swinging contest if you have not noticed.

    It's pecker measuring contest, Serg, not swinging. Although, come to think of it a longer pecker would have a lot more swing in it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. They’re both 800 lb gorillas, the only difference is the Russian gorilla is fluent in six languages and reads Tolstoy and Pushkin while the American gorilla has type 2 diabetes, a sixth grade education and spends its day jerking off to internet porn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ondrej

    only difference is the Russian gorilla is fluent in six languages and reads Tolstoy and Pushkin
     

    Six languages is probably overstatement, also I would say has read Tolstoy and Pushkin + ton of classics.

    But on other hand, if you look at "top elite" level, you will mostly find out that knowledge of two or more systems of writing + 1 fluent language + other one or two on level of understanding is quite common.

    Be it Putin, Lavrov, Shoigu, Zacharova, Ivanov, Antonov, Matvyenko and you can search and check for others.

    And yes this gorilla speaking in her internal language 35+ languages, which lot of people from west does not realize.

    As for collective communication with outside world trough its well trained diplomatic corps is uses probably languages most of us did not even heard of;-)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Omar says:

    The 800 lb Gorilla is not Russia, but Israel. How many times, Netanyahu been to Russia in the last 2 years and came back empty handed? Even he came back empty handed from USA too!

    God bless Trump, as he was not born yesterday. We American are lucky under his leadership, as Time will prove me right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  136. Omar says:

    Here is my prediction. Trump will abandon The Nuclear Deal. Iran will be able to then pursue Peaceful Nuclear Program without any sanctions. However, there will be lots of noises and threats of sanction but nothing will come out of them.

    It gonna be pay back time for USS Liberty (1967) and 9/11.

    How long the Prime Minister was in Coma before his death?

    Wonder Why!

    God bless USA and Trump. God bless True Children of Israel.

    Blessed be HaShem!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  137. Ondrej says:
    @Buba Zanetti
    They're both 800 lb gorillas, the only difference is the Russian gorilla is fluent in six languages and reads Tolstoy and Pushkin while the American gorilla has type 2 diabetes, a sixth grade education and spends its day jerking off to internet porn.

    only difference is the Russian gorilla is fluent in six languages and reads Tolstoy and Pushkin

    Six languages is probably overstatement, also I would say has read Tolstoy and Pushkin + ton of classics.

    But on other hand, if you look at “top elite” level, you will mostly find out that knowledge of two or more systems of writing + 1 fluent language + other one or two on level of understanding is quite common.

    Be it Putin, Lavrov, Shoigu, Zacharova, Ivanov, Antonov, Matvyenko and you can search and check for others.

    And yes this gorilla speaking in her internal language 35+ languages, which lot of people from west does not realize.

    As for collective communication with outside world trough its well trained diplomatic corps is uses probably languages most of us did not even heard of;-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Sean says:

    https://defenceindepth.co/2017/02/17/the-russian-militarys-view-on-the-utility-of-force-the-adoption-of-a-strategy-of-non-violent-asymmetric-warfare/

    [MORE]

    Russian military thinking seems to have reached the point now where the idea of using force intentionally in conflicts with peer-state adversaries has been almost completely ruled out. This seems a radical move. But there has been a clear recognition within this military that better strategic outcomes for Russia will result from the use of non-violent ‘asymmetric warfare’ activities rather than those which will or can involve the use of force – such as conventional war or hybrid warfare.

    Asymmetric warfare, of course, and in a nutshell, is a method of warfare employed by the weak against the strong where the former seeks to level the battlefield with the latter. The weaker party, using its own relative advantages, attempts to turn the strengths of its opponent into vulnerabilities, which can then be exploited. The means used are ones which, in essence, cannot be used in return – reciprocated – by the target (‘asymmetrical’ means that which cannot be mirror-imaged). Fundamentally, asymmetric warfare is all about activity that, rather than bludgeoning a target into strategic, operational and tactical defeats, actually manipulates it into them. And it is all done, ideally, with no use of force. As Sun Tzu, the ‘father’ of asymmetric thinking, told us, the acme of skill in the conduct of warfare is to defeat the adversary without the use of any force. See, for instance my book titled Asymmetric Warfare: Threat and Response in the 21st Century.
    [...]

    Other articles present similar arguments for the use of asymmetric warfare by the Russian military. The overall message for this military, and as the influential military newspaper Red Star (Krasnaya Zvezda) summed up last year, is that when it comes to the conduct of warfare in the current era, ‘The main emphasis must be placed on asymmetrical means and methods’.

    The principal aim of Russian asymmetric warfare is to create degrees of destabilisation (destabilizatsiya) within targeted states and within collectives of targeted states (e.g. NATO, EU). A target that is destabilised (in whatever sense) is one that, in Russian military thinking, is more susceptible to Russian leverage, i.e. it can be manipulated more easily.[...]

    Conventional military assets are still needed, of course. But these days they may be seen to be acting in a supporting role for the asymmetric warfare campaign against NATO interests. Their outwardly sabre-rattling movements, deployments and activities are seen as means of creating ‘indirect leverage’ that can, in turn, manipulate western actors into making counter moves that actually suit Moscow’s purposes.

    The Russian military is now also employing asymmetric warfare methods that these western actors find very difficult to retaliate against on a like-for-like basis – reciprocity is largely denied. Russian democracy has become very much a ‘managed’ one and this closes down many avenues of retaliation. Russia is also not open to cyber attack in the same way that western states are and defences in the country are more pronounced.

    The Russian military can and is using non-violent asymmetric means to considerable strategic advantage against NATO. They are, wherever one looks, destabilising and manipulating to good effect. Given this continuing situation and the strategic results that are patently being produced in NATO countries, why would the Russian military need to consider the conventional use of force? What utility does it have?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Russians and asymmetric warfare?
    "Soft power" in particular.

    Yeah......

    Could they produce something like this ?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innocents_(2016_film)

    Doubt it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. peterAUS says:
    @Sean
    https://defenceindepth.co/2017/02/17/the-russian-militarys-view-on-the-utility-of-force-the-adoption-of-a-strategy-of-non-violent-asymmetric-warfare/


    Russian military thinking seems to have reached the point now where the idea of using force intentionally in conflicts with peer-state adversaries has been almost completely ruled out. This seems a radical move. But there has been a clear recognition within this military that better strategic outcomes for Russia will result from the use of non-violent ‘asymmetric warfare’ activities rather than those which will or can involve the use of force – such as conventional war or hybrid warfare.

    Asymmetric warfare, of course, and in a nutshell, is a method of warfare employed by the weak against the strong where the former seeks to level the battlefield with the latter. The weaker party, using its own relative advantages, attempts to turn the strengths of its opponent into vulnerabilities, which can then be exploited. The means used are ones which, in essence, cannot be used in return – reciprocated – by the target (‘asymmetrical’ means that which cannot be mirror-imaged). Fundamentally, asymmetric warfare is all about activity that, rather than bludgeoning a target into strategic, operational and tactical defeats, actually manipulates it into them. And it is all done, ideally, with no use of force. As Sun Tzu, the ‘father’ of asymmetric thinking, told us, the acme of skill in the conduct of warfare is to defeat the adversary without the use of any force. See, for instance my book titled Asymmetric Warfare: Threat and Response in the 21st Century.
    [...]

    Other articles present similar arguments for the use of asymmetric warfare by the Russian military. The overall message for this military, and as the influential military newspaper Red Star (Krasnaya Zvezda) summed up last year, is that when it comes to the conduct of warfare in the current era, ‘The main emphasis must be placed on asymmetrical means and methods’.

    The principal aim of Russian asymmetric warfare is to create degrees of destabilisation (destabilizatsiya) within targeted states and within collectives of targeted states (e.g. NATO, EU). A target that is destabilised (in whatever sense) is one that, in Russian military thinking, is more susceptible to Russian leverage, i.e. it can be manipulated more easily.[...]

    Conventional military assets are still needed, of course. But these days they may be seen to be acting in a supporting role for the asymmetric warfare campaign against NATO interests. Their outwardly sabre-rattling movements, deployments and activities are seen as means of creating ‘indirect leverage’ that can, in turn, manipulate western actors into making counter moves that actually suit Moscow’s purposes.

    The Russian military is now also employing asymmetric warfare methods that these western actors find very difficult to retaliate against on a like-for-like basis – reciprocity is largely denied. Russian democracy has become very much a ‘managed’ one and this closes down many avenues of retaliation. Russia is also not open to cyber attack in the same way that western states are and defences in the country are more pronounced.

    The Russian military can and is using non-violent asymmetric means to considerable strategic advantage against NATO. They are, wherever one looks, destabilising and manipulating to good effect. Given this continuing situation and the strategic results that are patently being produced in NATO countries, why would the Russian military need to consider the conventional use of force? What utility does it have?

     

    Russians and asymmetric warfare?
    “Soft power” in particular.

    Yeah……

    Could they produce something like this ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innocents_(2016_film)

    Doubt it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simpleguest
    As per your link, this is how the movie ends:

    "The final scene is three months later, with a photographer at the convent taking pictures of the nuns and happy orphans."

    See, happy orphans. Good PR.
    , @Sergey Krieger
    In Soviet times there were many excellent films produced. Now, not so much. I tried to watch few only to turn off tv very quickly. I would say Soviet version of Hamlet was outstanding. Did you watch it?
    , @1RW
    They just produced Время Первых or "Spacewalker"

    https://youtu.be/zp8_4RXuDdk

    It's excellent propaganda and a great movie about the early Soviet Program. Actually a better space themed movie since I don't know when, maybe since Appolo 13. Which ironically is the American version.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @peterAUS
    Russians and asymmetric warfare?
    "Soft power" in particular.

    Yeah......

    Could they produce something like this ?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innocents_(2016_film)

    Doubt it.

    As per your link, this is how the movie ends:

    “The final scene is three months later, with a photographer at the convent taking pictures of the nuns and happy orphans.”

    See, happy orphans. Good PR.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @peterAUS
    Russians and asymmetric warfare?
    "Soft power" in particular.

    Yeah......

    Could they produce something like this ?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innocents_(2016_film)

    Doubt it.

    In Soviet times there were many excellent films produced. Now, not so much. I tried to watch few only to turn off tv very quickly. I would say Soviet version of Hamlet was outstanding. Did you watch it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Priss Factor
    From last year but still relevant.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG

    As bad as that is, isn't Russia even more corrupt?

    No. You’re thinking about the former Soviet Union. Russia is not the same thing. Also no, the USA military exists for no other purpose than profit making. It is the most corrupt on earth by its definition. The pentagon pays thousands of dollars for a bolt which exists with the same part number in a GM catalogue for less than ten dollars. That was years old but typical of the utter joke the US military is. Did we forget the 6 trillion dollars the Pentagon lost the day before 9/11 in 2001? Or the more recent announcement of a similar amount LOST? Nobody else even has a budget the size of the missing money in the US one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Priss Factor
    From last year but still relevant.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG

    As bad as that is, isn't Russia even more corrupt?

    Russia is very corrupt in some ways – but it has cleaned up on the military side. Remember that the US is only less corrupt because we define lobbying to be legal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Carroll Price
    During congressional hearings in the 1970s, Admiral Hyman Rickover considered aircraft carriers as being obsolete targets. It's more than obvious to any reader of this forum why they continue being produced.

    For smashing up developing countries from a safe distance?

    Works well as long as the developing country in question doesn’t have backup.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Vidi

    The purpose of war in Syria, from US (OK…Zionist Empire/whatever) point is ongoing chaos in that region. Chaos……in…………that…………region. Russia can not make that chaos go away.
     
    Chaos has a bad habit of expanding and can be extremely bloody and difficult to control; see the Thirty Years War. Does Israel really want to risk this in the country next door?

    Providing chaos to Germany from 1618 to 1648 and beyond proved to be a winning strategy for the French, so …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    EugeneGur says:
    September 28, 2017 at 7:21 pm GMT • 200 Words
    @survey-of-disinfo


    In case you haven’t noticed the author isn’t talking about Russia dictating the defense of Iran but about Iran objectively being in the same boat as far as Western aggression is concerned. The animosity towards Iran in the USA is just as great as towards Russia – the difference is Russia is capable of defending itself, vodka bottle in hand, which is not at all certain about Iran.

     

    The author who is too shy (or tongue tied, comrade?) to rely except to agree with you, is saying that but Iran is not in the same boat as Russia.

    As for Iran not being able to defend itself, that is no thanks to the Russians and their mañana, mañana about S300. Note how quickly the S400 deal with Turks was signed. Iran certainly noted that! :)

    As for Russia being able to decent herself, well bully for her. Just do it from Russian territory and go easy on the vodka, tovarich :)

    As for "animosity towards Iran in the USA", it is fueled by the same Jews who run Russia, so it's a wash.


    By using the Iranian airspace, Russia isn’t using Iran as a forward base but, on the contrary, signaling that Iran isn’t alone – this is to your advantage, buddy, in case you haven’t figured that out yet.

     

    Tell that to the Syrians getting bombed by Israelis :)

    Our advantage, "buddy", is our independence, our valor, our smarts, and our tendency to asymmetric thinking.

    There is NO advantage to Iran allowing Russian military to strike American assets in the area. The entire military doctrine of Iran is deterrence based.

    At a basic personal level, an American and an Iranian can relate and understand each other. But the Russians are cold fish and were it come down to choosing one hegemony over another, the American brand is just more attractive. Sorry, comrades.

    The substantial majority of Iranian people are pro-American. A less substantial subset are fully aware of the historic aggression of Russians against the Iranian nation. 1953 is peanuts compared to years of Russian meddling in Iranian affairs.

    History matters.

    There is not a single record of a Russian, for example, coming to aid of Iranians, but to this day an American who fought with Iranians in the revolution of early 20th c. is honored in Iran.

    Culture matters.

    Russia wants Syria because with her secret ally, the Zionist entity, the control of Syria gives Russia a veto power over energy and goods transfer from Asia to Europe. (Listen up, China.)

    A strong and independent Iran is completely unpalatable to Russia. Why do you think Russia is in Syria? Because an Iranian gas pipeline to Europe would undermine Russian energy hegemony over Europe.

    Why does nutty yahoo fly to Moscow with meetings with Putin? Because they need to communicate securely.

    Is Hezbollah smart enough to note and nullify Russian attempt to penetrate their organization via Syria? Nassurllah looks and sounds plenty smart to me! :)

    Why does nutty yahoo fly to Moscow with meetings with Putin? Because they need to communicate securely.

    You don’t think they know how to use SSL?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. 1RW says:
    @peterAUS
    Russians and asymmetric warfare?
    "Soft power" in particular.

    Yeah......

    Could they produce something like this ?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innocents_(2016_film)

    Doubt it.

    They just produced Время Первых or “Spacewalker”

    It’s excellent propaganda and a great movie about the early Soviet Program. Actually a better space themed movie since I don’t know when, maybe since Appolo 13. Which ironically is the American version.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    I assume you realize that the entire Apollo program was a studio production. Sure they shot a few people a couple hundred miles up and parachuted them back into the Atlantic Ocean, but other that, along with studio productions of the moon landings, that pretty much covers it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @1RW
    They just produced Время Первых or "Spacewalker"

    https://youtu.be/zp8_4RXuDdk

    It's excellent propaganda and a great movie about the early Soviet Program. Actually a better space themed movie since I don't know when, maybe since Appolo 13. Which ironically is the American version.

    I assume you realize that the entire Apollo program was a studio production. Sure they shot a few people a couple hundred miles up and parachuted them back into the Atlantic Ocean, but other that, along with studio productions of the moon landings, that pretty much covers it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. I have a DVD of how the moon landing was faked and every single person whom I’ve loaned it to starts off by thinking I’m nuts but then returns it saying that they agree that the landing was faked. The kicker for me is the facial expressions and body language of shame and disgust from the astronauts themselves on an occasion where they should have been elated and proud.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    I have a DVD of how the moon landing was faked
     
    And the title of that DVD is? Is it publicly available?
    If that achievement becomes an object of doubt, American "Exceptionalism" goes into the toilet, and with it what's left of "Brand America". 9/11, and who knows what else, will break free of its shackles (Holocaust?) and tear the nation, if not the West, to pieces.
    Parenthetically, it was when I learned that all of the design/engineering/fabrication/video/photographic documentation, both NASA's own and that of all the contractors, disappeared, that I went "Hmm... that's a bridge too far". Under lock and key, in climate controlled vaults, available only to accredited researchers? I can buy that, but lost? NFW.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Erebus says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    I have a DVD of how the moon landing was faked and every single person whom I've loaned it to starts off by thinking I'm nuts but then returns it saying that they agree that the landing was faked. The kicker for me is the facial expressions and body language of shame and disgust from the astronauts themselves on an occasion where they should have been elated and proud.

    I have a DVD of how the moon landing was faked

    And the title of that DVD is? Is it publicly available?
    If that achievement becomes an object of doubt, American “Exceptionalism” goes into the toilet, and with it what’s left of “Brand America”. 9/11, and who knows what else, will break free of its shackles (Holocaust?) and tear the nation, if not the West, to pieces.
    Parenthetically, it was when I learned that all of the design/engineering/fabrication/video/photographic documentation, both NASA’s own and that of all the contractors, disappeared, that I went “Hmm… that’s a bridge too far”. Under lock and key, in climate controlled vaults, available only to accredited researchers? I can buy that, but lost? NFW.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Indulging in conspiracy theories can occasionally be great fun. Here’s my pet conspiracy theory: many commenters (perhaps the majority) who are spreading the most idiotic conspiracy theories (like the “moon landing hoax” conspiracy theory) on dissenting websites (like The Unz Review) are paid agents of the CIA or some other similar organization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    Here’s my pet conspiracy theory...
     
    And here's mine:
    The theory that only "paid agents of the CIA or some similar organization" would accuse anybody who expresses doubts about the more fantastic of the official narratives propagated for socio-political purposes of being a "paid agent of the CIA or some similar organization". Your turn, duffus.
    , @iffen
    on dissenting websites (like The Unz Review)

    Why would what we think be worth the trouble?

    , @ussr andy
    RT comment section, too. Pure cancer, what with flat earth, chemtrails, etc. No way to prove, of course.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Erebus says:
    @reiner Tor
    Indulging in conspiracy theories can occasionally be great fun. Here's my pet conspiracy theory: many commenters (perhaps the majority) who are spreading the most idiotic conspiracy theories (like the "moon landing hoax" conspiracy theory) on dissenting websites (like The Unz Review) are paid agents of the CIA or some other similar organization.

    Here’s my pet conspiracy theory…

    And here’s mine:
    The theory that only “paid agents of the CIA or some similar organization” would accuse anybody who expresses doubts about the more fantastic of the official narratives propagated for socio-political purposes of being a “paid agent of the CIA or some similar organization”. Your turn, duffus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. iffen says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    How ironic. Meanwhile looks like that it has been working just fine for Rusian side which deployed miniscule resources in the region. The thing is that outcome pretty much confirms who is right and who is wrong. There is also no need to make rush moves at the moment. Things are going in right direction. It is not dick swinging contest if you have not noticed.

    It is not dick swinging contest if you have not noticed.

    It’s pecker measuring contest, Serg, not swinging. Although, come to think of it a longer pecker would have a lot more swing in it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    "It ain't the meat it's the motion, it's the movement that gives it the sock."

    Sing it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor
    Indulging in conspiracy theories can occasionally be great fun. Here's my pet conspiracy theory: many commenters (perhaps the majority) who are spreading the most idiotic conspiracy theories (like the "moon landing hoax" conspiracy theory) on dissenting websites (like The Unz Review) are paid agents of the CIA or some other similar organization.

    on dissenting websites (like The Unz Review)

    Why would what we think be worth the trouble?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I guess you're aware that these guys don't actually convert many people here to the belief that the Earth is flat or that the Moon landings were a hoax. However, their presence is quite off-putting to most normies who happen to visit this site. They'll conclude that this is a crackpot conspiracy site for tinfoil hat idiots.

    I'm not sure the CIA is really that smart to spread the most stupid conspiracy theories in The Unz Review comment sections, and I can't deny that there are certainly a number of tinfoil hat people flocking to dissenting websites on their own. But when the conversation has devolved into the dumbest conspiracy theories anyway, I like amusing myself with floating my pet conspiracy theory. I'm not sure about it either way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Thirdeye says:
    @Randal

    At the time, such a high-tech attack on ISIS positions seemed rather cost-ineffective to me, but presumably a major purpose was to dissuade America (and Israel) from considering any future attack on what was a rather small and isolated Russian expeditionary force.
     
    Clearly it made no sense in a tactical military sense to use cruise missiles when straightforward air attack was available, and the use of the Kalibrs in October 2015 was certainly motivated as a demonstration of capability. To what degree it was a warning to potential enemies (the US regime, Israel and the Gulf states, obviously, but also remember at the time still Turkey, though that brief hostility seems to have been managed out of existence, helped by the US turning to the Kurds as their proxies in Syria, since then), as opposed to a marketing pitch (the Russians have been selling export versions of these missiles for many years) is open to question - probably both.

    The issue is not so much the possession of cruise missiles - the Soviets had nuclear armed Tomahawk equivalents back in the 1980s, and it's always been assumed that those (the air and sea launched ones, anyway) were repurposed as conventionally armed missiles. It's having them, along with deployable launchers, in numbers and proving that they work reliably that was the issue. There's an understandable post-Soviet tendency in the US sphere to discount Russian capabilities in terms of high tech weapons. And in order to use cruise missiles in the way Martyanov describes here - basically as a base-denial weapon against a peer rival - you need plenty of them. To hit a US base and render it unusable with conventionally armed weapons, you have to hit it accurately and you have to hit it multiple times, evading or overloading the defences and counter-measures. To take out a carrier, you have to locate the target first, and then beat the counter-measures to hit it at least once and preferably several times, though one hit could be a mission kill. And in the case of the land base, you have to be able to do it again a few days later, and keep hitting it.

    So the Russians, with their repeated uses of cruise missiles and the introduction of more modern and potentially significantly more capable missiles that Martyanov refers to, have been building a credible case that the US can no longer count on escalation superiority in Syria to protect them.

    There’s an understandable post-Soviet tendency in the US sphere to discount Russian capabilities in terms of high tech weapons.

    There could be books written about the complete failure of the US to foresee Russia’s achievement of parity+ with the West in advanced weaponry. The Donald Cook incident in 2014 gave a shock about Russian EW capabilities on the order of the shock the U2 incident gave about Soviet air defense capabilities. Something quietly queered the TLAM attack on the Syrian airbase earlier this year. The image that the US kept of Russia was left over from the 1980s, that the Soviet Army was a mighty but unwieldy big iron force with plenty of firepower but wanting in capabilities related to advanced technology. During the first Chechen War in 1996, the Russian Army was referred to in US media as a “glorified Third World army.” That’s an exact quote. The performance of Soviet-designed aerial weaponry, largely during the mideast wars of 1973 to 1982, gave a distinct impression of a disadvantage related to avionics. But that may have been misleading, as the performance of export aircraft could have been inferior to that of the home fleet. Either the US estimate of Soviet technology in the 1980s was way off or post-Soviet Russia developed advanced technology at a remarkable pace, even more so since it occurred during such chaotic times.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Thirdeye says:
    @iffen
    It is not dick swinging contest if you have not noticed.

    It's pecker measuring contest, Serg, not swinging. Although, come to think of it a longer pecker would have a lot more swing in it.

    “It ain’t the meat it’s the motion, it’s the movement that gives it the sock.”

    Sing it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. ussr andy says:
    @reiner Tor
    Indulging in conspiracy theories can occasionally be great fun. Here's my pet conspiracy theory: many commenters (perhaps the majority) who are spreading the most idiotic conspiracy theories (like the "moon landing hoax" conspiracy theory) on dissenting websites (like The Unz Review) are paid agents of the CIA or some other similar organization.

    RT comment section, too. Pure cancer, what with flat earth, chemtrails, etc. No way to prove, of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    There is one way this could all happen naturally: I think it's possible that the most idiotic conspiracy theorists are flocking to alternative websites that are dissenting from The Narrative. The Unz Review (probably also RT and other sites) is an obvious candidate for such spontaneous activity. But yes, there's a possibility that some conscious effort is made to make these websites look bad.

    One interesting thing I noticed is that some 8-10 years ago I spent a lot of time debating 911 truthers. I found a number of websites dedicated to debunking conspiracy theories. The strange thing is, just a couple of years ago, I tried to search for some information on 911, and basically it appeared from Google and YouTube searches as if the debunking (anti-truther) websites have greatly decreased in visibility. I needed to do targeted searches on them (and even so, the results always contained a large number of the truther websites or videos) to find them. I once debated a "moderate" 911 truther guy. He basically believed most of the official narrative (i.e. that Osama did it), except he thought either that Osama was a CIA agent or patsy or that at least he was allowed to proceed by TPTB. He thought that the idiotic conspiracy theories (the "controlled demolition" crowd or the more extreme "the planes were holograms") were actually spread by the CIA (or some other similar organization) in order to crowd out the more intelligent questions about the event. Basically, most people think that either the official narrative is true to a dot or it's a controlled demolition. Now I happen to more or less believe the official narrative on 911, but it was an interesting thought, and could be applied to other things.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @iffen
    on dissenting websites (like The Unz Review)

    Why would what we think be worth the trouble?

    I guess you’re aware that these guys don’t actually convert many people here to the belief that the Earth is flat or that the Moon landings were a hoax. However, their presence is quite off-putting to most normies who happen to visit this site. They’ll conclude that this is a crackpot conspiracy site for tinfoil hat idiots.

    I’m not sure the CIA is really that smart to spread the most stupid conspiracy theories in The Unz Review comment sections, and I can’t deny that there are certainly a number of tinfoil hat people flocking to dissenting websites on their own. But when the conversation has devolved into the dumbest conspiracy theories anyway, I like amusing myself with floating my pet conspiracy theory. I’m not sure about it either way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    It is interesting to think about. There are many unknowns. How many people just visit and read the articles without paying attention to the comments? (Of course we have quite a few above the fold articles that match or exceed the bizarreness of the comments). I check several sites and have never even read the comments at most of them. I only read a few of the contributors at Unz and regularly comment at fewer still. I am impressed by many of the knowledgeable comments that can be found here. One has to wade through quite a bit of muck to get to the worthwhile stuff. (I am sure some feel the same about some of my comments, especially when I am down in the muck wrestling with the pigs.)

    Back to the particulars of your comment. Would the CIA be interested in sowing distrust of alternative media and limiting its distribution and influence? I can see where they would have an interest. As in, if everyone had complete trust in someone, say like Uncle Walter, then it would be simple enough to see that Uncle Walter got the material that you wanted him to have. If we have anarchy in the media and the populace’s trust is all over the place then peddling the influence that you want would be complicated. You couldn’t just drop a Tonkin Gulf incident into the hopper and get the predictable results that you used to be able to get with minimal effort.

    Just in case they have their eye on you and your interlocutors, I'm putting my hat back on. :)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @ussr andy
    RT comment section, too. Pure cancer, what with flat earth, chemtrails, etc. No way to prove, of course.

    There is one way this could all happen naturally: I think it’s possible that the most idiotic conspiracy theorists are flocking to alternative websites that are dissenting from The Narrative. The Unz Review (probably also RT and other sites) is an obvious candidate for such spontaneous activity. But yes, there’s a possibility that some conscious effort is made to make these websites look bad.

    One interesting thing I noticed is that some 8-10 years ago I spent a lot of time debating 911 truthers. I found a number of websites dedicated to debunking conspiracy theories. The strange thing is, just a couple of years ago, I tried to search for some information on 911, and basically it appeared from Google and YouTube searches as if the debunking (anti-truther) websites have greatly decreased in visibility. I needed to do targeted searches on them (and even so, the results always contained a large number of the truther websites or videos) to find them. I once debated a “moderate” 911 truther guy. He basically believed most of the official narrative (i.e. that Osama did it), except he thought either that Osama was a CIA agent or patsy or that at least he was allowed to proceed by TPTB. He thought that the idiotic conspiracy theories (the “controlled demolition” crowd or the more extreme “the planes were holograms”) were actually spread by the CIA (or some other similar organization) in order to crowd out the more intelligent questions about the event. Basically, most people think that either the official narrative is true to a dot or it’s a controlled demolition. Now I happen to more or less believe the official narrative on 911, but it was an interesting thought, and could be applied to other things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bobjil
    Read "Solving 911" by Christopher Bollyn. It gives very good details and names about the who and why of 911. Buildings falling in their footprints, thin skinned passenger planes going through thick steel framed towers (3 of them), passport of "hijacker" in the dust - obviously we are not getting the full picture in our MSM.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor
    I guess you're aware that these guys don't actually convert many people here to the belief that the Earth is flat or that the Moon landings were a hoax. However, their presence is quite off-putting to most normies who happen to visit this site. They'll conclude that this is a crackpot conspiracy site for tinfoil hat idiots.

    I'm not sure the CIA is really that smart to spread the most stupid conspiracy theories in The Unz Review comment sections, and I can't deny that there are certainly a number of tinfoil hat people flocking to dissenting websites on their own. But when the conversation has devolved into the dumbest conspiracy theories anyway, I like amusing myself with floating my pet conspiracy theory. I'm not sure about it either way.

    It is interesting to think about. There are many unknowns. How many people just visit and read the articles without paying attention to the comments? (Of course we have quite a few above the fold articles that match or exceed the bizarreness of the comments). I check several sites and have never even read the comments at most of them. I only read a few of the contributors at Unz and regularly comment at fewer still. I am impressed by many of the knowledgeable comments that can be found here. One has to wade through quite a bit of muck to get to the worthwhile stuff. (I am sure some feel the same about some of my comments, especially when I am down in the muck wrestling with the pigs.)

    Back to the particulars of your comment. Would the CIA be interested in sowing distrust of alternative media and limiting its distribution and influence? I can see where they would have an interest. As in, if everyone had complete trust in someone, say like Uncle Walter, then it would be simple enough to see that Uncle Walter got the material that you wanted him to have. If we have anarchy in the media and the populace’s trust is all over the place then peddling the influence that you want would be complicated. You couldn’t just drop a Tonkin Gulf incident into the hopper and get the predictable results that you used to be able to get with minimal effort.

    Just in case they have their eye on you and your interlocutors, I’m putting my hat back on. :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Thirdeye says:
    @peterAUS
    Thoughtful and civilized response...as expected.

    Rare quality, though, in this "fanboy" blathering.

    I'll try on the similar level (civilized, quality of thought is always debatable).

    First, overall, you are correct, BUT, I feel you've made a basic error in "The Mission" part of METT-T.
    All the rest, although correct, isn't relevant I am afraid.
    I'll explain below.

    OK let’s look at it a bit closer. But to do so we must recognise that we are moving to the realms of wider politics rather than its subset, war. At the level we are talking about, the decisions are always political rather than military, even when they are taken by military men in an overtly military regime.
     
    Agree.

    The context is what is discussed by Martyanov above – the US regime, presumably listening to some of the less wise amongst its senior military men and the less honestly motivated amongst its influential political and media figures, decides to try to defeat and destroy the Russian forces in Syria whilst counting on what they believe is the US’s general escalation superiority to constrain Russian responses and keep the open conflict contained to the region.
     
    THIS is the element I feel you got wrong.
    So, either that IS their intention/objective and you are correct.
    Or, that is NOT their intention/objective......

    My position is that is NOT their mission/objective.

    As I've stated before in other threads, I believe the objective is to bog Russia in quagmire in the region.
    The same strategy that dissolved Soviet Union . In this case the goal is to execute regime change in Moscow.

    All the rest is an interesting reading, but, I believe it is not relevant for the situation in Syria (or ME in general).

    Now, if we really want to go along that scenario (just as a chat) here is my 2 cents.

    After the initial probably devastating US attack on Russian forces in Syria, involving the overloading and suppression by various means including direct SEAD attacks of the limited air defences in theatre, the Russians respond with large standoff attacks that effectively destroy US bases and/or carriers used in the attack or in the vicinity. They would not have enough to keep all US and allied ships and bases from which attacks could be launched in Syria out of action, but they could presumably render several substantial bases unusable for significant periods and sink a number of ships including carriers, which would have to operate from more distant locations, rendering operations more costly and less effective.
     
    Agree.

    What does the US do next? Militarily it has to retaliate, but it can choose how far to escalate in doing so. The problem is that substantive retaliation presumably requires attacks on Russian bases inside Russia, which involves very high risks of uncontrolled escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange. Do they do that? If they launch limited attacks inside Russia (eg an attack on a base used to launch the strategic bombers, say), Russia has the strategic capability to carry out direct tit for tat responses.
     
    Agree.
    And from here on.............it can be fast drive into death of civilization as we see it.

    Given the likely involvement of the forces and bases of regional allies (though who really knows how enthusiastic Turkey would really be, these days), it seems likely the attack on Russian forces in Syria could still be prosecuted to completion with their effective destruction, and meaningful Russia reinforcements interdicted successfully, but that would now seem rather a sideshow. And meanwhile Iraqi and Iranian involvement would be likely, and not to the advantage of the US’s interests on the ground. Russian ships in the region and perhaps elsewhere could (certainly would in the case of ships in theatre) be engaged in full scale air/sea battles likely resulting in their fairly prompt destruction, but not without significant ongoing losses to US naval forces.
     
    Agree.

    While all this is going on, what is the political response that will drive the long term outcome? Imo that depends on the political context – is this Pearl Harbor or the Beirut bombings for the US regime? In Pearl Harbor the Japanese executed a “Bush Doctrine” preventive attack on US military forces intended to forestall what they probably correctly saw as an existential threat from a rival. The result was that although they did considerable military damage all they ultimately achieved was to provide the political context in which the US regime could do what it had not previously been capable of doing, namely to wage a total war to defeat and occupy its Pacific rival. In Beirut the US was interfering in a Lebanese conflict under the transparently false pretext of “peacekeeping”, and their enemies struck back at them by carrying out a large suicide bombing attack on their military base in theatre. The result was not the creation of a political motivation for invasion and occupation, but rather the discrediting of the intervention policy and the withdrawal of US military forces from Lebanon.
     
    Agree.

    In the context under discussion, would the loss of US bases and/or carriers, with massive loss of life and arguably even greater loss of prestige (and, it should be remembered, substantial loss of actual military intervention capability in theatre, even if that could be rebuilt and replaced over time), result in an American political determination to engage in a long, massive military confrontation to defeat Russia strategically (a WW2 Japan-style open war of invasion and occupation is ruled out by the modern nuclear peace), and would the US have the necessary global support in waging such a campaign to give it any chance of succeeding?

    Or would it result in a backlash, both domestic and international, against the US regime itself for attacking Russian forces in Syria and essentially provoking the Russian response?

    Much depends on propaganda – does the US regime and its various collaborating elites still have sufficient control of the global and domestic media environment to impose the necessary narrative of a dastardly Russian act of aggression (yes, incredibly enough that is how they try to would portray it – the Americans have demonstrated over the years a shocking degree of hypocrisy when it comes to viewing themselves as the victims in cases of retaliation against them for the actions of their own government and military)? But much also would depend upon the particular circumstances in which the initial American attacks took place and how they were justified (supposed chemical attacks, WMD, responses to provocations, etc).

    In the end, all the dithering in Washington over the past six years about how far to go in Syria has been in large part about who gets the blame if things go wrong.

     

    Agree.

    So would the result be some kind of strategic defeat for Russia (as for Japan in WW2), or political turmoil in the US resulting in a loss of stomach for further interference (as in Lebanon)? If the former, then you have to explain how such a defeat is realistically going to occur given the reality of the strategic nuclear deterrent Russia has against any massive military attack, and its very significant defensive conventional capabilities, as well as the reality that even if the US’s European and Pacific satellites might be willing to go along in such a venture (questionable in some cases, depending on the context), China and most of Asia, and much of Africa and South America, certainly would not, and these areas weigh much more heavily in the global economic balance than they did a few decades ago.

    The real lesson of all this, of course, is that the US regime would have to be profoundly stupid or desperate to risk attacking Russian forces in Syria. Sadly that’s not as reassuring as it ought to be.
     
    Agree.

    Well...isn't

    the US regime would have to be profoundly stupid or desperate to risk attacking Russian forces in Syria
     
    what's my basic premise here?

    I, personally, see the possibility of above, unfortunately, because of unbalanced decision making in Washington. THAT is the real problem here.
    Moscow decision making process (and execution) is much more stable and predictable then Washington.
    That launch on Syria by Trump was..........just......terrible in that regard.

    So, how about my scenario here:
    As the current situation continues it will be more death and mutilation of Russian personell there.
    Russians will absorb that and will NOT try to retaliate.
    But, sooner or later, by pure fog of war, a bomb/missile/shell will get Western SOF team on the ground. Not necessarily Russian....it can be simply a "speculative fire on that hill" by SAA.
    THEN we'll see what happens and God help us.

    With the current politics in Washington and Trump team decision making process what can we expect?
    A retaliatory attack on....what?
    How much of Russian men and material could be caught in it?

    From then on, yes, your scenario can spiral out in instant.

    So....time to get religious and start praying?

    There’s some speculation, based on the timing and the targeting, that the recent Russian cruise missile attacks in Idlib may have targeted US SOF in retaliation for Deir Ezzor and northern Hama. The US couldn’t respond because to do so would be an admission that SOF are working with HTS and HTS-supporting groups.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/10/syria-russia-issues-third-warning-against-us-cooperation-with-terrorists.html?cid=6a00d8341c640e53ef01bb09ca6f1a970d#comment-form

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Bobjil says:
    @reiner Tor
    There is one way this could all happen naturally: I think it's possible that the most idiotic conspiracy theorists are flocking to alternative websites that are dissenting from The Narrative. The Unz Review (probably also RT and other sites) is an obvious candidate for such spontaneous activity. But yes, there's a possibility that some conscious effort is made to make these websites look bad.

    One interesting thing I noticed is that some 8-10 years ago I spent a lot of time debating 911 truthers. I found a number of websites dedicated to debunking conspiracy theories. The strange thing is, just a couple of years ago, I tried to search for some information on 911, and basically it appeared from Google and YouTube searches as if the debunking (anti-truther) websites have greatly decreased in visibility. I needed to do targeted searches on them (and even so, the results always contained a large number of the truther websites or videos) to find them. I once debated a "moderate" 911 truther guy. He basically believed most of the official narrative (i.e. that Osama did it), except he thought either that Osama was a CIA agent or patsy or that at least he was allowed to proceed by TPTB. He thought that the idiotic conspiracy theories (the "controlled demolition" crowd or the more extreme "the planes were holograms") were actually spread by the CIA (or some other similar organization) in order to crowd out the more intelligent questions about the event. Basically, most people think that either the official narrative is true to a dot or it's a controlled demolition. Now I happen to more or less believe the official narrative on 911, but it was an interesting thought, and could be applied to other things.

    Read “Solving 911″ by Christopher Bollyn. It gives very good details and names about the who and why of 911. Buildings falling in their footprints, thin skinned passenger planes going through thick steel framed towers (3 of them), passport of “hijacker” in the dust – obviously we are not getting the full picture in our MSM.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. FB says:

    While the question of what would happen if the US decided to attempt to neutralize the Russian aviation and air defense contingent in Syria is a very serious one…this article by Mr. Martyanov unfortunately proceeds from a faulty premise…

    It is true that Russian standoff missiles such as the ship and sub-launched Kalibr, and the air-launched Kh-101 [aka X-101] are advanced and formidable weapons…but this author’s analysis makes a fundamental error in assuming that Russian aviation and air defenses in Syria would be ‘eventually overwhelmed’ by a US and possibly ‘coalition’ allied attack…and that the deterrent against any such action would be a possible Russian retaliation on US ships and airfields in the region using said standoff weapons…

    This is a deeply flawed assumption that does not make any serious attempt at understanding modern SEAD [suppression of enemy air defenses]…nor of reviewing the voluminous and expert analysis of the most recent US SEAD operation in the 1999 air war against Serbia…

    The results of Operation Allied Force came as a deep shock to air combat experts…[incidentally, Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, who is linked to here as someone advocating for a US strike on Russian air assets in Syria, is neither an airman nor has any expertise in SEAD whatsoever, so his ramblings in the non-technical media can be dismissed as amateurish...]

    Perhaps the definitive expert review of the OAF SEAD results were published by Dr. Benjamin S. Lambeth in 2002, in the Aerospace Power Journal, published quarterly as ‘the professional flagship publication of the United States Air Force.’

    The Summer 2002 journal can be accessed here in pdf format…Dr. Lambeth’s paper starts on page 9…

    http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-16_Issue-1-4/sum02.pdf

    Despite putting over 1,000 aircraft into the attack on Serbia…

    ‘…NATO never fully succeeded in neutralizing the Serb IADS, and NATO aircraft operating over Serbia and Kosovo were always within the engagement envelopes of enemy SA-3 and SA-6 missiles— envelopes that extended as high as 50,000 feet. Because of that persistent threat, mission planners had to place such high-value surveillance-and-reconnaissance platforms as the U-2 and JSTARS in less-than-ideal orbits to keep them outside the lethal reach of enemy SAMs. Even during the operation’s final week, NATO spokesmen conceded that they could confirm the destruction of only three of Serbia’s approximately 25 known mobile SA-6 batteries.

    [Lambeth...page 16...]

    Let’s look at the overall scorecard in the battle of NATO SEADS versus Serb air defenses…again from Lambeth, page 16…

    ‘…US and NATO aircraft fired at least 743 HARMs against radars supporting these enemy SAMs. Yet, enough of the Serb IADS remained intact—mainly the persistent AAA and MANPADS threat—to require NATO fighters to operate above a 15,000-foot floor throughout most of the air effort…’

    HARM missiles are carried by strike aircraft like F16s, F18s, the European Tornado and others and are designed to target enemy air defense radars…ie High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles…

    It is important to note here that HARMs are basically the only type of weapon that can be used against air defenses like SAMs [surface to air missiles]…cruise missiles like the Tomahawk [and Russian analogues for that matter] are useless against such targets…and Mr. Martyanov’s mention of such is puzzling in the SEAD context…

    The reason being that modern SAMs are mobile and designed to ‘shoot and scoot’ with setup times of just several minutes…they are also a small target, unlike a building or a bridge…the only way to take them out is to target their radars, without which a SAM is useless…

    So we see from Lambeth that of the 743 HARMs fired, only three resulted in kills against the ancient [1960s era Soviet] SA6 mobile SAM…

    The HARM used by the US against Serbia was the AGM88, the latest version of which was upgraded in 2010 with some claimed improvements…However, it is important to note that the maximum range of this air-launched missile is only 150 km…and in most cases less, since range depends on the aircraft speed and altitude at missile launch…ie a missile launched by an aircraft flying at mach 2 [twice the speed of sound] and from a height of 50,000 ft, is going to reach farther than one released at lower speed and height…

    Lambeth notes that in return, the Serbs fired 800 SAM shots…124 of which were manpads [Man Portable Air Defense System...ie shoulder-held 'Stinger' type]…

    So the rate of fire and counter fire was about the same…US killed three SA6 mobile SAMs and as many as eight stationary SA3s [aka S125, early 1960s Soviet SAM]…

    But the Serbs took down an F117 stealth aircraft, damaged another badly enough that it never flew again [proving that the F117 takedown was not a one-off fluke], and also shot down an F16, flown by current USAF chief of staff Gen. David L. Goldfein [more on that later]…in addition, several A10 ‘Warthog’ ground attack jets were damaged, and another F16 was written off due to damage…

    In short, the US attempt to defeat Serbian air defenses did not succeed…Lambeth points out what it was like for Nato pilots…[page 11]

    ‘…Indeed, the SAM threat to NATO’s aircrews proved far more pronounced and harrowing than media coverage typically depicted, and aggressive jinking and countermaneuvering against airborne SAMs frequently became necessary whenever the Serbs sought to engage NATO aircraft…’

    And…

    ‘…General Jumper added that a simple look at cockpit-display videotapes would show that “those duels were not trivial…”’

    Lambeth also notes that of those 800 Serb SAM shots, most were unguided…ie ballistic shots without engagement radar guidance, as the Serb tactic was to keep their SAM radars off in order to deny targeting by NATO HARMs…

    The fact that the Serb air defense continued as a credible threat to the final day constricted the NATO air operations, Lambeth points out…

    ‘…unlike the more permissive operating environment in Desert Storm, limitations to airspace availability typically made for high predictability on the part of attacking NATO aircraft…’

    In other words, optimal flight paths were effectively denied by the Serb defenses…high value [and high risk] targets could not be engaged…

    Nato did fire 218 Tomahawk missiles at various targets…including a lot of civilian infrastructure, such as factories, power plants, and even hospitals and schools…and of course the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade…

    Besides that the ground attack jets and heavy bombers did a lot of damage to civilian targets as well…but the overall damage to the Serb military was minimal…

    Dr. Martin Andrew [RAAF, retired], a respected technical expert based in Australia summed it up thus…

    ‘The Federal Yugoslav Integrated Air Defence System (IADS) survived Operation Allied Force (OAF)…Serbia certainly left Kosovo, and suffered a tremendous amount of damage to its infrastructure in Serbia, yet in the face of an air campaign that at the end numbered over 1,000 aircraft, Serbian combat power remained substantially intact…

    And…

    ‘…The number of sorties generated by the NATO forces, particularly the United States Air Force, left them short of spare parts and munitions, required increased maintenance, and a force reduced in effective size due to the decreased fatigue life of many aircraft. This virtual attrition, with little relative destruction of the opposing forces, has shown that the Serbian military strategy was successful, even if the Milosovic regime did not achieve its political objectives…’

    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-04.html

    Besides the Nato battle against Serb air defense…there is another aspect that is useful to review, which is air-to-air engagements, which I will cover in a subsequent comment…

    To sum up for now, Operation Allied Force mustered 1,031 aircraft plus 30 attack ships and submarines (including aircraft carriers USS Theodore Roosevelt, HMS Invincible, and France’s Foch) from 13 NATO countries…led by US…including UK, Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, Canada, Spain, Norway, Portugal, Netherlands, Denmark, and Belgium…

    Yet the SEAD mission was never accomplished…

    It is useful to remember that Russian air defenses in Syria are a completely different ballgame altogether…S400s, S300s, S350 [now reportedly deployed], plus Pantsir as well as the Syrian S200s [and possibly S300s] all networked into an integrated air defense system…are very much more capable opponents than what the Serbs could muster…[I will go into some relevant technical aspects later]

    Besides the Russian and Syrian SAMs, we must consider the Russian A50U Airborne Early warning aircraft [EAW] that are stationed in Syria…as well as at least a squadron strength of latest generation Sukhoi ‘Flanker’ Su35, Su30 and Su34…

    I will bring those and other considerations into the discussion in a subsequent comment…but it is enough to recall the failed SEAD operation of OAF to preclude any assumption that Russian air and SAM assets in Syria could be overwhelmed…

    In fact, it is arguable that such a result is not possible at all…

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Very informative, thank you. Comments such as this only add to the already great value of The Unz Review and make it so special. Like Erebus I look forward to the promised follow ups. Cheers.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    Lambeth also notes that of those 800 Serb SAM shots, most were unguided…ie ballistic shots without engagement radar guidance, as the Serb tactic was to keep their SAM radars off in order to deny targeting by NATO HARMs…
     
    You could have reduced your long post just to that. Per "overwhelming" in Syria--those are opinions of Russian professionals, e.g. Colonel Murahovski, among many. That is why additional S-400 have been deployed a week or so ago in Syria. I appreciate your honest and decent effort but facts are facts--thresholds of saturation of Syrian (that is Khmeimim-based) Russian AD can be calculated and it is not very difficult to do. Even with state-of-the-art EC(C)M endemic in most modern Russian AD systems, what IS in Syria currently, while capable of dealing a very serious damage to attacker, when faced with a massive salvo of Tomahawks and the activity of couple of air-wings from carrier would eventually give. This is not a theorem but axiom. Having said all that, there is no denial of a massive deterrent potential of what is already in Syria. This potential translates in a high probability, even while being suppressed and eventually disabled, of a very high and embarrassing (that matters) losses for any attacker. What matters is that it is within US capability to saturate Russian AD in Syria, even with significant losses for itself. In other words, it can be done in case of real escalation. But again, services and forces do not operate "separately", they are all parts of a complete, across the board military capability of the Armed Forces and as such a tightly integrated.

    While there is no denial of partial failure of suppressing Yugoslav AD in 1999, truth is--it still proved to be enough to not allow it to operate effectively. Hence your (correct) quote above. Back to Syria: yes, it was this threat of this AD which prevented US attack and as such it has done its job but considering fluidity of the situation on the ground (and in the air) it was the Russian ability to "project" in the strategic depth which kept the whole thing under control--it was not one or another, it was a complex of things simultaneously.


    The Russian military contingent in Syria is not just some military base—it is the force tightly integrated with Russian Armed Forces that have enough reach and capability to make anyone face some extremely unpleasant choices, including the fact that it is Russia, not the US, who controls escalation to a threshold and that can explain a non-stop anti-Russian hysteria in US media since the outcome of the war in Syria became clear.
     
    In short, in real war one doesn't fight with one weapon, however good (and S-400 is outstanding, probably the best AD system in the world) this weapon, or, more general, capability, might be, one uses all of them in a tightly integrated complex which is known to military professionals as Operation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Erebus says:

    I will bring those and other considerations into the discussion in a subsequent comment…

    Any time soon?

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Glad to hear someone found this useful...

    Yes there is plenty more to come...starting tomorrow...

    Thanks also to NoseyTheDuke for the reply...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @FB
    While the question of what would happen if the US decided to attempt to neutralize the Russian aviation and air defense contingent in Syria is a very serious one...this article by Mr. Martyanov unfortunately proceeds from a faulty premise...

    It is true that Russian standoff missiles such as the ship and sub-launched Kalibr, and the air-launched Kh-101 [aka X-101] are advanced and formidable weapons...but this author's analysis makes a fundamental error in assuming that Russian aviation and air defenses in Syria would be 'eventually overwhelmed' by a US and possibly 'coalition' allied attack...and that the deterrent against any such action would be a possible Russian retaliation on US ships and airfields in the region using said standoff weapons...

    This is a deeply flawed assumption that does not make any serious attempt at understanding modern SEAD [suppression of enemy air defenses]...nor of reviewing the voluminous and expert analysis of the most recent US SEAD operation in the 1999 air war against Serbia...

    The results of Operation Allied Force came as a deep shock to air combat experts...[incidentally, Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, who is linked to here as someone advocating for a US strike on Russian air assets in Syria, is neither an airman nor has any expertise in SEAD whatsoever, so his ramblings in the non-technical media can be dismissed as amateurish...]

    Perhaps the definitive expert review of the OAF SEAD results were published by Dr. Benjamin S. Lambeth in 2002, in the Aerospace Power Journal, published quarterly as 'the professional flagship publication of the United States Air Force.'

    The Summer 2002 journal can be accessed here in pdf format...Dr. Lambeth's paper starts on page 9...

    http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-16_Issue-1-4/sum02.pdf

    Despite putting over 1,000 aircraft into the attack on Serbia...

    '...NATO never fully succeeded in neutralizing the Serb IADS, and NATO aircraft operating over Serbia and Kosovo were always within the engagement envelopes of enemy SA-3 and SA-6 missiles— envelopes that extended as high as 50,000 feet. Because of that persistent threat, mission planners had to place such high-value surveillance-and-reconnaissance platforms as the U-2 and JSTARS in less-than-ideal orbits to keep them outside the lethal reach of enemy SAMs. Even during the operation’s final week, NATO spokesmen conceded that they could confirm the destruction of only three of Serbia’s approximately 25 known mobile SA-6 batteries.
     
    [Lambeth...page 16...]

    Let's look at the overall scorecard in the battle of NATO SEADS versus Serb air defenses...again from Lambeth, page 16...

    '...US and NATO aircraft fired at least 743 HARMs against radars supporting these enemy SAMs. Yet, enough of the Serb IADS remained intact—mainly the persistent AAA and MANPADS threat—to require NATO fighters to operate above a 15,000-foot floor throughout most of the air effort...'
     
    HARM missiles are carried by strike aircraft like F16s, F18s, the European Tornado and others and are designed to target enemy air defense radars...ie High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles...

    It is important to note here that HARMs are basically the only type of weapon that can be used against air defenses like SAMs [surface to air missiles]...cruise missiles like the Tomahawk [and Russian analogues for that matter] are useless against such targets...and Mr. Martyanov's mention of such is puzzling in the SEAD context...

    The reason being that modern SAMs are mobile and designed to 'shoot and scoot' with setup times of just several minutes...they are also a small target, unlike a building or a bridge...the only way to take them out is to target their radars, without which a SAM is useless...

    So we see from Lambeth that of the 743 HARMs fired, only three resulted in kills against the ancient [1960s era Soviet] SA6 mobile SAM...

    The HARM used by the US against Serbia was the AGM88, the latest version of which was upgraded in 2010 with some claimed improvements...However, it is important to note that the maximum range of this air-launched missile is only 150 km...and in most cases less, since range depends on the aircraft speed and altitude at missile launch...ie a missile launched by an aircraft flying at mach 2 [twice the speed of sound] and from a height of 50,000 ft, is going to reach farther than one released at lower speed and height...

    Lambeth notes that in return, the Serbs fired 800 SAM shots...124 of which were manpads [Man Portable Air Defense System...ie shoulder-held 'Stinger' type]...

    So the rate of fire and counter fire was about the same...US killed three SA6 mobile SAMs and as many as eight stationary SA3s [aka S125, early 1960s Soviet SAM]...

    But the Serbs took down an F117 stealth aircraft, damaged another badly enough that it never flew again [proving that the F117 takedown was not a one-off fluke], and also shot down an F16, flown by current USAF chief of staff Gen. David L. Goldfein [more on that later]...in addition, several A10 'Warthog' ground attack jets were damaged, and another F16 was written off due to damage...

    In short, the US attempt to defeat Serbian air defenses did not succeed...Lambeth points out what it was like for Nato pilots...[page 11]

    '...Indeed, the SAM threat to NATO’s aircrews proved far more pronounced and harrowing than media coverage typically depicted, and aggressive jinking and countermaneuvering against airborne SAMs frequently became necessary whenever the Serbs sought to engage NATO aircraft...'
     
    And...

    '...General Jumper added that a simple look at cockpit-display videotapes would show that “those duels were not trivial...”'
     
    Lambeth also notes that of those 800 Serb SAM shots, most were unguided...ie ballistic shots without engagement radar guidance, as the Serb tactic was to keep their SAM radars off in order to deny targeting by NATO HARMs...

    The fact that the Serb air defense continued as a credible threat to the final day constricted the NATO air operations, Lambeth points out...

    '...unlike the more permissive operating environment in Desert Storm, limitations to airspace availability typically made for high predictability on the part of attacking NATO aircraft...'
     
    In other words, optimal flight paths were effectively denied by the Serb defenses...high value [and high risk] targets could not be engaged...

    Nato did fire 218 Tomahawk missiles at various targets...including a lot of civilian infrastructure, such as factories, power plants, and even hospitals and schools...and of course the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade...

    Besides that the ground attack jets and heavy bombers did a lot of damage to civilian targets as well...but the overall damage to the Serb military was minimal...

    Dr. Martin Andrew [RAAF, retired], a respected technical expert based in Australia summed it up thus...

    'The Federal Yugoslav Integrated Air Defence System (IADS) survived Operation Allied Force (OAF)...Serbia certainly left Kosovo, and suffered a tremendous amount of damage to its infrastructure in Serbia, yet in the face of an air campaign that at the end numbered over 1,000 aircraft, Serbian combat power remained substantially intact...'
     
    And...

    '...The number of sorties generated by the NATO forces, particularly the United States Air Force, left them short of spare parts and munitions, required increased maintenance, and a force reduced in effective size due to the decreased fatigue life of many aircraft. This virtual attrition, with little relative destruction of the opposing forces, has shown that the Serbian military strategy was successful, even if the Milosovic regime did not achieve its political objectives...'
     
    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-04.html

    Besides the Nato battle against Serb air defense...there is another aspect that is useful to review, which is air-to-air engagements, which I will cover in a subsequent comment...

    To sum up for now, Operation Allied Force mustered 1,031 aircraft plus 30 attack ships and submarines (including aircraft carriers USS Theodore Roosevelt, HMS Invincible, and France's Foch) from 13 NATO countries...led by US...including UK, Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, Canada, Spain, Norway, Portugal, Netherlands, Denmark, and Belgium...

    Yet the SEAD mission was never accomplished...

    It is useful to remember that Russian air defenses in Syria are a completely different ballgame altogether...S400s, S300s, S350 [now reportedly deployed], plus Pantsir as well as the Syrian S200s [and possibly S300s] all networked into an integrated air defense system...are very much more capable opponents than what the Serbs could muster...[I will go into some relevant technical aspects later]

    Besides the Russian and Syrian SAMs, we must consider the Russian A50U Airborne Early warning aircraft [EAW] that are stationed in Syria...as well as at least a squadron strength of latest generation Sukhoi 'Flanker' Su35, Su30 and Su34...

    I will bring those and other considerations into the discussion in a subsequent comment...but it is enough to recall the failed SEAD operation of OAF to preclude any assumption that Russian air and SAM assets in Syria could be overwhelmed...

    In fact, it is arguable that such a result is not possible at all...

    Very informative, thank you. Comments such as this only add to the already great value of The Unz Review and make it so special. Like Erebus I look forward to the promised follow ups. Cheers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. FB says:
    @Erebus

    I will bring those and other considerations into the discussion in a subsequent comment…
     
    Any time soon?

    Glad to hear someone found this useful…

    Yes there is plenty more to come…starting tomorrow…

    Thanks also to NoseyTheDuke for the reply…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @FB
    While the question of what would happen if the US decided to attempt to neutralize the Russian aviation and air defense contingent in Syria is a very serious one...this article by Mr. Martyanov unfortunately proceeds from a faulty premise...

    It is true that Russian standoff missiles such as the ship and sub-launched Kalibr, and the air-launched Kh-101 [aka X-101] are advanced and formidable weapons...but this author's analysis makes a fundamental error in assuming that Russian aviation and air defenses in Syria would be 'eventually overwhelmed' by a US and possibly 'coalition' allied attack...and that the deterrent against any such action would be a possible Russian retaliation on US ships and airfields in the region using said standoff weapons...

    This is a deeply flawed assumption that does not make any serious attempt at understanding modern SEAD [suppression of enemy air defenses]...nor of reviewing the voluminous and expert analysis of the most recent US SEAD operation in the 1999 air war against Serbia...

    The results of Operation Allied Force came as a deep shock to air combat experts...[incidentally, Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, who is linked to here as someone advocating for a US strike on Russian air assets in Syria, is neither an airman nor has any expertise in SEAD whatsoever, so his ramblings in the non-technical media can be dismissed as amateurish...]

    Perhaps the definitive expert review of the OAF SEAD results were published by Dr. Benjamin S. Lambeth in 2002, in the Aerospace Power Journal, published quarterly as 'the professional flagship publication of the United States Air Force.'

    The Summer 2002 journal can be accessed here in pdf format...Dr. Lambeth's paper starts on page 9...

    http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-16_Issue-1-4/sum02.pdf

    Despite putting over 1,000 aircraft into the attack on Serbia...

    '...NATO never fully succeeded in neutralizing the Serb IADS, and NATO aircraft operating over Serbia and Kosovo were always within the engagement envelopes of enemy SA-3 and SA-6 missiles— envelopes that extended as high as 50,000 feet. Because of that persistent threat, mission planners had to place such high-value surveillance-and-reconnaissance platforms as the U-2 and JSTARS in less-than-ideal orbits to keep them outside the lethal reach of enemy SAMs. Even during the operation’s final week, NATO spokesmen conceded that they could confirm the destruction of only three of Serbia’s approximately 25 known mobile SA-6 batteries.
     
    [Lambeth...page 16...]

    Let's look at the overall scorecard in the battle of NATO SEADS versus Serb air defenses...again from Lambeth, page 16...

    '...US and NATO aircraft fired at least 743 HARMs against radars supporting these enemy SAMs. Yet, enough of the Serb IADS remained intact—mainly the persistent AAA and MANPADS threat—to require NATO fighters to operate above a 15,000-foot floor throughout most of the air effort...'
     
    HARM missiles are carried by strike aircraft like F16s, F18s, the European Tornado and others and are designed to target enemy air defense radars...ie High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles...

    It is important to note here that HARMs are basically the only type of weapon that can be used against air defenses like SAMs [surface to air missiles]...cruise missiles like the Tomahawk [and Russian analogues for that matter] are useless against such targets...and Mr. Martyanov's mention of such is puzzling in the SEAD context...

    The reason being that modern SAMs are mobile and designed to 'shoot and scoot' with setup times of just several minutes...they are also a small target, unlike a building or a bridge...the only way to take them out is to target their radars, without which a SAM is useless...

    So we see from Lambeth that of the 743 HARMs fired, only three resulted in kills against the ancient [1960s era Soviet] SA6 mobile SAM...

    The HARM used by the US against Serbia was the AGM88, the latest version of which was upgraded in 2010 with some claimed improvements...However, it is important to note that the maximum range of this air-launched missile is only 150 km...and in most cases less, since range depends on the aircraft speed and altitude at missile launch...ie a missile launched by an aircraft flying at mach 2 [twice the speed of sound] and from a height of 50,000 ft, is going to reach farther than one released at lower speed and height...

    Lambeth notes that in return, the Serbs fired 800 SAM shots...124 of which were manpads [Man Portable Air Defense System...ie shoulder-held 'Stinger' type]...

    So the rate of fire and counter fire was about the same...US killed three SA6 mobile SAMs and as many as eight stationary SA3s [aka S125, early 1960s Soviet SAM]...

    But the Serbs took down an F117 stealth aircraft, damaged another badly enough that it never flew again [proving that the F117 takedown was not a one-off fluke], and also shot down an F16, flown by current USAF chief of staff Gen. David L. Goldfein [more on that later]...in addition, several A10 'Warthog' ground attack jets were damaged, and another F16 was written off due to damage...

    In short, the US attempt to defeat Serbian air defenses did not succeed...Lambeth points out what it was like for Nato pilots...[page 11]

    '...Indeed, the SAM threat to NATO’s aircrews proved far more pronounced and harrowing than media coverage typically depicted, and aggressive jinking and countermaneuvering against airborne SAMs frequently became necessary whenever the Serbs sought to engage NATO aircraft...'
     
    And...

    '...General Jumper added that a simple look at cockpit-display videotapes would show that “those duels were not trivial...”'
     
    Lambeth also notes that of those 800 Serb SAM shots, most were unguided...ie ballistic shots without engagement radar guidance, as the Serb tactic was to keep their SAM radars off in order to deny targeting by NATO HARMs...

    The fact that the Serb air defense continued as a credible threat to the final day constricted the NATO air operations, Lambeth points out...

    '...unlike the more permissive operating environment in Desert Storm, limitations to airspace availability typically made for high predictability on the part of attacking NATO aircraft...'
     
    In other words, optimal flight paths were effectively denied by the Serb defenses...high value [and high risk] targets could not be engaged...

    Nato did fire 218 Tomahawk missiles at various targets...including a lot of civilian infrastructure, such as factories, power plants, and even hospitals and schools...and of course the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade...

    Besides that the ground attack jets and heavy bombers did a lot of damage to civilian targets as well...but the overall damage to the Serb military was minimal...

    Dr. Martin Andrew [RAAF, retired], a respected technical expert based in Australia summed it up thus...

    'The Federal Yugoslav Integrated Air Defence System (IADS) survived Operation Allied Force (OAF)...Serbia certainly left Kosovo, and suffered a tremendous amount of damage to its infrastructure in Serbia, yet in the face of an air campaign that at the end numbered over 1,000 aircraft, Serbian combat power remained substantially intact...'
     
    And...

    '...The number of sorties generated by the NATO forces, particularly the United States Air Force, left them short of spare parts and munitions, required increased maintenance, and a force reduced in effective size due to the decreased fatigue life of many aircraft. This virtual attrition, with little relative destruction of the opposing forces, has shown that the Serbian military strategy was successful, even if the Milosovic regime did not achieve its political objectives...'
     
    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-04.html

    Besides the Nato battle against Serb air defense...there is another aspect that is useful to review, which is air-to-air engagements, which I will cover in a subsequent comment...

    To sum up for now, Operation Allied Force mustered 1,031 aircraft plus 30 attack ships and submarines (including aircraft carriers USS Theodore Roosevelt, HMS Invincible, and France's Foch) from 13 NATO countries...led by US...including UK, Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, Canada, Spain, Norway, Portugal, Netherlands, Denmark, and Belgium...

    Yet the SEAD mission was never accomplished...

    It is useful to remember that Russian air defenses in Syria are a completely different ballgame altogether...S400s, S300s, S350 [now reportedly deployed], plus Pantsir as well as the Syrian S200s [and possibly S300s] all networked into an integrated air defense system...are very much more capable opponents than what the Serbs could muster...[I will go into some relevant technical aspects later]

    Besides the Russian and Syrian SAMs, we must consider the Russian A50U Airborne Early warning aircraft [EAW] that are stationed in Syria...as well as at least a squadron strength of latest generation Sukhoi 'Flanker' Su35, Su30 and Su34...

    I will bring those and other considerations into the discussion in a subsequent comment...but it is enough to recall the failed SEAD operation of OAF to preclude any assumption that Russian air and SAM assets in Syria could be overwhelmed...

    In fact, it is arguable that such a result is not possible at all...

    Lambeth also notes that of those 800 Serb SAM shots, most were unguided…ie ballistic shots without engagement radar guidance, as the Serb tactic was to keep their SAM radars off in order to deny targeting by NATO HARMs…

    You could have reduced your long post just to that. Per “overwhelming” in Syria–those are opinions of Russian professionals, e.g. Colonel Murahovski, among many. That is why additional S-400 have been deployed a week or so ago in Syria. I appreciate your honest and decent effort but facts are facts–thresholds of saturation of Syrian (that is Khmeimim-based) Russian AD can be calculated and it is not very difficult to do. Even with state-of-the-art EC(C)M endemic in most modern Russian AD systems, what IS in Syria currently, while capable of dealing a very serious damage to attacker, when faced with a massive salvo of Tomahawks and the activity of couple of air-wings from carrier would eventually give. This is not a theorem but axiom. Having said all that, there is no denial of a massive deterrent potential of what is already in Syria. This potential translates in a high probability, even while being suppressed and eventually disabled, of a very high and embarrassing (that matters) losses for any attacker. What matters is that it is within US capability to saturate Russian AD in Syria, even with significant losses for itself. In other words, it can be done in case of real escalation. But again, services and forces do not operate “separately”, they are all parts of a complete, across the board military capability of the Armed Forces and as such a tightly integrated.

    While there is no denial of partial failure of suppressing Yugoslav AD in 1999, truth is–it still proved to be enough to not allow it to operate effectively. Hence your (correct) quote above. Back to Syria: yes, it was this threat of this AD which prevented US attack and as such it has done its job but considering fluidity of the situation on the ground (and in the air) it was the Russian ability to “project” in the strategic depth which kept the whole thing under control–it was not one or another, it was a complex of things simultaneously.

    The Russian military contingent in Syria is not just some military base—it is the force tightly integrated with Russian Armed Forces that have enough reach and capability to make anyone face some extremely unpleasant choices, including the fact that it is Russia, not the US, who controls escalation to a threshold and that can explain a non-stop anti-Russian hysteria in US media since the outcome of the war in Syria became clear.

    In short, in real war one doesn’t fight with one weapon, however good (and S-400 is outstanding, probably the best AD system in the world) this weapon, or, more general, capability, might be, one uses all of them in a tightly integrated complex which is known to military professionals as Operation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. FB says:

    thank you for your feedback…

    There is more to the story than just S400…

    What I am trying to do is to present technical information that is factual and in a way that is understandable to the layman…

    Yes, I am arguing head-on against your thesis that the Russian air defenses could be ‘overwhelmed’…

    I have not yet provided the entire explanation to support my thesis…

    However, I must again draw your attention to the issue of using a massive tomahawk salvo against Russian air defenses…as you have now again stated…

    As I have already alluded, cruise missiles are ineffective against SAMs [surface to air missiles]…and have never been used in a SEAD operation [suppression of enemy air defense]…

    Modern air defense SAMs like S300 and 400 are mobile…a cruise missile can only hit a stationary target that is programmed into its guidance system before launch…once launched the missile can’t go anywhere except a per-programmed geographic location…

    Even if the cruise missile operator knows the location of enemy SAMs at the time of launch…those SAMs will no longer be there by the time the cruise missile arrives…

    A tomahawk [and Kaliber, KH-101 etc] fly at subsonic speeds…ie about 500 mph…fired from standoff range…ie outside the engagement range of coastal defense missiles like the Bastion which is in Syria and has been used against land targets…the flight time to cover 300 miles [500 km, just outside the range of Bastion missile] would be about 40 minutes…

    By that time, the SAMs would be long gone…they can fold up and ‘scoot’ in 5 minutes…and the tomahawk launches would have been detected instantaneously by Russian radars and other sensors…the tomahawks would hit only dirt…this is why this is not done…

    So it is meaningless to talk about tomahawks in the context of taking out Russian SAMs in Syria…I do not understand why you do this…and would appreciate any answer you can offer

    An attack by US aircraft on a SEAD mission is the only possibility…and I will discuss that shortly…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Even if the cruise missile operator knows the location of enemy SAMs at the time of launch…those SAMs will no longer be there by the time the cruise missile arrives…
     
    It is rather strange to discuss something based on a completely false premise drawn from a different theater and different time. To start with:
    Star Variant attack. You know what Star is? Preposition:

    a) 3 Ohio-class SSGN theoretical 154 x 3 = 462 BGM-109 in theoretical salvo. One SSGN in Persian Gulf, another two Central-East Med.
    b) 4-5 Virginia-class SSNs, 5 x 12 = 60 BGM-109, one-two Virginia to Persian Gulf, others Central-East Med.
    Sum per subs: 522 BGM-109 in theoretical first salvo.

    c) Arleigh Burke-class DDG 4 in two CBGs--Central-East Med--theoretical salvo (in practice will be smaller somewhat due to occupancy of MK-41) of 96 BGM 109 per hip, say we go for 80 per hull, so 80 x 4 =320 BGM 109.

    d) 4 Ticonderoga-class Cruisers, up to 122 BGM-109, go for same 80, 80 x 4 =320.

    This is the first wave, so to speak, without accounting CBGs' airwings with all their capability, so altogether we have in first theoretical salvo: 1162 BGM-109s only from different directions (hence Star).

    I would love to hear your opinion on FERs on missiles alone, granted that you know the saturation threshold. After that we may start to discuss other issues.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @FB
    thank you for your feedback...

    There is more to the story than just S400...

    What I am trying to do is to present technical information that is factual and in a way that is understandable to the layman...

    Yes, I am arguing head-on against your thesis that the Russian air defenses could be 'overwhelmed'...

    I have not yet provided the entire explanation to support my thesis...

    However, I must again draw your attention to the issue of using a massive tomahawk salvo against Russian air defenses...as you have now again stated...

    As I have already alluded, cruise missiles are ineffective against SAMs [surface to air missiles]...and have never been used in a SEAD operation [suppression of enemy air defense]...

    Modern air defense SAMs like S300 and 400 are mobile...a cruise missile can only hit a stationary target that is programmed into its guidance system before launch...once launched the missile can't go anywhere except a per-programmed geographic location...

    Even if the cruise missile operator knows the location of enemy SAMs at the time of launch...those SAMs will no longer be there by the time the cruise missile arrives...

    A tomahawk [and Kaliber, KH-101 etc] fly at subsonic speeds...ie about 500 mph...fired from standoff range...ie outside the engagement range of coastal defense missiles like the Bastion which is in Syria and has been used against land targets...the flight time to cover 300 miles [500 km, just outside the range of Bastion missile] would be about 40 minutes...

    By that time, the SAMs would be long gone...they can fold up and 'scoot' in 5 minutes...and the tomahawk launches would have been detected instantaneously by Russian radars and other sensors...the tomahawks would hit only dirt...this is why this is not done...

    So it is meaningless to talk about tomahawks in the context of taking out Russian SAMs in Syria...I do not understand why you do this...and would appreciate any answer you can offer

    An attack by US aircraft on a SEAD mission is the only possibility...and I will discuss that shortly...

    Even if the cruise missile operator knows the location of enemy SAMs at the time of launch…those SAMs will no longer be there by the time the cruise missile arrives…

    It is rather strange to discuss something based on a completely false premise drawn from a different theater and different time. To start with:
    Star Variant attack. You know what Star is? Preposition:

    a) 3 Ohio-class SSGN theoretical 154 x 3 = 462 BGM-109 in theoretical salvo. One SSGN in Persian Gulf, another two Central-East Med.
    b) 4-5 Virginia-class SSNs, 5 x 12 = 60 BGM-109, one-two Virginia to Persian Gulf, others Central-East Med.
    Sum per subs: 522 BGM-109 in theoretical first salvo.

    c) Arleigh Burke-class DDG 4 in two CBGs–Central-East Med–theoretical salvo (in practice will be smaller somewhat due to occupancy of MK-41) of 96 BGM 109 per hip, say we go for 80 per hull, so 80 x 4 =320 BGM 109.

    d) 4 Ticonderoga-class Cruisers, up to 122 BGM-109, go for same 80, 80 x 4 =320.

    This is the first wave, so to speak, without accounting CBGs’ airwings with all their capability, so altogether we have in first theoretical salvo: 1162 BGM-109s only from different directions (hence Star).

    I would love to hear your opinion on FERs on missiles alone, granted that you know the saturation threshold. After that we may start to discuss other issues.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Mr. Martyanov...

    Let me try to simplify things...

    1. Tomahawk cruise missile cannot hit a moving target...

    2. A mobile SAM becomes a moving target as soon as it starts to move...

    3. A Tomahawk cruise missile fired from standoff range will require a flight time of at least 30 minutes to arrive on target, covering approx. 250 miles...[in reality the flight time will be longer due to missile maneuvering as it follows a nap-of-the-earth flight path...ie winding its way through terrain...and the standoff distance will be likely be considerably longer too...]

    Let's say that the US goes ahead and launches '1162' Tomahawks from ships and subs as you propose...[out of the 3,500 total that the US possesses..ie one third...]

    Let's also assume that the Russian military does not notice or does not care that all of those ships have moved into an attack perimeter...

    Let's also assume that the Russians have just one single SAM...and let's further assume that they don't bother to start moving this single SAM until they detect the first volley in that massive salvo...

    All of these assumptions are clearly ridiculous, but let's play along...

    The Russian SAM now has five minutes to fold up and get going...

    It starts moving at a speed of just 15 km/hr...which is three times the normal walking speed of a human...

    In the remaining 25 minutes before the missiles start hitting, that single SAM can cover only 6.25 km...although in any given direction...

    Now let's figure out how likely it is that one of those


    So the precise target location is unknown...

    Let's assume the US knew the location of the SAM at the time of Tomahawk launch...

    That single Russian SAM can now be anywhere in a 6.25 km radius...it should be easy to kill right...?

    Well let's see...a 6.25 km circle has an area of 122.7 square km...

    What are the chances that one of those 1,162 Tomahawks will make a direct hit?

    let's say the SAM target is 100 square meters [10 m x 10 m]...

    So...122.7 square km = 122.7 million square meters...vs 1,162 Tomahawks...

    Ie...there is a one in a thousand chance that a Tomahawk will actually hit the SAM...

    But of course it doesn't have to score a direct hit to disable it...it only needs to get close enough for its blast to damage or destroy it...

    How close?

    The standard metric in blast damage is measured in 'over pressure'...ie that amount of pressure above atmospheric pressure which is enough to cause damage or destruction...an over pressure of 2 psi [13.8 kilopascals...]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpressure

    The radius at which overpressure reaches that threshold for a 450 kg [1,000 lb TNT charge as per Tomahawk] is about 60 meters [200 ft]...there is a calculator at this site...

    https://www.un.org/disarmament/un-saferguard/kingery-bulmash/

    But let's say it is 100 m just to be safe...

    So what are the chances of one of those 1,162 Tomahawks getting to within 100 meters of that single Russian SAM that has moved a mere 6.25 kilometers [although in an unknown direction...]...?

    Well we already know the maximum area that it could be in 122.7 km^2...or 122.7 million square meters...

    Since our overpressure radius is 100 meters, that's an area of 10,000 square meters...

    It would therefore take 12,271 Tomahawks to ensure that a single one comes within 100 meters of our single SAM...

    I hope you can understand that this is the reason that cruise missiles are useless against any moving target...even a ship...

    So let me just end this discussion now of a 'massive cruise missile salvo' as something in the realm of possibility...and get on with my attempt to paint a realistic picture of what a SEAD operation against Russia might look like...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. FB says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Even if the cruise missile operator knows the location of enemy SAMs at the time of launch…those SAMs will no longer be there by the time the cruise missile arrives…
     
    It is rather strange to discuss something based on a completely false premise drawn from a different theater and different time. To start with:
    Star Variant attack. You know what Star is? Preposition:

    a) 3 Ohio-class SSGN theoretical 154 x 3 = 462 BGM-109 in theoretical salvo. One SSGN in Persian Gulf, another two Central-East Med.
    b) 4-5 Virginia-class SSNs, 5 x 12 = 60 BGM-109, one-two Virginia to Persian Gulf, others Central-East Med.
    Sum per subs: 522 BGM-109 in theoretical first salvo.

    c) Arleigh Burke-class DDG 4 in two CBGs--Central-East Med--theoretical salvo (in practice will be smaller somewhat due to occupancy of MK-41) of 96 BGM 109 per hip, say we go for 80 per hull, so 80 x 4 =320 BGM 109.

    d) 4 Ticonderoga-class Cruisers, up to 122 BGM-109, go for same 80, 80 x 4 =320.

    This is the first wave, so to speak, without accounting CBGs' airwings with all their capability, so altogether we have in first theoretical salvo: 1162 BGM-109s only from different directions (hence Star).

    I would love to hear your opinion on FERs on missiles alone, granted that you know the saturation threshold. After that we may start to discuss other issues.

    Mr. Martyanov…

    Let me try to simplify things…

    1. Tomahawk cruise missile cannot hit a moving target…

    2. A mobile SAM becomes a moving target as soon as it starts to move…

    3. A Tomahawk cruise missile fired from standoff range will require a flight time of at least 30 minutes to arrive on target, covering approx. 250 miles…[in reality the flight time will be longer due to missile maneuvering as it follows a nap-of-the-earth flight path...ie winding its way through terrain...and the standoff distance will be likely be considerably longer too...]

    Let’s say that the US goes ahead and launches ’1162′ Tomahawks from ships and subs as you propose…[out of the 3,500 total that the US possesses..ie one third...]

    Let’s also assume that the Russian military does not notice or does not care that all of those ships have moved into an attack perimeter…

    Let’s also assume that the Russians have just one single SAM…and let’s further assume that they don’t bother to start moving this single SAM until they detect the first volley in that massive salvo…

    All of these assumptions are clearly ridiculous, but let’s play along…

    The Russian SAM now has five minutes to fold up and get going…

    It starts moving at a speed of just 15 km/hr…which is three times the normal walking speed of a human…

    In the remaining 25 minutes before the missiles start hitting, that single SAM can cover only 6.25 km…although in any given direction…

    Now let’s figure out how likely it is that one of those

    So the precise target location is unknown…

    Let’s assume the US knew the location of the SAM at the time of Tomahawk launch…

    That single Russian SAM can now be anywhere in a 6.25 km radius…it should be easy to kill right…?

    Well let’s see…a 6.25 km circle has an area of 122.7 square km…

    What are the chances that one of those 1,162 Tomahawks will make a direct hit?

    let’s say the SAM target is 100 square meters [10 m x 10 m]…

    So…122.7 square km = 122.7 million square meters…vs 1,162 Tomahawks…

    Ie…there is a one in a thousand chance that a Tomahawk will actually hit the SAM…

    But of course it doesn’t have to score a direct hit to disable it…it only needs to get close enough for its blast to damage or destroy it…

    How close?

    The standard metric in blast damage is measured in ‘over pressure’…ie that amount of pressure above atmospheric pressure which is enough to cause damage or destruction…an over pressure of 2 psi [13.8 kilopascals...]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpressure

    The radius at which overpressure reaches that threshold for a 450 kg [1,000 lb TNT charge as per Tomahawk] is about 60 meters [200 ft]…there is a calculator at this site…

    https://www.un.org/disarmament/un-saferguard/kingery-bulmash/

    But let’s say it is 100 m just to be safe…

    So what are the chances of one of those 1,162 Tomahawks getting to within 100 meters of that single Russian SAM that has moved a mere 6.25 kilometers [although in an unknown direction...]…?

    Well we already know the maximum area that it could be in 122.7 km^2…or 122.7 million square meters…

    Since our overpressure radius is 100 meters, that’s an area of 10,000 square meters…

    It would therefore take 12,271 Tomahawks to ensure that a single one comes within 100 meters of our single SAM…

    I hope you can understand that this is the reason that cruise missiles are useless against any moving target…even a ship…

    So let me just end this discussion now of a ‘massive cruise missile salvo’ as something in the realm of possibility…and get on with my attempt to paint a realistic picture of what a SEAD operation against Russia might look like…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Let me try to simplify things…
     
    No, I do not want you to "simplify" things since what you describe here is an absolutely ridiculous scenario which also doesn't explain such simple fact of Pantsyr ZRAKs being deployed in what is known as "raketoopasnye napravlenia" (missile threatening) directions. Obviously, somehow nobody wants to move those systems and provide for them mobile and specifically designed for low flying missiles Pantsirs. You obviously do not understand that S-400 and S-300 (not counting AD systems of Russian naval ships ADs) are there to provide coverage to facilities of air-base Khmeimim and especially so to ground and air assets based on it. But I also repeat my question--do you know saturation thresholds for S-300 or 400? Obviously the fact of real time targeting with updates which US has, especially on a effectively desert deployed assets (see the difference with Serbia here?) is not known to you but it is in place. So battle "profile", in short, you propose here is what in Russia is called Murzilka, after children's illustrated magazine.

    I hope you can understand that this is the reason that cruise missiles are useless against any moving target…even a ship…
     
    Latest versions of Tomahawks will be (already?) able to strike moving targets. I repeat my question on threshold and then, we may have fun.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @FB
    Mr. Martyanov...

    Let me try to simplify things...

    1. Tomahawk cruise missile cannot hit a moving target...

    2. A mobile SAM becomes a moving target as soon as it starts to move...

    3. A Tomahawk cruise missile fired from standoff range will require a flight time of at least 30 minutes to arrive on target, covering approx. 250 miles...[in reality the flight time will be longer due to missile maneuvering as it follows a nap-of-the-earth flight path...ie winding its way through terrain...and the standoff distance will be likely be considerably longer too...]

    Let's say that the US goes ahead and launches '1162' Tomahawks from ships and subs as you propose...[out of the 3,500 total that the US possesses..ie one third...]

    Let's also assume that the Russian military does not notice or does not care that all of those ships have moved into an attack perimeter...

    Let's also assume that the Russians have just one single SAM...and let's further assume that they don't bother to start moving this single SAM until they detect the first volley in that massive salvo...

    All of these assumptions are clearly ridiculous, but let's play along...

    The Russian SAM now has five minutes to fold up and get going...

    It starts moving at a speed of just 15 km/hr...which is three times the normal walking speed of a human...

    In the remaining 25 minutes before the missiles start hitting, that single SAM can cover only 6.25 km...although in any given direction...

    Now let's figure out how likely it is that one of those


    So the precise target location is unknown...

    Let's assume the US knew the location of the SAM at the time of Tomahawk launch...

    That single Russian SAM can now be anywhere in a 6.25 km radius...it should be easy to kill right...?

    Well let's see...a 6.25 km circle has an area of 122.7 square km...

    What are the chances that one of those 1,162 Tomahawks will make a direct hit?

    let's say the SAM target is 100 square meters [10 m x 10 m]...

    So...122.7 square km = 122.7 million square meters...vs 1,162 Tomahawks...

    Ie...there is a one in a thousand chance that a Tomahawk will actually hit the SAM...

    But of course it doesn't have to score a direct hit to disable it...it only needs to get close enough for its blast to damage or destroy it...

    How close?

    The standard metric in blast damage is measured in 'over pressure'...ie that amount of pressure above atmospheric pressure which is enough to cause damage or destruction...an over pressure of 2 psi [13.8 kilopascals...]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpressure

    The radius at which overpressure reaches that threshold for a 450 kg [1,000 lb TNT charge as per Tomahawk] is about 60 meters [200 ft]...there is a calculator at this site...

    https://www.un.org/disarmament/un-saferguard/kingery-bulmash/

    But let's say it is 100 m just to be safe...

    So what are the chances of one of those 1,162 Tomahawks getting to within 100 meters of that single Russian SAM that has moved a mere 6.25 kilometers [although in an unknown direction...]...?

    Well we already know the maximum area that it could be in 122.7 km^2...or 122.7 million square meters...

    Since our overpressure radius is 100 meters, that's an area of 10,000 square meters...

    It would therefore take 12,271 Tomahawks to ensure that a single one comes within 100 meters of our single SAM...

    I hope you can understand that this is the reason that cruise missiles are useless against any moving target...even a ship...

    So let me just end this discussion now of a 'massive cruise missile salvo' as something in the realm of possibility...and get on with my attempt to paint a realistic picture of what a SEAD operation against Russia might look like...

    Let me try to simplify things…

    No, I do not want you to “simplify” things since what you describe here is an absolutely ridiculous scenario which also doesn’t explain such simple fact of Pantsyr ZRAKs being deployed in what is known as “raketoopasnye napravlenia” (missile threatening) directions. Obviously, somehow nobody wants to move those systems and provide for them mobile and specifically designed for low flying missiles Pantsirs. You obviously do not understand that S-400 and S-300 (not counting AD systems of Russian naval ships ADs) are there to provide coverage to facilities of air-base Khmeimim and especially so to ground and air assets based on it. But I also repeat my question–do you know saturation thresholds for S-300 or 400? Obviously the fact of real time targeting with updates which US has, especially on a effectively desert deployed assets (see the difference with Serbia here?) is not known to you but it is in place. So battle “profile”, in short, you propose here is what in Russia is called Murzilka, after children’s illustrated magazine.

    I hope you can understand that this is the reason that cruise missiles are useless against any moving target…even a ship…

    Latest versions of Tomahawks will be (already?) able to strike moving targets. I repeat my question on threshold and then, we may have fun.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Any thoughts on this at all? If true I would imagine there would be all sorts of implications.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-is-hiding-the-fact-that-its-state-of-the-art-f-35-warplane-was-hit-by-syrian-s-200-missile-reports/5613807
    , @Gigi
    "US Navy’s Tomahawk Will Strike Moving Maritime Targets by 2022"

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201709131057369744-us-tomahawk-strike-moving-targets/
    , @FB
    Yes, I know my scenario was ridiculous...I said so myself...

    And the reason it is ridiculous is that cruise missiles do not work against moving targets...

    That fact has not changed in 1999...

    '...Obviously the fact of real time targeting with updates which US has, especially on a effectively desert deployed assets (see the difference with Serbia here?) is not known to you but it is in place...'
     
    Yes, in fact the precise technical capabilities of each and every aspect of the Tomahawk is very well known to me...but apparently it is you who does not understand these technical characteristics adequately...

    The real-time targeting update you speak of was added in the Block 4 upgrade of the Tomahawk...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)#Upgrades

    This latest version, which is in use now [although not all deployed Tomahawks are Block 4...] added the so-called 'strike controller'...which means that the target can be changed while the missile is in flight...

    This is done by satellite link...which sends a message to the missile guidance computer to change its pre-programmed target to another one of 15 maximum pre-programmed targets that were already programmed in as 'alternates...]

    In practice...this is analogous to an airliner that is flying on a course that the captain programmed into the flight management computer [ie navigation system] before taking off...

    Once in flight, the crew may need to deviate from the original flight plan and land at an 'alternate' airfield...so that new flight plan is punched in...

    This is exactly what the Tomahawk flight controller does...the crew commanding the missile flight on board the ship can order a change in flight plan to one of 15 alternate targets...

    But to which new target...?

    Even in the ridiculous example where I showed the SAM moving only 6.25 km/hr in any given direction...the target area becomes huge...122.7 square km [at least...probably much bigger]...how would the crew that programmed the 15 alternate targets possibly guess where that SAM could have gone...?

    It can't...it would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack...which was the point of my ridiculous example...

    '...Latest versions of Tomahawks will be (already?) able to strike moving targets...'
     
    Not so fast...this is a feature that is in development now...not currently available...when it comes online and is actually demonstrated in use, I'm sure we will all hear about it...

    In order for a missile to hit any kind of moving target it must have some kind of guidance 'seeker'...in AA missiles this is often an IR sensor that seeks the heat of the aircraft engine exhaust...

    The other type is a radar seeker, which sends out radio signals and homes in on the returns that bounce back off the target...that is the only way a cruise missile [or any kind of missile for that matter] could hunt down a moving target [at least a target that does not emit a lot heat]...

    The Tomahawk does not have a radar...it cannot hunt down anything...

    Adding a small radar seeker is how Raytheon plan to upgrade the coming version...although it will be a simple 'passive' radar seeker...ie it will not send out radio signals of its own, but will simply 'listen' for radio signals emitted from the target...

    [It should be noted that the Tomahawk...and all such cruise missiles... do have a 'radar altimeter' which is a small downward pointing radar that is also used on commercial aircraft, in order to determine the aircraft's height above the ground...on the cruise missile this is crucial because the vehicle flies low above the ground...30 to 50 m...and needs to avoid hitting terrain...]

    I do not know where you got the idea that anyone in their right mind would contemplate attacking an integrated air defense system [IADS] with cruise missiles...that is pure fantasy...

    I'm sorry I have to say it so bluntly...

    PS I will have more on the Tomahawk shortly...I am having difficulty posting my comments on this site...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Andrei Martyanov

    Let me try to simplify things…
     
    No, I do not want you to "simplify" things since what you describe here is an absolutely ridiculous scenario which also doesn't explain such simple fact of Pantsyr ZRAKs being deployed in what is known as "raketoopasnye napravlenia" (missile threatening) directions. Obviously, somehow nobody wants to move those systems and provide for them mobile and specifically designed for low flying missiles Pantsirs. You obviously do not understand that S-400 and S-300 (not counting AD systems of Russian naval ships ADs) are there to provide coverage to facilities of air-base Khmeimim and especially so to ground and air assets based on it. But I also repeat my question--do you know saturation thresholds for S-300 or 400? Obviously the fact of real time targeting with updates which US has, especially on a effectively desert deployed assets (see the difference with Serbia here?) is not known to you but it is in place. So battle "profile", in short, you propose here is what in Russia is called Murzilka, after children's illustrated magazine.

    I hope you can understand that this is the reason that cruise missiles are useless against any moving target…even a ship…
     
    Latest versions of Tomahawks will be (already?) able to strike moving targets. I repeat my question on threshold and then, we may have fun.

    Any thoughts on this at all? If true I would imagine there would be all sorts of implications.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-is-hiding-the-fact-that-its-state-of-the-art-f-35-warplane-was-hit-by-syrian-s-200-missile-reports/5613807

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Any thoughts on this at all? If true I would imagine there would be all sorts of implications.
     
    I simply don't know. As per implications if true? Until the Israeli Air Force aircraft is shot down, I see nothing really important happening.
    , @FB
    I will field this question if I may...

    This story of the damaged F-35 ran yesterday originally in the Israeli media...

    http://www.kan.org.il/item/?itemId=23623

    you can use google translate to get the English version...

    The story is that the F35 was damaged in a bird strike as it was coming in to land...in a training incident that is claimed to have happened two weeks ago...but only reported hours after the skirmish with Syrian air defenses...

    '...the plane is grounded since the incident and it is unclear when it will resume activity - if at all...'
     
    There are a number of interesting technical considerations here...

    First and foremost is the matter that the plane appears to be seriously damaged...since the report states that it is not clear if it will ever fly again...

    '...An Israeli stealth aircraft of the F-35 (Adir), considered to be the most advanced in the world, was hit two weeks ago during a bird-training exercise...'
     
    Say what...?

    What the hell is a bird-training exercise...?

    If such an 'exercise' took place it would be the world's first...since it is difficult to imagine how one could get birds to cooperate by flying into an airplane...

    Then an IAF spokesman called these reports incorrect...

    '... In preparation for a routine landing of the F-35, two injuries were found in the fuselage following a collision with the birds...'
     
    So we know one very important piece of information...the bird strike happened during the landing phase of the flight...this is important because the landing speed is the slowest flying speed of any aircraft...

    The F35 landing speed is not published...but we can compare what is known about the F16, which is similar in weight and wing area...

    The F16 landing speed is about 140 knots [160 mph]...this is about the speed at which a small private piston-prop engine cruises...

    At this rather slow speed it would take a very large bird to cause significant damage to the airframe of a fighter jet which is much stronger than a slow-speed piston aircraft...

    There have been literally hundreds of bird strikes involving such low-speed propeller light aircraft...in most cases the bird flies into the propeller and is instantly diced...causing no real damage...the worst scenario is where a bird strikes the windscreen and can shatter it, although even light-aircraft windscreen need to meet certification standards for bird strike resistance...

    here is a thread with many first-hand accounts of private pilots who have experienced bird strikes...

    http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/599521-anyone-else-had-bird-strike-light-aircraft.html

    Reading these accounts is instructive...

    Here's one that is particularly interesting because it hit the airplane wing...

    '...Hit a seagull on short final (doing about 65 knots) in a PA28 a few years ago. Right wing, right between the two outer ribs. Made a huge dent, with the edges of the aluminum plating torn from the rivets and whatnot. The repair took three weeks...'
     
    A seagull is a fair-sized bird...although the speed of 65 knots is quite low...much lower than a fighters landing speed which is about double...but again, we note that a fighter structure is many times stronger than that of a light plane...

    Here's an FAA report with pictures of a Navy T44A that struck a very large bird on its wing...a turkey vulture...

    http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=1&LLID=11&LLTypeID=7

    The T44 is a military version of a popular civil turboprop, the Beechcraft King Air...which cruises at about 300 knots [350 mph]...

    The damage to the wing is considerable, but did not preclude a safe landing...

    My own take on this is that a bird strike on a fighter airframe during landing would not result in serious damage...[a bird ingestion into the engine would be more serious...but this is not what is reported to have happened...]

    Another crucial clue...the IAF has not released any pictures of the airplane...why not...?

    Let us look at the pictures and see for ourselves if the damage is consistent with a bird strike or whether it indicates something else as the cause...

    This fact alone is enough to call the IAF story into doubt...as well as the curious timing...why announce it hours after the scuffle with Syrian SAMs...why wasn't it announced two weeks ago when it happened...?

    There is no plausible answer to either of these questions...

    Of course various know-nothing commentators are quickly dismissing the possibility that the F35 sustained damage from a missile shot as 'conspiracy theory'...

    Mostly these know-nothings claim...without any basis in fact...that the Syrian SA5 [aka S200] could never hit an F35...or even an F16 or F15...

    Bottom line is that this question cannot be resolved at this point...but there is certainly much to suspect here...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Gigi says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Let me try to simplify things…
     
    No, I do not want you to "simplify" things since what you describe here is an absolutely ridiculous scenario which also doesn't explain such simple fact of Pantsyr ZRAKs being deployed in what is known as "raketoopasnye napravlenia" (missile threatening) directions. Obviously, somehow nobody wants to move those systems and provide for them mobile and specifically designed for low flying missiles Pantsirs. You obviously do not understand that S-400 and S-300 (not counting AD systems of Russian naval ships ADs) are there to provide coverage to facilities of air-base Khmeimim and especially so to ground and air assets based on it. But I also repeat my question--do you know saturation thresholds for S-300 or 400? Obviously the fact of real time targeting with updates which US has, especially on a effectively desert deployed assets (see the difference with Serbia here?) is not known to you but it is in place. So battle "profile", in short, you propose here is what in Russia is called Murzilka, after children's illustrated magazine.

    I hope you can understand that this is the reason that cruise missiles are useless against any moving target…even a ship…
     
    Latest versions of Tomahawks will be (already?) able to strike moving targets. I repeat my question on threshold and then, we may have fun.

    “US Navy’s Tomahawk Will Strike Moving Maritime Targets by 2022″

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201709131057369744-us-tomahawk-strike-moving-targets/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    Thank you for info.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @NoseytheDuke
    Any thoughts on this at all? If true I would imagine there would be all sorts of implications.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-is-hiding-the-fact-that-its-state-of-the-art-f-35-warplane-was-hit-by-syrian-s-200-missile-reports/5613807

    Any thoughts on this at all? If true I would imagine there would be all sorts of implications.

    I simply don’t know. As per implications if true? Until the Israeli Air Force aircraft is shot down, I see nothing really important happening.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Gigi
    "US Navy’s Tomahawk Will Strike Moving Maritime Targets by 2022"

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201709131057369744-us-tomahawk-strike-moving-targets/

    Thank you for info.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. FB says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Let me try to simplify things…
     
    No, I do not want you to "simplify" things since what you describe here is an absolutely ridiculous scenario which also doesn't explain such simple fact of Pantsyr ZRAKs being deployed in what is known as "raketoopasnye napravlenia" (missile threatening) directions. Obviously, somehow nobody wants to move those systems and provide for them mobile and specifically designed for low flying missiles Pantsirs. You obviously do not understand that S-400 and S-300 (not counting AD systems of Russian naval ships ADs) are there to provide coverage to facilities of air-base Khmeimim and especially so to ground and air assets based on it. But I also repeat my question--do you know saturation thresholds for S-300 or 400? Obviously the fact of real time targeting with updates which US has, especially on a effectively desert deployed assets (see the difference with Serbia here?) is not known to you but it is in place. So battle "profile", in short, you propose here is what in Russia is called Murzilka, after children's illustrated magazine.

    I hope you can understand that this is the reason that cruise missiles are useless against any moving target…even a ship…
     
    Latest versions of Tomahawks will be (already?) able to strike moving targets. I repeat my question on threshold and then, we may have fun.

    Yes, I know my scenario was ridiculous…I said so myself…

    And the reason it is ridiculous is that cruise missiles do not work against moving targets…

    That fact has not changed in 1999…

    ‘…Obviously the fact of real time targeting with updates which US has, especially on a effectively desert deployed assets (see the difference with Serbia here?) is not known to you but it is in place…’

    Yes, in fact the precise technical capabilities of each and every aspect of the Tomahawk is very well known to me…but apparently it is you who does not understand these technical characteristics adequately…

    The real-time targeting update you speak of was added in the Block 4 upgrade of the Tomahawk…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)#Upgrades

    This latest version, which is in use now [although not all deployed Tomahawks are Block 4...] added the so-called ‘strike controller’…which means that the target can be changed while the missile is in flight…

    This is done by satellite link…which sends a message to the missile guidance computer to change its pre-programmed target to another one of 15 maximum pre-programmed targets that were already programmed in as ‘alternates…]

    In practice…this is analogous to an airliner that is flying on a course that the captain programmed into the flight management computer [ie navigation system] before taking off…

    Once in flight, the crew may need to deviate from the original flight plan and land at an ‘alternate’ airfield…so that new flight plan is punched in…

    This is exactly what the Tomahawk flight controller does…the crew commanding the missile flight on board the ship can order a change in flight plan to one of 15 alternate targets…

    But to which new target…?

    Even in the ridiculous example where I showed the SAM moving only 6.25 km/hr in any given direction…the target area becomes huge…122.7 square km [at least...probably much bigger]…how would the crew that programmed the 15 alternate targets possibly guess where that SAM could have gone…?

    It can’t…it would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack…which was the point of my ridiculous example…

    ‘…Latest versions of Tomahawks will be (already?) able to strike moving targets…’

    Not so fast…this is a feature that is in development now…not currently available…when it comes online and is actually demonstrated in use, I’m sure we will all hear about it…

    In order for a missile to hit any kind of moving target it must have some kind of guidance ‘seeker’…in AA missiles this is often an IR sensor that seeks the heat of the aircraft engine exhaust…

    The other type is a radar seeker, which sends out radio signals and homes in on the returns that bounce back off the target…that is the only way a cruise missile [or any kind of missile for that matter] could hunt down a moving target [at least a target that does not emit a lot heat]…

    The Tomahawk does not have a radar…it cannot hunt down anything…

    Adding a small radar seeker is how Raytheon plan to upgrade the coming version…although it will be a simple ‘passive’ radar seeker…ie it will not send out radio signals of its own, but will simply ‘listen’ for radio signals emitted from the target…

    [It should be noted that the Tomahawk...and all such cruise missiles... do have a 'radar altimeter' which is a small downward pointing radar that is also used on commercial aircraft, in order to determine the aircraft's height above the ground...on the cruise missile this is crucial because the vehicle flies low above the ground...30 to 50 m...and needs to avoid hitting terrain...]

    I do not know where you got the idea that anyone in their right mind would contemplate attacking an integrated air defense system [IADS] with cruise missiles…that is pure fantasy…

    I’m sorry I have to say it so bluntly…

    PS I will have more on the Tomahawk shortly…I am having difficulty posting my comments on this site…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Even in the ridiculous example where I showed the SAM moving only 6.25 km/hr in any given direction…the target area becomes huge…122.7 square km [at least...probably much bigger]…how would the crew that programmed the 15 alternate targets possibly guess where that SAM could have gone…?

    Read attentively from my previous post, I quote myself:

    Obviously, somehow nobody wants to move those systems and provide for them mobile and specifically designed for low flying missiles Pantsirs. You obviously do not understand that S-400 and S-300 (not counting AD systems of Russian naval ships ADs) are there to provide coverage to facilities of air-base Khmeimim and especially so to ground and air assets based on it.

    You obviously also have no clue that any CO who gives a command upon detection of enemy’s salvo on “moving” the complex which is there specifically for protection of assets will be in Court Martial immediately, not least because of the fact that while “saving” his S-400 “ass” on the move he broke the radar filed and de facto removed the system from combat. I mentioned only one reason, there are dozens of those that your “avoiding” the salvo is a sheer incompetent lunacy.

    I do not know where you got the idea that anyone in their right mind would contemplate attacking an integrated air defense system [IADS] with cruise missiles…that is pure fantasy…

    Well, I do. I omit here my background but for starters educate yourself on that:

    2016
    Oct. 12, 2016: The U.S. military strikes three radar sites in Houthi-controlled territory on Yemen’s Red Sea coast using Tomahawks launched from USS Nitze (DDG 94). The strikes target radar sites involved in the earlier missile launches threatening USS Mason (DDG 87) and other vessels operating in international waters in the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandeb.

    http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/swmag/Pages/Where-are-the-Shooters.aspx#.Wedbc9xryUk

    Obviously you forgot somehow that the reason, and I am beginning to repeat myself, is the base at Khmeimim which houses all infrastructure for both Russian Air-Space Forces aircraft, personnel, communications facilities, ammunition and fuel storage, etc.–precisely the types of targets for attacking which BGM-109 was designed. S-300 and S-400 are there to defend those targets, not to withdraw themselves in the middle of launch in progress thus rendering themselves nonoperational during the moving. Anyone who comes up even with the possibility of such a sheer lunacy has to be completely detached from any realities of modern combat.

    This is in addition to you constantly trying to preach things to me in which I have a graduate degree and a substantial practical experience. Time after time you fail to answer simple question, obfuscating it with a shitload of pop-war info and the question is simple: Do you know saturation threshold for S-400? Obviously you don’t, as well as you do not understand a simple modeling of a leaker issue which is applicable in this case. Here is a basic not-augmented salvo model (for warm up) which is completely applicable here, I gave you the order of magnitude of US Navy’s (and possibly Air Force) assets which can be brought to bear in conventional escalation scenario. We will omit here a distribution and concentrated force (and power) relations (this may come later) but you basically have no clue on the subject matter:

    The model is not “perfect” it is just the start but should you have been at least acquainted with basic (I omit here augmented) Osipov-Lanchester model and its quadratic solution, again–just for warmup, you obviously have no idea what are mathematical expectations for single missile of each type and for a different types of salvos–you would have thought really carefully before posting here a load of crap for fanboys.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...The strikes target radar sites...'
     
    Exactly...those are fixed 'sites'...ie stationary targets...not mobile radars like the truck-mounted ones on modern SAMs...

    As for your 'math'...why don't you do what we call in mathematics a 'worked example'...ie work out an example here so we can all understand your point...which as presented is quite difficult to understand...

    Whatever qualifications you may possess, I certainly respect that, and I mean no disrespect for you...which is more than I can say about your 'spirited' denunciations of my comments...

    but the point of any discussion is to argue the merits of the case...not the 'qualifications' of the debaters...

    I could say myself I have XYZ qualifications and experience...but I should not want anyone to take what I say as fact because of that...

    Isaac Newton invented classical physics and contributed greatly to the invention of calculus...the math that makes modern science and engineering possible...

    It does not mean that he could present his arguments to his peers and colleagues just by saying...well I am Isaac Newton...so that is that...

    Nobody does this in peer-reviewed technical literature...and no one ever has...it is ridiculous...you still have to prove your point demonstrably using mathematical and physical principles all can agree on...so there is no point in saying 'I'm an expert'...prove it with your argument...

    the fact of the matter is that Tomahawks are not designed to target mobile objects...that is an established fact...now you don't even try to defend your previous claim to the contrary...but attempt to bring in other aspects such as what a CO [commanding officer] would and would not do...

    This only confuses the issue...

    I will have more to say...that I believe people will find credible and instructive...please calm down and try to participate in a collegial exchange...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. FB says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Any thoughts on this at all? If true I would imagine there would be all sorts of implications.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-is-hiding-the-fact-that-its-state-of-the-art-f-35-warplane-was-hit-by-syrian-s-200-missile-reports/5613807

    I will field this question if I may…

    This story of the damaged F-35 ran yesterday originally in the Israeli media…

    http://www.kan.org.il/item/?itemId=23623

    you can use google translate to get the English version…

    The story is that the F35 was damaged in a bird strike as it was coming in to land…in a training incident that is claimed to have happened two weeks ago…but only reported hours after the skirmish with Syrian air defenses…

    ‘…the plane is grounded since the incident and it is unclear when it will resume activity – if at all…’

    There are a number of interesting technical considerations here…

    First and foremost is the matter that the plane appears to be seriously damaged…since the report states that it is not clear if it will ever fly again…

    ‘…An Israeli stealth aircraft of the F-35 (Adir), considered to be the most advanced in the world, was hit two weeks ago during a bird-training exercise…’

    Say what…?

    What the hell is a bird-training exercise…?

    If such an ‘exercise’ took place it would be the world’s first…since it is difficult to imagine how one could get birds to cooperate by flying into an airplane…

    Then an IAF spokesman called these reports incorrect…

    ‘… In preparation for a routine landing of the F-35, two injuries were found in the fuselage following a collision with the birds…’

    So we know one very important piece of information…the bird strike happened during the landing phase of the flight…this is important because the landing speed is the slowest flying speed of any aircraft…

    The F35 landing speed is not published…but we can compare what is known about the F16, which is similar in weight and wing area…

    The F16 landing speed is about 140 knots [160 mph]…this is about the speed at which a small private piston-prop engine cruises…

    At this rather slow speed it would take a very large bird to cause significant damage to the airframe of a fighter jet which is much stronger than a slow-speed piston aircraft…

    There have been literally hundreds of bird strikes involving such low-speed propeller light aircraft…in most cases the bird flies into the propeller and is instantly diced…causing no real damage…the worst scenario is where a bird strikes the windscreen and can shatter it, although even light-aircraft windscreen need to meet certification standards for bird strike resistance…

    here is a thread with many first-hand accounts of private pilots who have experienced bird strikes…

    http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/599521-anyone-else-had-bird-strike-light-aircraft.html

    Reading these accounts is instructive…

    Here’s one that is particularly interesting because it hit the airplane wing…

    ‘…Hit a seagull on short final (doing about 65 knots) in a PA28 a few years ago. Right wing, right between the two outer ribs. Made a huge dent, with the edges of the aluminum plating torn from the rivets and whatnot. The repair took three weeks…’

    A seagull is a fair-sized bird…although the speed of 65 knots is quite low…much lower than a fighters landing speed which is about double…but again, we note that a fighter structure is many times stronger than that of a light plane…

    Here’s an FAA report with pictures of a Navy T44A that struck a very large bird on its wing…a turkey vulture…

    http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=1&LLID=11&LLTypeID=7

    The T44 is a military version of a popular civil turboprop, the Beechcraft King Air…which cruises at about 300 knots [350 mph]…

    The damage to the wing is considerable, but did not preclude a safe landing…

    My own take on this is that a bird strike on a fighter airframe during landing would not result in serious damage…[a bird ingestion into the engine would be more serious...but this is not what is reported to have happened...]

    Another crucial clue…the IAF has not released any pictures of the airplane…why not…?

    Let us look at the pictures and see for ourselves if the damage is consistent with a bird strike or whether it indicates something else as the cause…

    This fact alone is enough to call the IAF story into doubt…as well as the curious timing…why announce it hours after the scuffle with Syrian SAMs…why wasn’t it announced two weeks ago when it happened…?

    There is no plausible answer to either of these questions…

    Of course various know-nothing commentators are quickly dismissing the possibility that the F35 sustained damage from a missile shot as ‘conspiracy theory’…

    Mostly these know-nothings claim…without any basis in fact…that the Syrian SA5 [aka S200] could never hit an F35…or even an F16 or F15…

    Bottom line is that this question cannot be resolved at this point…but there is certainly much to suspect here…

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Thank you. I can't help thinking that if the most expensive, and some would say controversial, fighter plane in history can be hit with a much older SAM then it would surely be totally at risk to exposure to the newer and vastly superior variants and a huge denunciation of the Emperors fine raiment, sending ripples throughout the MIC and it's customer base worldwide.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. FB says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Even in the ridiculous example where I showed the SAM moving only 6.25 km/hr in any given direction…the target area becomes huge…122.7 square km [at least...probably much bigger]…how would the crew that programmed the 15 alternate targets possibly guess where that SAM could have gone…?
     
    Read attentively from my previous post, I quote myself:

    Obviously, somehow nobody wants to move those systems and provide for them mobile and specifically designed for low flying missiles Pantsirs. You obviously do not understand that S-400 and S-300 (not counting AD systems of Russian naval ships ADs) are there to provide coverage to facilities of air-base Khmeimim and especially so to ground and air assets based on it.
     
    You obviously also have no clue that any CO who gives a command upon detection of enemy's salvo on "moving" the complex which is there specifically for protection of assets will be in Court Martial immediately, not least because of the fact that while "saving" his S-400 "ass" on the move he broke the radar filed and de facto removed the system from combat. I mentioned only one reason, there are dozens of those that your "avoiding" the salvo is a sheer incompetent lunacy.

    I do not know where you got the idea that anyone in their right mind would contemplate attacking an integrated air defense system [IADS] with cruise missiles…that is pure fantasy…
     
    Well, I do. I omit here my background but for starters educate yourself on that:

    2016
    Oct. 12, 2016: The U.S. military strikes three radar sites in Houthi-controlled territory on Yemen’s Red Sea coast using Tomahawks launched from USS Nitze (DDG 94). The strikes target radar sites involved in the earlier missile launches threatening USS Mason (DDG 87) and other vessels operating in international waters in the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandeb.

     

    http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/swmag/Pages/Where-are-the-Shooters.aspx#.Wedbc9xryUk

    Obviously you forgot somehow that the reason, and I am beginning to repeat myself, is the base at Khmeimim which houses all infrastructure for both Russian Air-Space Forces aircraft, personnel, communications facilities, ammunition and fuel storage, etc.--precisely the types of targets for attacking which BGM-109 was designed. S-300 and S-400 are there to defend those targets, not to withdraw themselves in the middle of launch in progress thus rendering themselves nonoperational during the moving. Anyone who comes up even with the possibility of such a sheer lunacy has to be completely detached from any realities of modern combat.

    This is in addition to you constantly trying to preach things to me in which I have a graduate degree and a substantial practical experience. Time after time you fail to answer simple question, obfuscating it with a shitload of pop-war info and the question is simple: Do you know saturation threshold for S-400? Obviously you don't, as well as you do not understand a simple modeling of a leaker issue which is applicable in this case. Here is a basic not-augmented salvo model (for warm up) which is completely applicable here, I gave you the order of magnitude of US Navy's (and possibly Air Force) assets which can be brought to bear in conventional escalation scenario. We will omit here a distribution and concentrated force (and power) relations (this may come later) but you basically have no clue on the subject matter:

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TwMGS_PATBc/Wedhtv9K0iI/AAAAAAAABMQ/mZyr7HD4lh4mqU8N3BZB4S-nRz75iwlswCLcBGAs/s1600/Salvo-1.png

    The model is not "perfect" it is just the start but should you have been at least acquainted with basic (I omit here augmented) Osipov-Lanchester model and its quadratic solution, again--just for warmup, you obviously have no idea what are mathematical expectations for single missile of each type and for a different types of salvos--you would have thought really carefully before posting here a load of crap for fanboys.

    ‘…The strikes target radar sites…’

    Exactly…those are fixed ‘sites’…ie stationary targets…not mobile radars like the truck-mounted ones on modern SAMs…

    As for your ‘math’…why don’t you do what we call in mathematics a ‘worked example’…ie work out an example here so we can all understand your point…which as presented is quite difficult to understand…

    Whatever qualifications you may possess, I certainly respect that, and I mean no disrespect for you…which is more than I can say about your ‘spirited’ denunciations of my comments…

    but the point of any discussion is to argue the merits of the case…not the ‘qualifications’ of the debaters…

    I could say myself I have XYZ qualifications and experience…but I should not want anyone to take what I say as fact because of that…

    Isaac Newton invented classical physics and contributed greatly to the invention of calculus…the math that makes modern science and engineering possible…

    It does not mean that he could present his arguments to his peers and colleagues just by saying…well I am Isaac Newton…so that is that…

    Nobody does this in peer-reviewed technical literature…and no one ever has…it is ridiculous…you still have to prove your point demonstrably using mathematical and physical principles all can agree on…so there is no point in saying ‘I’m an expert’…prove it with your argument…

    the fact of the matter is that Tomahawks are not designed to target mobile objects…that is an established fact…now you don’t even try to defend your previous claim to the contrary…but attempt to bring in other aspects such as what a CO [commanding officer] would and would not do…

    This only confuses the issue…

    I will have more to say…that I believe people will find credible and instructive…please calm down and try to participate in a collegial exchange…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. As for your ‘math’…why don’t you do what we call in mathematics a ‘worked example’…ie work out an example here so we can all understand your point…which as presented is quite difficult to understand…

    It is not “my” math. “My” math doesn’t exist in nature, Theory of Operational Research, and of Operational Planning, however does exist universally and is based on fundamental mathematical laws (from differential equations to Probability Theory) combined with actual practical operational and tactical experiences. Per “worked” examples, I can suggest only one thing for you, to google, as one example of many, post-graduate thesis of Omur Ozdemir: EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF FREEDOM CLASS LCS AND OTHER FRIGATES/CORVETTES AGAINST SMALL BOAT, FPB AND SUBMARINE THREATS IN CONFINED WATERS , from Naval Post-Graduate School in Monterrey, CA. Or, AN ANALYSIS OF DISTRIBUTED COMBAT SYSTEMS, Keith Jude Ho, Captain, Singapore Army BA(Hons), MA, Cambridge University, UK , 1997, Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN SYSTEMS INTEGRATION from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL.

    Those are unclassified, general application Salvo Model reviews with some, also unclassified, applications to a specific (mostly fictional) scenarios. Just to help you, you can view Khmeimim base as a singular unit (ship, stationary aircraft carrier with CBG consisting of capabilities of Russian surface fleet around Syria). If you need some basic intro in Osipov-Lanchester model you can enlighten yourself on quadratic solutions of basic differential equations (with the example) in my blog.

    http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2016/05/150th-motor-rifle-division-and-much_17.html

    I am not here to teach anyone, I assume that people who express their opinions at least know something (other than pop-sci fodder) about the subject. I am also not privy to all, highly classified, technical data of S-300 or S-400 but you can, just for very primitive and raw (just to give a slight impression) view US salvo as a collection of several units A (see my previous post on a number of TLAMs US Navy can bring to bear) but let’s say there are 450 in first salvo, with US force A obviously sustaining no dA since we omit here the scenario of a direct naval confrontation and all huge complexities of ASW and search for US Navy’s SSGNs and SSNs (you see–here we have to now go with Operational Sweeps and other lovely things, which are not the focus of our discussion here). So you will need to address, say, B which will be Khmeimim viewed as a single and extremely well defended single entity. So look at dB and play with coefficients, especially with b1 and b3. To take Khmeimim out of action for at least several days–two weeks from the top of my head is 100-120 TLAMs, this is your b1. But the trick of course and the whole point is to know your b3. In reality, in augmented model, which calculates degrading (attrition dB) b3 is merely a multiplier in formation of b3′ (Prime) which is a product of b3 itself, Delta(b) (lower case) which is Defensive Alertness/Readiness, and Tau (lower case) which is Training Effectiveness. You will also need b4 which is Seduction Countermeasure Effectiveness and the whole thing suddenly becomes very complex and hm… classified. But, say, we give our b3 a value of 200 (remember, my question on Saturation Threshold? You know how many missiles of S-300 or S-400 takes to shoot down a single TLAM? Math. expectations, those proverbial Omegas–a huge state secret). Hey, let’s say even 300 but then comes the issue what if there are several 150 TLAM salvos? Picture changes yet again and so on. And this is just for deterministic model, of course real life is stochastic and shit happens unexpectedly and that is why you need external force in a shape of Russian Navy and TU-22M3 with X-32 to ensure that a US forces impressive first salvo would be its last. But then again, you obviously didn’t read my article attentively. I will leave the rest of your verbose post without the answer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Ok...so let's briefly review this debate...

    I read your article here and identified a basic problem in your premise of conducting a SEAD operation using Tomahawks and other standoff cruise missiles...[aka TLAM...ie Tomahawk Land Attack Missile...]

    I remarked only in passing that this notion is not factually valid, since TLAMs and ALCMs [Air Launched Cruise Missiles]...do not have the ability to strike moving targets...such as mobile Russian SAMs in Syria...

    It is a physical fact that TLAMs and ALCMs do not have the targeting equipment...ie radar guidance...to strike at mobile targets...

    So my initial comment was to try to explain SEAD basics by first starting with the latest US SEAD operation, which was Serbia in 1999...I noted that I would follow up with more information as to what an actual SEAD operation in Syria might look like...

    But I have not been given a chance to continue because you took exception to my factual assertion that TLAMs and ALCMs have no role in any SEAD operation...

    You then skipped onto another topic by challenging me with a 'mathematical model' of 'saturation' thresholds or some such matter...

    You presented two equations without any contextual information...which I found very confusing...and no doubt left many others scratching their heads...

    When I asked you to do a simple worked example...you have now declined...instead you have now directed us to the Osipov-Lanchester Equations...

    I honestly can say that indeed I am not familiar with the Osipov-Lanchester mathematics, nor the saturation threshold math...and would therefore be very grateful to you if you could explain this in a way that a 'pop-sci' dummy like me can understand...

    I will admit that I do have more than a nodding acquaintance with differential and integral calculus...so it should not be very difficult to explain these math models to me...

    I am not trying to be facetious...I take you at your word that your math will support your scenario...and I would like to understand fully how this math relates to the subject under discussion here...ie a hypothetical SEAD operation in Syria...

    And finally, you have now made the assertion...

    '...To take Khmeimim out of action for at least several days–two weeks from the top of my head is 100-120 TLAMs...'
     
    Fine...I will start from there...in my next comment...where I will be discussing what is known about the TLAM strike on Shayrat airfield last April...

    PS: For anyone else reading this...and considering that two commenters have graciously experessed interest in hearing my further discussion...my continuation of a realistic SEAD operation in Syria will be postponed until I finish my rebuttal to the above claim regarding Hmeimim airfield from Mr. Martyanov...It should not take long...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. FB says:

    Correction on my comment on the Israeli F35…

    Regarding the Navy T44…the damage was actually to the airplane’s horizontal stabilizer [aka tailplane]…not the wing…

    http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=1&LLID=11&LLTypeID=7

    This is important because the tailplane is much smaller than the wing and not as sturdy…but it is in fact a very vital piece of the airplane…the loss of the either the horizontal tail or the vertical tail [fin] would result in instant loss of control and certain catastrophic crash…

    We do not know at what speed the bird strike occurred…the brief report doesn’t say…but the landing approach speed of a King Air 90 is about 100 knots…and a turkey vulture is a very large bird…

    The fact that this tailplane stayed on and the airplane landed…even assuming a minimum collision speed of 100 knots…well this makes it very difficult to imagine how a fighter jet can be seriously damaged by a bird strike during landing…

    The damage to the King Air tailplane is quite repairable and this airplane would certainly not be written off…

    Also the King Air is a civil aircraft that is not nearly as strong as a fighter jet…which must be able to withstand violent maneuvering at very high speeds…

    I would say that I am very suspicious of this story…it may indeed be true…but it is hard to imagine how a modern fighter could sustain serious damage to its airframe at landing speed…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  182. FB says:

    One more comment about that F35 ‘bird strike’…

    No doubt we will hear comments in various quarters about the lack of pictures being explained away by an excuse like the IAF would not release such pictures relating to an aircraft training incident…

    Well…

    Many folks remember the famous incident of IAF F15 that landed on one wing…after most of its right wing was sheared off in a collision with another F15 during a training exercise…

    [no there were no kamikaze birds involved who were somehow persuaded to collide with an aircraft in a 'bird-training exercise'...]

    https://theaviationist.com/2014/09/15/f-15-lands-with-one-wing/

    There is much more photo and video coverage of this…this was incidentally a legendary piece of airmanship by the IAF pilot…who managed to land the plane [at 260 knots...twice the normal landing speed] by using the engine’s enormous power to keep the ship aloft…

    Even more remarkable…this airplane entered service again after a new wing was installed…

    this incident actually spurred Nasa to try to devise a fly-by-wire method to try to get the airplane computer to do what that pilot did…ie save an airplane with catastrophic structural damage…

    Point being, that the IAF had no problem in releasing photos and videos…apparently the ‘cone of silence’ applies only to this particular incident…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  183. FB says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    As for your ‘math’…why don’t you do what we call in mathematics a ‘worked example’…ie work out an example here so we can all understand your point…which as presented is quite difficult to understand…
     
    It is not "my" math. "My" math doesn't exist in nature, Theory of Operational Research, and of Operational Planning, however does exist universally and is based on fundamental mathematical laws (from differential equations to Probability Theory) combined with actual practical operational and tactical experiences. Per "worked" examples, I can suggest only one thing for you, to google, as one example of many, post-graduate thesis of Omur Ozdemir: EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF FREEDOM CLASS LCS AND OTHER FRIGATES/CORVETTES AGAINST SMALL BOAT, FPB AND SUBMARINE THREATS IN CONFINED WATERS , from Naval Post-Graduate School in Monterrey, CA. Or, AN ANALYSIS OF DISTRIBUTED COMBAT SYSTEMS, Keith Jude Ho, Captain, Singapore Army BA(Hons), MA, Cambridge University, UK , 1997, Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN SYSTEMS INTEGRATION from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL.

    Those are unclassified, general application Salvo Model reviews with some, also unclassified, applications to a specific (mostly fictional) scenarios. Just to help you, you can view Khmeimim base as a singular unit (ship, stationary aircraft carrier with CBG consisting of capabilities of Russian surface fleet around Syria). If you need some basic intro in Osipov-Lanchester model you can enlighten yourself on quadratic solutions of basic differential equations (with the example) in my blog.

    http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2016/05/150th-motor-rifle-division-and-much_17.html


    I am not here to teach anyone, I assume that people who express their opinions at least know something (other than pop-sci fodder) about the subject. I am also not privy to all, highly classified, technical data of S-300 or S-400 but you can, just for very primitive and raw (just to give a slight impression) view US salvo as a collection of several units A (see my previous post on a number of TLAMs US Navy can bring to bear) but let's say there are 450 in first salvo, with US force A obviously sustaining no dA since we omit here the scenario of a direct naval confrontation and all huge complexities of ASW and search for US Navy's SSGNs and SSNs (you see--here we have to now go with Operational Sweeps and other lovely things, which are not the focus of our discussion here). So you will need to address, say, B which will be Khmeimim viewed as a single and extremely well defended single entity. So look at dB and play with coefficients, especially with b1 and b3. To take Khmeimim out of action for at least several days--two weeks from the top of my head is 100-120 TLAMs, this is your b1. But the trick of course and the whole point is to know your b3. In reality, in augmented model, which calculates degrading (attrition dB) b3 is merely a multiplier in formation of b3' (Prime) which is a product of b3 itself, Delta(b) (lower case) which is Defensive Alertness/Readiness, and Tau (lower case) which is Training Effectiveness. You will also need b4 which is Seduction Countermeasure Effectiveness and the whole thing suddenly becomes very complex and hm... classified. But, say, we give our b3 a value of 200 (remember, my question on Saturation Threshold? You know how many missiles of S-300 or S-400 takes to shoot down a single TLAM? Math. expectations, those proverbial Omegas--a huge state secret). Hey, let's say even 300 but then comes the issue what if there are several 150 TLAM salvos? Picture changes yet again and so on. And this is just for deterministic model, of course real life is stochastic and shit happens unexpectedly and that is why you need external force in a shape of Russian Navy and TU-22M3 with X-32 to ensure that a US forces impressive first salvo would be its last. But then again, you obviously didn't read my article attentively. I will leave the rest of your verbose post without the answer.

    Ok…so let’s briefly review this debate…

    I read your article here and identified a basic problem in your premise of conducting a SEAD operation using Tomahawks and other standoff cruise missiles…[aka TLAM...ie Tomahawk Land Attack Missile...]

    I remarked only in passing that this notion is not factually valid, since TLAMs and ALCMs [Air Launched Cruise Missiles]…do not have the ability to strike moving targets…such as mobile Russian SAMs in Syria…

    It is a physical fact that TLAMs and ALCMs do not have the targeting equipment…ie radar guidance…to strike at mobile targets…

    So my initial comment was to try to explain SEAD basics by first starting with the latest US SEAD operation, which was Serbia in 1999…I noted that I would follow up with more information as to what an actual SEAD operation in Syria might look like…

    But I have not been given a chance to continue because you took exception to my factual assertion that TLAMs and ALCMs have no role in any SEAD operation…

    You then skipped onto another topic by challenging me with a ‘mathematical model’ of ‘saturation’ thresholds or some such matter…

    You presented two equations without any contextual information…which I found very confusing…and no doubt left many others scratching their heads…

    When I asked you to do a simple worked example…you have now declined…instead you have now directed us to the Osipov-Lanchester Equations…

    I honestly can say that indeed I am not familiar with the Osipov-Lanchester mathematics, nor the saturation threshold math…and would therefore be very grateful to you if you could explain this in a way that a ‘pop-sci’ dummy like me can understand…

    I will admit that I do have more than a nodding acquaintance with differential and integral calculus…so it should not be very difficult to explain these math models to me…

    I am not trying to be facetious…I take you at your word that your math will support your scenario…and I would like to understand fully how this math relates to the subject under discussion here…ie a hypothetical SEAD operation in Syria…

    And finally, you have now made the assertion…

    ‘…To take Khmeimim out of action for at least several days–two weeks from the top of my head is 100-120 TLAMs…’

    Fine…I will start from there…in my next comment…where I will be discussing what is known about the TLAM strike on Shayrat airfield last April…

    PS: For anyone else reading this…and considering that two commenters have graciously experessed interest in hearing my further discussion…my continuation of a realistic SEAD operation in Syria will be postponed until I finish my rebuttal to the above claim regarding Hmeimim airfield from Mr. Martyanov…It should not take long…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    I read your article here and identified a basic problem in your premise of conducting a SEAD operation using Tomahawks and other standoff cruise missiles…[aka TLAM...ie Tomahawk Land Attack Missile...] I remarked only in passing that this notion is not factually valid, since TLAMs and ALCMs [Air Launched Cruise Missiles]…do not have the ability to strike moving targets…such as mobile Russian SAMs in Syria…
     
    Here is what you remarked actually:

    It is true that Russian standoff missiles such as the ship and sub-launched Kalibr, and the air-launched Kh-101 [aka X-101] are advanced and formidable weapons…but this author’s analysis makes a fundamental error in assuming that Russian aviation and air defenses in Syria would be ‘eventually overwhelmed’ by a US and possibly ‘coalition’ allied attack…and that the deterrent against any such action would be a possible Russian retaliation on US ships and airfields in the region using said standoff weapons…
     
    Here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/russia-the-800-pound-gorilla/#comment-2043747


    Now, after I gave you the approximate number of TLAMs of US Navy which could be the part of the first salvo--not to mention carrier aviation which would follow (see the size of airwings for 2 theoretical CBGs)--you are trying to preach some abstract BS SEAD based on a campaign which was 18 years ago and saw a completely different set of strategic, operational and tactical circumstances which are absolutely inapplicable to what we have in Syria and you do this without addressing a single operational constant except posting some platitudes. I gave you a basic salvo model--a foundation of what is taught in any serious military academy, which yours truly graduated in 1985 (apart from other officer schools). See the list of constants, again, here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/russia-the-800-pound-gorilla/#comment-2047814

    Until you can justify at least probable values for those, all this discussion makes no professional sense whatsoever. As per how armed forces fight--that is a whole other story, obviously you don't have good ideas about it. Again, WHY there are so many Pantsirs in Syria? Have an answer?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @FB
    Ok...so let's briefly review this debate...

    I read your article here and identified a basic problem in your premise of conducting a SEAD operation using Tomahawks and other standoff cruise missiles...[aka TLAM...ie Tomahawk Land Attack Missile...]

    I remarked only in passing that this notion is not factually valid, since TLAMs and ALCMs [Air Launched Cruise Missiles]...do not have the ability to strike moving targets...such as mobile Russian SAMs in Syria...

    It is a physical fact that TLAMs and ALCMs do not have the targeting equipment...ie radar guidance...to strike at mobile targets...

    So my initial comment was to try to explain SEAD basics by first starting with the latest US SEAD operation, which was Serbia in 1999...I noted that I would follow up with more information as to what an actual SEAD operation in Syria might look like...

    But I have not been given a chance to continue because you took exception to my factual assertion that TLAMs and ALCMs have no role in any SEAD operation...

    You then skipped onto another topic by challenging me with a 'mathematical model' of 'saturation' thresholds or some such matter...

    You presented two equations without any contextual information...which I found very confusing...and no doubt left many others scratching their heads...

    When I asked you to do a simple worked example...you have now declined...instead you have now directed us to the Osipov-Lanchester Equations...

    I honestly can say that indeed I am not familiar with the Osipov-Lanchester mathematics, nor the saturation threshold math...and would therefore be very grateful to you if you could explain this in a way that a 'pop-sci' dummy like me can understand...

    I will admit that I do have more than a nodding acquaintance with differential and integral calculus...so it should not be very difficult to explain these math models to me...

    I am not trying to be facetious...I take you at your word that your math will support your scenario...and I would like to understand fully how this math relates to the subject under discussion here...ie a hypothetical SEAD operation in Syria...

    And finally, you have now made the assertion...

    '...To take Khmeimim out of action for at least several days–two weeks from the top of my head is 100-120 TLAMs...'
     
    Fine...I will start from there...in my next comment...where I will be discussing what is known about the TLAM strike on Shayrat airfield last April...

    PS: For anyone else reading this...and considering that two commenters have graciously experessed interest in hearing my further discussion...my continuation of a realistic SEAD operation in Syria will be postponed until I finish my rebuttal to the above claim regarding Hmeimim airfield from Mr. Martyanov...It should not take long...

    I read your article here and identified a basic problem in your premise of conducting a SEAD operation using Tomahawks and other standoff cruise missiles…[aka TLAM...ie Tomahawk Land Attack Missile...] I remarked only in passing that this notion is not factually valid, since TLAMs and ALCMs [Air Launched Cruise Missiles]…do not have the ability to strike moving targets…such as mobile Russian SAMs in Syria…

    Here is what you remarked actually:

    It is true that Russian standoff missiles such as the ship and sub-launched Kalibr, and the air-launched Kh-101 [aka X-101] are advanced and formidable weapons…but this author’s analysis makes a fundamental error in assuming that Russian aviation and air defenses in Syria would be ‘eventually overwhelmed’ by a US and possibly ‘coalition’ allied attack…and that the deterrent against any such action would be a possible Russian retaliation on US ships and airfields in the region using said standoff weapons…

    Here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/russia-the-800-pound-gorilla/#comment-2043747

    Now, after I gave you the approximate number of TLAMs of US Navy which could be the part of the first salvo–not to mention carrier aviation which would follow (see the size of airwings for 2 theoretical CBGs)–you are trying to preach some abstract BS SEAD based on a campaign which was 18 years ago and saw a completely different set of strategic, operational and tactical circumstances which are absolutely inapplicable to what we have in Syria and you do this without addressing a single operational constant except posting some platitudes. I gave you a basic salvo model–a foundation of what is taught in any serious military academy, which yours truly graduated in 1985 (apart from other officer schools). See the list of constants, again, here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/russia-the-800-pound-gorilla/#comment-2047814

    Until you can justify at least probable values for those, all this discussion makes no professional sense whatsoever. As per how armed forces fight–that is a whole other story, obviously you don’t have good ideas about it. Again, WHY there are so many Pantsirs in Syria? Have an answer?

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    I have asked you several times to explain your math because I really do want to understand your point...

    As you refuse to do so, I am left to assume that you were home sick that day from military academy when they explained how that math works...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. FB says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    I read your article here and identified a basic problem in your premise of conducting a SEAD operation using Tomahawks and other standoff cruise missiles…[aka TLAM...ie Tomahawk Land Attack Missile...] I remarked only in passing that this notion is not factually valid, since TLAMs and ALCMs [Air Launched Cruise Missiles]…do not have the ability to strike moving targets…such as mobile Russian SAMs in Syria…
     
    Here is what you remarked actually:

    It is true that Russian standoff missiles such as the ship and sub-launched Kalibr, and the air-launched Kh-101 [aka X-101] are advanced and formidable weapons…but this author’s analysis makes a fundamental error in assuming that Russian aviation and air defenses in Syria would be ‘eventually overwhelmed’ by a US and possibly ‘coalition’ allied attack…and that the deterrent against any such action would be a possible Russian retaliation on US ships and airfields in the region using said standoff weapons…
     
    Here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/russia-the-800-pound-gorilla/#comment-2043747


    Now, after I gave you the approximate number of TLAMs of US Navy which could be the part of the first salvo--not to mention carrier aviation which would follow (see the size of airwings for 2 theoretical CBGs)--you are trying to preach some abstract BS SEAD based on a campaign which was 18 years ago and saw a completely different set of strategic, operational and tactical circumstances which are absolutely inapplicable to what we have in Syria and you do this without addressing a single operational constant except posting some platitudes. I gave you a basic salvo model--a foundation of what is taught in any serious military academy, which yours truly graduated in 1985 (apart from other officer schools). See the list of constants, again, here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/russia-the-800-pound-gorilla/#comment-2047814

    Until you can justify at least probable values for those, all this discussion makes no professional sense whatsoever. As per how armed forces fight--that is a whole other story, obviously you don't have good ideas about it. Again, WHY there are so many Pantsirs in Syria? Have an answer?

    I have asked you several times to explain your math because I really do want to understand your point…

    As you refuse to do so, I am left to assume that you were home sick that day from military academy when they explained how that math works…

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I thank you both for continuing this debate as both of you appear knowledgable whereas I know next to nothing of these matters. That's the thing about conflicts and wars, nobody really knows for sure and the testing is terrible. I've learned a lot about many different topics here at Unz from many contributors and commenters. Do carry on. Cheers
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    I have asked you several times to explain your math because I really do want to understand your point…
     
    Here is my point:

    You state:

    It is true that Russian standoff missiles such as the ship and sub-launched Kalibr, and the air-launched Kh-101 [aka X-101] are advanced and formidable weapons…but this author’s analysis makes a fundamental error in assuming that Russian aviation and air defenses in Syria would be ‘eventually overwhelmed’ by a US and possibly ‘coalition’ allied attack…and that the deterrent against any such action would be a possible Russian retaliation on US ships and airfields in the region using said standoff weapons…
     
    I state: it is a fanboy BS written by somebody who has zero serious military experience and never dealt professionally with any types of weapon systems, let alone used them in training or combat settings.

    I reiterate, you stated that my article was wrong and claimed that you can prove it. So far you proved this: a list of things you have no clue about any military real professional who graduated any US War College is taught:

    In classic Salvo Model, here are coefficients you have to be able to elaborate upon and justify.

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1Et9W3Obklk/WeiiIazaf2I/AAAAAAAABMo/durioRe5h9gVFh1c879kr5tXGo8RqGIzgCLcBGAs/s1600/Salvo-2.jpg

    Without that, there is NO substantive professional discussion--this is the point I am trying to convey to you for how many posts now? You claimed that my point was wrong, the burden of proof is on you. I already gave you some basic intro into classic, not classified, combat models and now you are asking me to explain the whole "math" behind it? I gave you (some) sources and presented a couple workable examples (I assigned some coefficients in classic Salvo model--just plug them in formula) to at least give you some minor impression of how professionals assess (before the whole thing goes into computers in OPD in US or GOU in Russia, as an example, which run several--a range--of operational outcomes). You ask me to effectively teach you things which require years of training and people write some serious advanced graduate and post-graduate theses on that. The range of my capabilities in that are my articles which I write, where I already take a burden on myself in making statements which exclude necessity for others who read them to plow through fairly tedious and unclear for many raw calculations and assessemnts. I am not here to give lessons on basic operational research, let alone on Operational Planning which in every seriously armed nation is contained in the Operational Manuals which go under the Top Secret (Special Significance--Osoboi Vazhnosti--in Russia) or Code Word--extremely classified documents category. I repeat, again, my question without answering which this whole thing is absolutely useless: do you know saturation threshold of S-300 or S-400? Can you define it? How does it factor into dyadic salvo relations? If you cannot define it--then what's the point of discussing anything here? You also still continue to omit the answer to a very direct question: why Russia suddenly delivered the second batch of Pantsirs to Syria? It has everything with TLAMs and S-300, 400 there.

    https://southfront.org/syrian-air-defense-force-and-its-pantsir-s1-systems/

    I see no reason to continue to discuss anything before you answer questions and elaborate on the coefficients I presented. After all, you stated, not me, that my point is based on a false premise and that S-400 (recall when the S-300 actually arrived in Syria, it was AFTER S-400) will easily shoot down anything. I have different opinion, despite knowing (for sure) that Russian AD complexes are best in the world, and that is what stated in my article, which, in your opinion, is based on a false premise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @FB
    I will field this question if I may...

    This story of the damaged F-35 ran yesterday originally in the Israeli media...

    http://www.kan.org.il/item/?itemId=23623

    you can use google translate to get the English version...

    The story is that the F35 was damaged in a bird strike as it was coming in to land...in a training incident that is claimed to have happened two weeks ago...but only reported hours after the skirmish with Syrian air defenses...

    '...the plane is grounded since the incident and it is unclear when it will resume activity - if at all...'
     
    There are a number of interesting technical considerations here...

    First and foremost is the matter that the plane appears to be seriously damaged...since the report states that it is not clear if it will ever fly again...

    '...An Israeli stealth aircraft of the F-35 (Adir), considered to be the most advanced in the world, was hit two weeks ago during a bird-training exercise...'
     
    Say what...?

    What the hell is a bird-training exercise...?

    If such an 'exercise' took place it would be the world's first...since it is difficult to imagine how one could get birds to cooperate by flying into an airplane...

    Then an IAF spokesman called these reports incorrect...

    '... In preparation for a routine landing of the F-35, two injuries were found in the fuselage following a collision with the birds...'
     
    So we know one very important piece of information...the bird strike happened during the landing phase of the flight...this is important because the landing speed is the slowest flying speed of any aircraft...

    The F35 landing speed is not published...but we can compare what is known about the F16, which is similar in weight and wing area...

    The F16 landing speed is about 140 knots [160 mph]...this is about the speed at which a small private piston-prop engine cruises...

    At this rather slow speed it would take a very large bird to cause significant damage to the airframe of a fighter jet which is much stronger than a slow-speed piston aircraft...

    There have been literally hundreds of bird strikes involving such low-speed propeller light aircraft...in most cases the bird flies into the propeller and is instantly diced...causing no real damage...the worst scenario is where a bird strikes the windscreen and can shatter it, although even light-aircraft windscreen need to meet certification standards for bird strike resistance...

    here is a thread with many first-hand accounts of private pilots who have experienced bird strikes...

    http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/599521-anyone-else-had-bird-strike-light-aircraft.html

    Reading these accounts is instructive...

    Here's one that is particularly interesting because it hit the airplane wing...

    '...Hit a seagull on short final (doing about 65 knots) in a PA28 a few years ago. Right wing, right between the two outer ribs. Made a huge dent, with the edges of the aluminum plating torn from the rivets and whatnot. The repair took three weeks...'
     
    A seagull is a fair-sized bird...although the speed of 65 knots is quite low...much lower than a fighters landing speed which is about double...but again, we note that a fighter structure is many times stronger than that of a light plane...

    Here's an FAA report with pictures of a Navy T44A that struck a very large bird on its wing...a turkey vulture...

    http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=1&LLID=11&LLTypeID=7

    The T44 is a military version of a popular civil turboprop, the Beechcraft King Air...which cruises at about 300 knots [350 mph]...

    The damage to the wing is considerable, but did not preclude a safe landing...

    My own take on this is that a bird strike on a fighter airframe during landing would not result in serious damage...[a bird ingestion into the engine would be more serious...but this is not what is reported to have happened...]

    Another crucial clue...the IAF has not released any pictures of the airplane...why not...?

    Let us look at the pictures and see for ourselves if the damage is consistent with a bird strike or whether it indicates something else as the cause...

    This fact alone is enough to call the IAF story into doubt...as well as the curious timing...why announce it hours after the scuffle with Syrian SAMs...why wasn't it announced two weeks ago when it happened...?

    There is no plausible answer to either of these questions...

    Of course various know-nothing commentators are quickly dismissing the possibility that the F35 sustained damage from a missile shot as 'conspiracy theory'...

    Mostly these know-nothings claim...without any basis in fact...that the Syrian SA5 [aka S200] could never hit an F35...or even an F16 or F15...

    Bottom line is that this question cannot be resolved at this point...but there is certainly much to suspect here...

    Thank you. I can’t help thinking that if the most expensive, and some would say controversial, fighter plane in history can be hit with a much older SAM then it would surely be totally at risk to exposure to the newer and vastly superior variants and a huge denunciation of the Emperors fine raiment, sending ripples throughout the MIC and it’s customer base worldwide.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Thanks for your comment...

    We must remember that we cannot be certain that the F35 story about a bird-strike is not true...I have simply tried to bring some facts about bird strikes to the discussion, which seem to raise suspicion about this story...

    As for the the possibility of the Syrian SAM hitting the F35...we cannot be sure about that either...

    I had mentioned in my very first post on this thread the Serb shootdown of the US F117 stealth jet...that was the F35 of its day...the pinnacle of US military technology...

    Yet the Serbs brought one down with a 1961 era S125 [aka SA3], which is not even as capable as the Syrian S200 [aka SA5], which were the next generation after S125 ...

    I also mentioned that a second F117 was damaged enough that it never flew again...here is my source...a 2005 paper written by former USAF test pilot Colonel Everest S. Riccione...

    '...Of the three aircraft shot down during our incursion into Serbia, one was an F–16 flown by a pilot doing other than he was directed to do, and two were the most stealthy F–117 Night Hawks, one of which staggered back to its home base never to fly again, so it is seldom counted...'
     
    That is on the bottom of page 10, footnote 18...you can find the Riccione paper here...

    http://www.pogoarchives.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf

    Lambeth also mentions the second F117...on page 16...

    '...another F-117 sustained light damage from a nearby SA-3 detonation...'
     
    On this matter, the account of Riccione can be considered more authoritative as he is a retired USAF officer with more access to sensitive information than a civilian like Dr. Lambeth...also his 2005 paper is more recent than Lambeth's 2002 paper, so more sensitive information would have trickled out by then...

    Lambeth himself acknowledges that he found it difficult to get information from the USAF regarding the F117 shootdown...page 13 second paragraph...

    '...the Air Force has remained understandably silent about the confluence of events it believes occasioned the F-117’s downing...'
     
    This silence is typical when an embarrassing loss occurs...as is disinformation like putting out the story that the second F117 was only 'lightly damaged...' [note the similarities between the IAF story on the bird strikes, ie light damage...]

    Fortunately we get the real story from Col. Riccione...Btw any aircraft that is written off due to battle damage counts as a kill, even if it manages to limp back to base and land...if it doesn't fly again it is counted as killed...

    So we see here a perfect example of the kind of deception games played by the military...this is true of any country's military of course...none of them will admit an air combat loss, unless the adversary has irrefutable proof...

    Btw...here is the link to the Lambeth paper again...it starts on page 9...

    http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-16_Issue-1-4/sum02.pdf

    Also a note about Col. Riccione...he was not only a top USAF test pilot, but an influential expert on air combat tactics and aircraft design for many years...he passed away in 2015 at the age of 93...

    He was a core member of the "Fighter Mafia'...which was largely responsible for the design characteristics of the F14...F15...F16...F18...and A10...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia

    The heavily politicized wikipedia now casts the fighter mafia individuals as 'controversial' and tries to downplay their historical significance...which is pathetic to those who know better...

    [hint...the reason is that many of the surviving members of the group have been the ones pointing out the serious flaws in the F35...which is said to fly like an F16 carrying external fuel tanks...ie severely degraded and not capable of air to air engagements...a fighter pilot will drop his external tanks instantly if engaged by an adversary...]

    Anyway...the Riccione paper is very relevant to today's situation and today's generation of stealth aircraft, especially the ultra-hyped F22...

    I will have more on stealth in further discussions...

    And finally...it is worth noting that all three Serbian kills of US aircraft...the two F117s and Goldfein's F16 were accomplished by the same Serb air defense unit...the 250'th Air Defense Missile Brigade, commanded by Col. Zoltan Dani...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/250th_Air_Defense_Missile_Brigade

    Col. Dani trained his men to knock down their stationary S125 in 90 minutes...load it on a truck and set it up in another location...thus creating improvised mobility...

    He also trained his men to be highly proficient in following a set of tactics, which paid off greatly...

    This highlights the role of training and proficiency...unlike the focus on hardware among many amateur commentators...the best hardware in the wrong hands is useless...whether it be an airplane or a SAM...

    Likewise even old hardware in the hands of top-notch crews can knock teeth out of overconfident cowboys sporting the latest shiny gizmos...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @FB
    I have asked you several times to explain your math because I really do want to understand your point...

    As you refuse to do so, I am left to assume that you were home sick that day from military academy when they explained how that math works...

    I thank you both for continuing this debate as both of you appear knowledgable whereas I know next to nothing of these matters. That’s the thing about conflicts and wars, nobody really knows for sure and the testing is terrible. I’ve learned a lot about many different topics here at Unz from many contributors and commenters. Do carry on. Cheers

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Thank you for your comment...I'm glad this discussion is of interest and I will do my best to try to bring a better understanding...

    As for the IAF F35...we must remember that we cannot assume that the plane was actually hit by the Syrians...we simply note the weakness of the story presented by the Israelis...

    Let us keep in mind that the F117 shot down in Serbia was the F35 of its day...the shootdown was a bolt from the blue that nobody expected...Dr. Lambeth, in the paper I cited in my first comment used the analogy of 9/11 to describe it...I will give the link again here

    http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-16_Issue-1-4/sum02.pdf

    Dr. Lambeth's article starts on page 9...

    And also we note that a second F117 was heavily damaged by Serb SAMs...as Col. Everest Riccione [USAF, retired] writes in 2005...

    '...Of the three aircraft shot down during our incursion into Serbia, one was an F–16 flown by a pilot doing other than he was directed to do, and two were the most stealthy F–117 Night Hawks, one of which staggered back to its home base never to fly again, so it is seldom counted...'
     
    That quote is in this paper by Col Riccione...bottom of page 10, footnote 18...

    http://www.pogoarchives.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf

    It is correct of course to count that second F-117 as shot down, because any plane that is damaged beyond repair in combat and is written off, has always been counted as such...

    This is an important point...as it proves that the Serb F117 takedown was no fluke...both shots came from a 1961 Soviet SAM the SA3 [aka S-125]...which is even more ancient than Syrian S200 and far less capable...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-125_Neva/Pechora#FR_Yugoslavia

    Both of those F117 kills, as well as Goldfein's F16 were brought down by the same Serb air defense unit...the 250'th Air Defense Missile Brigade, commanded by Colonel Zoltan Dani...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/250th_Air_Defense_Missile_Brigade

    The S125 is a stationary SAM but Col Dani trained his men to knock it down in 90 minutes so it could be transported by truck and reassembled at another site...he drilled his men well and the result is that his one SAM brigade brought down two F117 jets and an F16...

    This is an important point that is lost on armchair generals...training is the most important part...even the best hardware is useless in the wrong hands...

    And...even ancient hardware used properly and creatively can knock some teeth out of so-called wonder-weapons...

    You will notice that Col Riccione has much to say about stealth and the F22 etc...he passed away in 2015 at age 93, but he was a great test pilot and very influential in the development of modern fighter jets and tactics...a core member of so-called 'Fighter Mafia' which brought us the F14, F15,F16,F18 and A10...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia

    I will have more to say about 'stealth' if anyone is interested in exploring this subject...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. FB says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    I thank you both for continuing this debate as both of you appear knowledgable whereas I know next to nothing of these matters. That's the thing about conflicts and wars, nobody really knows for sure and the testing is terrible. I've learned a lot about many different topics here at Unz from many contributors and commenters. Do carry on. Cheers

    Thank you for your comment…I’m glad this discussion is of interest and I will do my best to try to bring a better understanding…

    As for the IAF F35…we must remember that we cannot assume that the plane was actually hit by the Syrians…we simply note the weakness of the story presented by the Israelis…

    Let us keep in mind that the F117 shot down in Serbia was the F35 of its day…the shootdown was a bolt from the blue that nobody expected…Dr. Lambeth, in the paper I cited in my first comment used the analogy of 9/11 to describe it…I will give the link again here

    http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-16_Issue-1-4/sum02.pdf

    Dr. Lambeth’s article starts on page 9…

    And also we note that a second F117 was heavily damaged by Serb SAMs…as Col. Everest Riccione [USAF, retired] writes in 2005…

    ‘…Of the three aircraft shot down during our incursion into Serbia, one was an F–16 flown by a pilot doing other than he was directed to do, and two were the most stealthy F–117 Night Hawks, one of which staggered back to its home base never to fly again, so it is seldom counted…’

    That quote is in this paper by Col Riccione…bottom of page 10, footnote 18…

    http://www.pogoarchives.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf

    It is correct of course to count that second F-117 as shot down, because any plane that is damaged beyond repair in combat and is written off, has always been counted as such…

    This is an important point…as it proves that the Serb F117 takedown was no fluke…both shots came from a 1961 Soviet SAM the SA3 [aka S-125]…which is even more ancient than Syrian S200 and far less capable…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-125_Neva/Pechora#FR_Yugoslavia

    Both of those F117 kills, as well as Goldfein’s F16 were brought down by the same Serb air defense unit…the 250′th Air Defense Missile Brigade, commanded by Colonel Zoltan Dani…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/250th_Air_Defense_Missile_Brigade

    The S125 is a stationary SAM but Col Dani trained his men to knock it down in 90 minutes so it could be transported by truck and reassembled at another site…he drilled his men well and the result is that his one SAM brigade brought down two F117 jets and an F16…

    This is an important point that is lost on armchair generals…training is the most important part…even the best hardware is useless in the wrong hands…

    And…even ancient hardware used properly and creatively can knock some teeth out of so-called wonder-weapons…

    You will notice that Col Riccione has much to say about stealth and the F22 etc…he passed away in 2015 at age 93, but he was a great test pilot and very influential in the development of modern fighter jets and tactics…a core member of so-called ‘Fighter Mafia’ which brought us the F14, F15,F16,F18 and A10…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia

    I will have more to say about ‘stealth’ if anyone is interested in exploring this subject…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Erebus says:

    Echoing Nosy, my thanks to both FB and Andrei for continuing the discussion.

    In my thinking of WTF happened in Syria that allowed the Russians to apparently saunter in and take over the M.E. involves more than one 800lb gorilla.
    In the first place, the most striking thing about the RuAF’s operations is their combat efficiency. So few doing so much for so long belies a very carefully constructed force plan. I remember seeing some (ex?)USAF pundit on TV in the very early days talking about what he could do with a force that size: “I could get 20-25 sorties a day out of our guys with that size force. We’ll see what the Russians do”. In the event, the RuAF routinely doubled and sometimes tripled his boast.
    That, and the early demonstration of stand-off power in the form of Kalibrs from the Caspian and TU120s from Russian airspace, occasionally augmented by sorties from Iran, was coupled to what I believe (or imagine) were and remain what gave the other 800lb gorillas room to manouver.

    The next gorilla is the Russians coupled this optimally efficient but minimal force to a closely coordinated training and refit of the SAA (inc SAAF) and especially took their officer corps back to school to give them a crash course on how to combine arms effectively. The boost in morale for an army that had been fighting uphill for 4 bloody years must have been incalculable. However efficient the RuAF were, without equally effective boots on the ground they weren’t going to accomplish much but prolong the bloodshed and destruction. Russian battlefield advice and (my guess) de-facto command then cemented that new knowledge and esprit de corps into battlefield victories. There’s nothing like a few victories to turn battle fatigued soldiers back into an effective fighting force.
    As that developed, the Syrian/Russian intelligence networks began to work together effectively to get timely information to their commanders so they could begin to leverage what they learned and gain victories, creating a virtuous circle. Within a year, the SAA became the most battle hardened, and probably the most effective indigenous ground force in the region.

    The 3rd gorilla, and this one is probably 900lbs, is that while all that was going on the Russians turned on a diplomatic-political full court press that totally caught the West flat-footed. If the USM worried about Kalibrs, the US DoS and its EU/M.E. satraps stood slack-jawed as anti-Assad miltants were pre-emptively turned into neutrals (and occasionally joined the SAA), peace talks were arranged and attended, de-confliction zones were created, humanitarian aid delivered, and partnerships formed and firmed with Turkey, Iran, Hezbollah, Iraq, Egypt and of course Syria. Now Libya beckons, and even the Saudis and their little GCC brothers are tugging their forelocks and looking for reasons to visit Moscow while Netanyahu is shitting pyramids. That adds up to an unprecedented diplomatic accomplishment. Everyone, and not just the Americans, are still standing slack-jawed wondering what happened. All those Foreign Ministers and their 1000s of staff had no plan, nothing to offer and were stood off as effectively when Lavrov’s people went to work as the USM was. Sword dancing and belated THAAD approval is no substitute for energetic goal-oriented diplomacy.

    If the Kalibrs gave the USM pause, and allowed the RuAF the room to run their program to maximum effect, it was in support of an even more effective and carefully coordinated diplomatic program that leveraged battlefield and intelligence developments into political solutions. Combined arms are maximized when they are in turn combined with effective diplomacy. Lavrov’s now a rockstar, while Kerry’s been forgotten and Tillerson can’t seem to find his office. The Russians hit the M.E. theatre with 3 gorillas (at least) and all were supremely fit for the job.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    'Echoing Nosy, my thanks to both FB and Andrei for continuing the discussion.'

     

    Thanks for a very good comment, Erebus...

    Sorry I missed it until now due to the rather spirited exchange with Andrei...

    I think you pulled together very well all of the military, political and diplomatic dimensions in the transformation we are now seeing in the Middle East...

    'In my thinking of WTF happened in Syria that allowed the Russians to apparently saunter in and take over the M.E. involves more than one 800lb gorilla.'
     

    'In the first place, the most striking thing about the RuAF’s operations is their combat efficiency. So few doing so much for so long belies a very carefully constructed force plan.'
     
    Well put...

    'However efficient the RuAF were, without equally effective boots on the ground they weren’t going to accomplish much but prolong the bloodshed and destruction. Russian battlefield advice and (my guess) de-facto command then cemented that new knowledge and esprit de corps into battlefield victories. There’s nothing like a few victories to turn battle fatigued soldiers back into an effective fighting force.'
     
    Again...an important point...

    'The 3rd gorilla, and this one is probably 900lbs, is that while all that was going on the Russians turned on a diplomatic-political full court press that totally caught the West flat-footed. If the USM worried about Kalibrs, the US DoS and its EU/M.E. satraps stood slack-jawed as anti-Assad miltants were pre-emptively turned into neutrals (and occasionally joined the SAA), peace talks were arranged and attended, de-confliction zones were created, humanitarian aid delivered, and partnerships formed and firmed with Turkey, Iran, Hezbollah, Iraq, Egypt and of course Syria.'

     

    And of course... 'Netanyahu shitting pyramids...'

    I agree that the military aspect is just one dimension...and cannot be considered outside of the political and diplomatic...

    What I have tried to do is to bring some discussion to bear on just the military technical aspects...

    We live in dangerous times and while it is unlikely that Russia and US are going to clash militarily in Syria...there are many influential people who are advocating just that...

    It was only months ago that H. Clinton was spouting the neocon plan to impose a US no-fly zone in Syria...

    If such a program were to be embarked upon...a Russo-American clash could conceivably take place...

    We recall also the incredibly irresponsible Shayrat strike which luckily did not draw Russian blood...these things can spiral quite unexpectedly...

    I sense on this thread that people do want to explore the military dimension...and I will offer commentary as long as anyone requests it...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @FB
    I have asked you several times to explain your math because I really do want to understand your point...

    As you refuse to do so, I am left to assume that you were home sick that day from military academy when they explained how that math works...

    I have asked you several times to explain your math because I really do want to understand your point…

    Here is my point:

    You state:

    It is true that Russian standoff missiles such as the ship and sub-launched Kalibr, and the air-launched Kh-101 [aka X-101] are advanced and formidable weapons…but this author’s analysis makes a fundamental error in assuming that Russian aviation and air defenses in Syria would be ‘eventually overwhelmed’ by a US and possibly ‘coalition’ allied attack…and that the deterrent against any such action would be a possible Russian retaliation on US ships and airfields in the region using said standoff weapons…

    I state: it is a fanboy BS written by somebody who has zero serious military experience and never dealt professionally with any types of weapon systems, let alone used them in training or combat settings.

    I reiterate, you stated that my article was wrong and claimed that you can prove it. So far you proved this: a list of things you have no clue about any military real professional who graduated any US War College is taught:

    In classic Salvo Model, here are coefficients you have to be able to elaborate upon and justify.

    Without that, there is NO substantive professional discussion–this is the point I am trying to convey to you for how many posts now? You claimed that my point was wrong, the burden of proof is on you. I already gave you some basic intro into classic, not classified, combat models and now you are asking me to explain the whole “math” behind it? I gave you (some) sources and presented a couple workable examples (I assigned some coefficients in classic Salvo model–just plug them in formula) to at least give you some minor impression of how professionals assess (before the whole thing goes into computers in OPD in US or GOU in Russia, as an example, which run several–a range–of operational outcomes). You ask me to effectively teach you things which require years of training and people write some serious advanced graduate and post-graduate theses on that. The range of my capabilities in that are my articles which I write, where I already take a burden on myself in making statements which exclude necessity for others who read them to plow through fairly tedious and unclear for many raw calculations and assessemnts. I am not here to give lessons on basic operational research, let alone on Operational Planning which in every seriously armed nation is contained in the Operational Manuals which go under the Top Secret (Special Significance–Osoboi Vazhnosti–in Russia) or Code Word–extremely classified documents category. I repeat, again, my question without answering which this whole thing is absolutely useless: do you know saturation threshold of S-300 or S-400? Can you define it? How does it factor into dyadic salvo relations? If you cannot define it–then what’s the point of discussing anything here? You also still continue to omit the answer to a very direct question: why Russia suddenly delivered the second batch of Pantsirs to Syria? It has everything with TLAMs and S-300, 400 there.

    https://southfront.org/syrian-air-defense-force-and-its-pantsir-s1-systems/

    I see no reason to continue to discuss anything before you answer questions and elaborate on the coefficients I presented. After all, you stated, not me, that my point is based on a false premise and that S-400 (recall when the S-300 actually arrived in Syria, it was AFTER S-400) will easily shoot down anything. I have different opinion, despite knowing (for sure) that Russian AD complexes are best in the world, and that is what stated in my article, which, in your opinion, is based on a false premise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Judging by the tone of your tirade...I would say you must have also been sick on the day that they taught officer etiquette at that military academy of yours...

    Look...I'm not here to get into a silly catfight so I will make it short...

    You have now reposted this salvo equation of yours for the umpteenth time without showing how it works...or how you got your result of 'overwhelming Hmeimim with 100 Tomahawks...

    You said...well just plug in the coefficients...

    Well why don't you do that...?

    You're the 'expert'...so walk us through the steps it takes to get the result...

    That equation is a simple algebraic equation...so if you know the coefficients it should not take more than a couple of calculation steps to arrive at the answer...

    I looked up the salvo combat model...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvo_combat_model

    As far as I can tell it relates only to Naval battles...

    It lists as examples the Falklands War...the Battle of the Coral Sea...and the Battle of Savo Island...

    All of this has exactly nothing to do with SEAD...if it does then please explain how...

    The closest I could find in terms of relevance is that this model has also been 'modified' to use in gaming 'tactical ballistic missile defense...'

    We note here that ballistic missiles have nothing to do with cruise missiles, which are actually improperly called 'missiles' because they are actually aircraft...they fly on wings creating aerodynamic lift and they are powered by aircraft-type turbofan engine,s burning aircraft jet fuel...

    I will just note in passing that in previous comments you have berated my comments about the SEAD operation in the Kosovo War as irrelevant because it is 18 years old...

    Yet that Salvo model of yours lists examples from WW2...and even the Charge of the Light Brigade during the Crimean War of the 1850s...

    Since you have been rather blunt with me...I shall do likewise...either put up or shut up with your salvo model math...
    , @Erebus
    I note that the coefficients in your insert (red boxes) appear to be qualitative terms, sorta like the "Q" of a resonance. Are there mathematical formulas from which these terms are themselves derived (as a resonance's "Q" is), or are they purely qualitative, IOW arbitrary estimates based on more or less formal assessments of intelligence reports?

    If the latter, as the values assigned to the coefficients could have a pretty dramatic impact on the end values generated by the equations, one can see how bad intelligence/assessment can easily result in one side "bringing a knife to a gunfight". In particular, as the USM seems to find itself caught flat-footed every time the Russians make a move, it indicates that the USM badly needs to update its coefficients.

    I also note that the definition of b3' uses terms not defined elsewhere on the page. What is b3'?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. FB says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Thank you. I can't help thinking that if the most expensive, and some would say controversial, fighter plane in history can be hit with a much older SAM then it would surely be totally at risk to exposure to the newer and vastly superior variants and a huge denunciation of the Emperors fine raiment, sending ripples throughout the MIC and it's customer base worldwide.

    Thanks for your comment…

    We must remember that we cannot be certain that the F35 story about a bird-strike is not true…I have simply tried to bring some facts about bird strikes to the discussion, which seem to raise suspicion about this story…

    As for the the possibility of the Syrian SAM hitting the F35…we cannot be sure about that either…

    I had mentioned in my very first post on this thread the Serb shootdown of the US F117 stealth jet…that was the F35 of its day…the pinnacle of US military technology…

    Yet the Serbs brought one down with a 1961 era S125 [aka SA3], which is not even as capable as the Syrian S200 [aka SA5], which were the next generation after S125 …

    I also mentioned that a second F117 was damaged enough that it never flew again…here is my source…a 2005 paper written by former USAF test pilot Colonel Everest S. Riccione…

    ‘…Of the three aircraft shot down during our incursion into Serbia, one was an F–16 flown by a pilot doing other than he was directed to do, and two were the most stealthy F–117 Night Hawks, one of which staggered back to its home base never to fly again, so it is seldom counted…’

    That is on the bottom of page 10, footnote 18…you can find the Riccione paper here…

    http://www.pogoarchives.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf

    Lambeth also mentions the second F117…on page 16…

    ‘…another F-117 sustained light damage from a nearby SA-3 detonation…’

    On this matter, the account of Riccione can be considered more authoritative as he is a retired USAF officer with more access to sensitive information than a civilian like Dr. Lambeth…also his 2005 paper is more recent than Lambeth’s 2002 paper, so more sensitive information would have trickled out by then…

    Lambeth himself acknowledges that he found it difficult to get information from the USAF regarding the F117 shootdown…page 13 second paragraph…

    ‘…the Air Force has remained understandably silent about the confluence of events it believes occasioned the F-117’s downing…’

    This silence is typical when an embarrassing loss occurs…as is disinformation like putting out the story that the second F117 was only ‘lightly damaged…’ [note the similarities between the IAF story on the bird strikes, ie light damage...]

    Fortunately we get the real story from Col. Riccione…Btw any aircraft that is written off due to battle damage counts as a kill, even if it manages to limp back to base and land…if it doesn’t fly again it is counted as killed…

    So we see here a perfect example of the kind of deception games played by the military…this is true of any country’s military of course…none of them will admit an air combat loss, unless the adversary has irrefutable proof…

    Btw…here is the link to the Lambeth paper again…it starts on page 9…

    http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-16_Issue-1-4/sum02.pdf

    Also a note about Col. Riccione…he was not only a top USAF test pilot, but an influential expert on air combat tactics and aircraft design for many years…he passed away in 2015 at the age of 93…

    He was a core member of the “Fighter Mafia’…which was largely responsible for the design characteristics of the F14…F15…F16…F18…and A10…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia

    The heavily politicized wikipedia now casts the fighter mafia individuals as ‘controversial’ and tries to downplay their historical significance…which is pathetic to those who know better…

    [hint...the reason is that many of the surviving members of the group have been the ones pointing out the serious flaws in the F35...which is said to fly like an F16 carrying external fuel tanks...ie severely degraded and not capable of air to air engagements...a fighter pilot will drop his external tanks instantly if engaged by an adversary...]

    Anyway…the Riccione paper is very relevant to today’s situation and today’s generation of stealth aircraft, especially the ultra-hyped F22…

    I will have more on stealth in further discussions…

    And finally…it is worth noting that all three Serbian kills of US aircraft…the two F117s and Goldfein’s F16 were accomplished by the same Serb air defense unit…the 250′th Air Defense Missile Brigade, commanded by Col. Zoltan Dani…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/250th_Air_Defense_Missile_Brigade

    Col. Dani trained his men to knock down their stationary S125 in 90 minutes…load it on a truck and set it up in another location…thus creating improvised mobility…

    He also trained his men to be highly proficient in following a set of tactics, which paid off greatly…

    This highlights the role of training and proficiency…unlike the focus on hardware among many amateur commentators…the best hardware in the wrong hands is useless…whether it be an airplane or a SAM…

    Likewise even old hardware in the hands of top-notch crews can knock teeth out of overconfident cowboys sporting the latest shiny gizmos…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. FB says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    I have asked you several times to explain your math because I really do want to understand your point…
     
    Here is my point:

    You state:

    It is true that Russian standoff missiles such as the ship and sub-launched Kalibr, and the air-launched Kh-101 [aka X-101] are advanced and formidable weapons…but this author’s analysis makes a fundamental error in assuming that Russian aviation and air defenses in Syria would be ‘eventually overwhelmed’ by a US and possibly ‘coalition’ allied attack…and that the deterrent against any such action would be a possible Russian retaliation on US ships and airfields in the region using said standoff weapons…
     
    I state: it is a fanboy BS written by somebody who has zero serious military experience and never dealt professionally with any types of weapon systems, let alone used them in training or combat settings.

    I reiterate, you stated that my article was wrong and claimed that you can prove it. So far you proved this: a list of things you have no clue about any military real professional who graduated any US War College is taught:

    In classic Salvo Model, here are coefficients you have to be able to elaborate upon and justify.

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1Et9W3Obklk/WeiiIazaf2I/AAAAAAAABMo/durioRe5h9gVFh1c879kr5tXGo8RqGIzgCLcBGAs/s1600/Salvo-2.jpg

    Without that, there is NO substantive professional discussion--this is the point I am trying to convey to you for how many posts now? You claimed that my point was wrong, the burden of proof is on you. I already gave you some basic intro into classic, not classified, combat models and now you are asking me to explain the whole "math" behind it? I gave you (some) sources and presented a couple workable examples (I assigned some coefficients in classic Salvo model--just plug them in formula) to at least give you some minor impression of how professionals assess (before the whole thing goes into computers in OPD in US or GOU in Russia, as an example, which run several--a range--of operational outcomes). You ask me to effectively teach you things which require years of training and people write some serious advanced graduate and post-graduate theses on that. The range of my capabilities in that are my articles which I write, where I already take a burden on myself in making statements which exclude necessity for others who read them to plow through fairly tedious and unclear for many raw calculations and assessemnts. I am not here to give lessons on basic operational research, let alone on Operational Planning which in every seriously armed nation is contained in the Operational Manuals which go under the Top Secret (Special Significance--Osoboi Vazhnosti--in Russia) or Code Word--extremely classified documents category. I repeat, again, my question without answering which this whole thing is absolutely useless: do you know saturation threshold of S-300 or S-400? Can you define it? How does it factor into dyadic salvo relations? If you cannot define it--then what's the point of discussing anything here? You also still continue to omit the answer to a very direct question: why Russia suddenly delivered the second batch of Pantsirs to Syria? It has everything with TLAMs and S-300, 400 there.

    https://southfront.org/syrian-air-defense-force-and-its-pantsir-s1-systems/

    I see no reason to continue to discuss anything before you answer questions and elaborate on the coefficients I presented. After all, you stated, not me, that my point is based on a false premise and that S-400 (recall when the S-300 actually arrived in Syria, it was AFTER S-400) will easily shoot down anything. I have different opinion, despite knowing (for sure) that Russian AD complexes are best in the world, and that is what stated in my article, which, in your opinion, is based on a false premise.

    Judging by the tone of your tirade…I would say you must have also been sick on the day that they taught officer etiquette at that military academy of yours…

    Look…I’m not here to get into a silly catfight so I will make it short…

    You have now reposted this salvo equation of yours for the umpteenth time without showing how it works…or how you got your result of ‘overwhelming Hmeimim with 100 Tomahawks…

    You said…well just plug in the coefficients…

    Well why don’t you do that…?

    You’re the ‘expert’…so walk us through the steps it takes to get the result…

    That equation is a simple algebraic equation…so if you know the coefficients it should not take more than a couple of calculation steps to arrive at the answer…

    I looked up the salvo combat model…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvo_combat_model

    As far as I can tell it relates only to Naval battles…

    It lists as examples the Falklands War…the Battle of the Coral Sea…and the Battle of Savo Island…

    All of this has exactly nothing to do with SEAD…if it does then please explain how…

    The closest I could find in terms of relevance is that this model has also been ‘modified’ to use in gaming ‘tactical ballistic missile defense…’

    We note here that ballistic missiles have nothing to do with cruise missiles, which are actually improperly called ‘missiles’ because they are actually aircraft…they fly on wings creating aerodynamic lift and they are powered by aircraft-type turbofan engine,s burning aircraft jet fuel…

    I will just note in passing that in previous comments you have berated my comments about the SEAD operation in the Kosovo War as irrelevant because it is 18 years old…

    Yet that Salvo model of yours lists examples from WW2…and even the Charge of the Light Brigade during the Crimean War of the 1850s…

    Since you have been rather blunt with me…I shall do likewise…either put up or shut up with your salvo model math…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    As far as I can tell it relates only to Naval battles…
     
    Well, guess what Fleet against Shore is? In fact, main task of US Navy is "projection of power" inland. In fact, US Congress has a subcommittee: United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces. All missiles in theoretical salvo will be fired from US Navy's assets in and under the sea. I told you, to "reduce" the Khmeimim base to a single stationary fleet entity, which in essence it is and could be in terms of its force structure be precisely (AD Complexes, aviation etc.) "reduced" to some theoretical Aircraft Carrier. This is first. Second, Salvo Model is a model which is developed for a MISSILE EXCHANGE and all other parts of basic operational theory, from augmented (expanded) Osipov-Lanchester Equations to development of math. expectations for specific weapon systems are totally applicable to a ground warfare. You need those omegas and probabilities when developing ground operation. Third, since you refuse, for unknown reason, to plug in assumed (dopushennye) coefficients, into what effectively could be reduced to a simplest (vulgar) attrition percentage model, OK. I quote myself from previous post:

    So you will need to address, say, B which will be Khmeimim viewed as a single and extremely well defended single entity. So look at dB and play with coefficients, especially with b1 and b3. To take Khmeimim out of action for at least several days–two weeks from the top of my head is 100-120 TLAMs, this is your b1. But the trick of course and the whole point is to know your b3. In reality, in augmented model, which calculates degrading (attrition dB) b3 is merely a multiplier in formation of b3′ (Prime) which is a product of b3 itself, Delta(b) (lower case) which is Defensive Alertness/Readiness, and Tau (lower case) which is Training Effectiveness. You will also need b4 which is Seduction Countermeasure Effectiveness and the whole thing suddenly becomes very complex and hm… classified. But, say, we give our b3 a value of 200 (remember, my question on Saturation Threshold? You know how many missiles of S-300 or S-400 takes to shoot down a single TLAM? Math. expectations, those proverbial Omegas–a huge state secret). Hey, let’s say even 300 but then comes the issue what if there are several 150 TLAM salvos?
     
    1. A x Alpha=number of US Navy units attacking Khmeimim with a single initial salvo of TLAMs: 2 Ohio-class SSGNs, 2 Ticonderoga-class Cruisers, 1 Arleigh Burke-class DDG--this is your A. We "spread" for each hull, in reality it will be uneven, 5 hulls x 80 TLAMs each (this is your Alpha) = 400 TLAMs in first salvo;

    2. Your B=1, since Khmeimim is "reduced" to a single (which it is BTW) combat entity.
    3. Your b3 we assume as 300--this is how many missiles (in reality calculation is very complex but not the focus of this discussion), here I go overboard, thus making your product of b3 x B= 300 x 1=300.

    4. Your b1, which is the number of TLAMs required to put Khmeimim out of action is 120.
    5. We plug in numbers in our BASIC Salvo dB= (400 - 300)/120= 100/120= 0.8333 = 83.33%

    Roughly 83 per cent of Khmeimim will be obliterated due to 83% percent of "leackers" . This is a hard kill. Reality, however, will be much more complex and I gave you a very favorable numbers for Russians. Now, I am not going to discuss with you whole complexity of a situation which does account for about couple hundreds different variables which factor in all of that, including specific tactical and operational methods designed to mitigate an obvious disadvantage of Russian Forces in Syria should CENTCOM decides (ordered) to bring to bear and it can bring some damn serious forces. But, as I said, how it is done and calculated is in documents which constitute a most serious state secret for any nation with the first class militaries--both Russia and US qualify. Expounding on the augmented models? Again: do you know S-300 and S-400 saturation threshold? As per 800-pound gorilla I already wrote in my article.

    , @Andrei Martyanov

    Since you have been rather blunt with me…I shall do likewise…either put up or shut up with your salvo model math…
     
    Still counting how many times I asked you questions which you simply ignore. Do you want me to repeat them yet again? I can even tell you why you are ignoring them, but both me and you we know why.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @FB
    Judging by the tone of your tirade...I would say you must have also been sick on the day that they taught officer etiquette at that military academy of yours...

    Look...I'm not here to get into a silly catfight so I will make it short...

    You have now reposted this salvo equation of yours for the umpteenth time without showing how it works...or how you got your result of 'overwhelming Hmeimim with 100 Tomahawks...

    You said...well just plug in the coefficients...

    Well why don't you do that...?

    You're the 'expert'...so walk us through the steps it takes to get the result...

    That equation is a simple algebraic equation...so if you know the coefficients it should not take more than a couple of calculation steps to arrive at the answer...

    I looked up the salvo combat model...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvo_combat_model

    As far as I can tell it relates only to Naval battles...

    It lists as examples the Falklands War...the Battle of the Coral Sea...and the Battle of Savo Island...

    All of this has exactly nothing to do with SEAD...if it does then please explain how...

    The closest I could find in terms of relevance is that this model has also been 'modified' to use in gaming 'tactical ballistic missile defense...'

    We note here that ballistic missiles have nothing to do with cruise missiles, which are actually improperly called 'missiles' because they are actually aircraft...they fly on wings creating aerodynamic lift and they are powered by aircraft-type turbofan engine,s burning aircraft jet fuel...

    I will just note in passing that in previous comments you have berated my comments about the SEAD operation in the Kosovo War as irrelevant because it is 18 years old...

    Yet that Salvo model of yours lists examples from WW2...and even the Charge of the Light Brigade during the Crimean War of the 1850s...

    Since you have been rather blunt with me...I shall do likewise...either put up or shut up with your salvo model math...

    As far as I can tell it relates only to Naval battles…

    Well, guess what Fleet against Shore is? In fact, main task of US Navy is “projection of power” inland. In fact, US Congress has a subcommittee: United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces. All missiles in theoretical salvo will be fired from US Navy’s assets in and under the sea. I told you, to “reduce” the Khmeimim base to a single stationary fleet entity, which in essence it is and could be in terms of its force structure be precisely (AD Complexes, aviation etc.) “reduced” to some theoretical Aircraft Carrier. This is first. Second, Salvo Model is a model which is developed for a MISSILE EXCHANGE and all other parts of basic operational theory, from augmented (expanded) Osipov-Lanchester Equations to development of math. expectations for specific weapon systems are totally applicable to a ground warfare. You need those omegas and probabilities when developing ground operation. Third, since you refuse, for unknown reason, to plug in assumed (dopushennye) coefficients, into what effectively could be reduced to a simplest (vulgar) attrition percentage model, OK. I quote myself from previous post:

    So you will need to address, say, B which will be Khmeimim viewed as a single and extremely well defended single entity. So look at dB and play with coefficients, especially with b1 and b3. To take Khmeimim out of action for at least several days–two weeks from the top of my head is 100-120 TLAMs, this is your b1. But the trick of course and the whole point is to know your b3. In reality, in augmented model, which calculates degrading (attrition dB) b3 is merely a multiplier in formation of b3′ (Prime) which is a product of b3 itself, Delta(b) (lower case) which is Defensive Alertness/Readiness, and Tau (lower case) which is Training Effectiveness. You will also need b4 which is Seduction Countermeasure Effectiveness and the whole thing suddenly becomes very complex and hm… classified. But, say, we give our b3 a value of 200 (remember, my question on Saturation Threshold? You know how many missiles of S-300 or S-400 takes to shoot down a single TLAM? Math. expectations, those proverbial Omegas–a huge state secret). Hey, let’s say even 300 but then comes the issue what if there are several 150 TLAM salvos?

    1. A x Alpha=number of US Navy units attacking Khmeimim with a single initial salvo of TLAMs: 2 Ohio-class SSGNs, 2 Ticonderoga-class Cruisers, 1 Arleigh Burke-class DDG–this is your A. We “spread” for each hull, in reality it will be uneven, 5 hulls x 80 TLAMs each (this is your Alpha) = 400 TLAMs in first salvo;

    2. Your B=1, since Khmeimim is “reduced” to a single (which it is BTW) combat entity.
    3. Your b3 we assume as 300–this is how many missiles (in reality calculation is very complex but not the focus of this discussion), here I go overboard, thus making your product of b3 x B= 300 x 1=300.

    4. Your b1, which is the number of TLAMs required to put Khmeimim out of action is 120.
    5. We plug in numbers in our BASIC Salvo dB= (400 – 300)/120= 100/120= 0.8333 = 83.33%

    Roughly 83 per cent of Khmeimim will be obliterated due to 83% percent of “leackers” . This is a hard kill. Reality, however, will be much more complex and I gave you a very favorable numbers for Russians. Now, I am not going to discuss with you whole complexity of a situation which does account for about couple hundreds different variables which factor in all of that, including specific tactical and operational methods designed to mitigate an obvious disadvantage of Russian Forces in Syria should CENTCOM decides (ordered) to bring to bear and it can bring some damn serious forces. But, as I said, how it is done and calculated is in documents which constitute a most serious state secret for any nation with the first class militaries–both Russia and US qualify. Expounding on the augmented models? Again: do you know S-300 and S-400 saturation threshold? As per 800-pound gorilla I already wrote in my article.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @FB
    Judging by the tone of your tirade...I would say you must have also been sick on the day that they taught officer etiquette at that military academy of yours...

    Look...I'm not here to get into a silly catfight so I will make it short...

    You have now reposted this salvo equation of yours for the umpteenth time without showing how it works...or how you got your result of 'overwhelming Hmeimim with 100 Tomahawks...

    You said...well just plug in the coefficients...

    Well why don't you do that...?

    You're the 'expert'...so walk us through the steps it takes to get the result...

    That equation is a simple algebraic equation...so if you know the coefficients it should not take more than a couple of calculation steps to arrive at the answer...

    I looked up the salvo combat model...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvo_combat_model

    As far as I can tell it relates only to Naval battles...

    It lists as examples the Falklands War...the Battle of the Coral Sea...and the Battle of Savo Island...

    All of this has exactly nothing to do with SEAD...if it does then please explain how...

    The closest I could find in terms of relevance is that this model has also been 'modified' to use in gaming 'tactical ballistic missile defense...'

    We note here that ballistic missiles have nothing to do with cruise missiles, which are actually improperly called 'missiles' because they are actually aircraft...they fly on wings creating aerodynamic lift and they are powered by aircraft-type turbofan engine,s burning aircraft jet fuel...

    I will just note in passing that in previous comments you have berated my comments about the SEAD operation in the Kosovo War as irrelevant because it is 18 years old...

    Yet that Salvo model of yours lists examples from WW2...and even the Charge of the Light Brigade during the Crimean War of the 1850s...

    Since you have been rather blunt with me...I shall do likewise...either put up or shut up with your salvo model math...

    Since you have been rather blunt with me…I shall do likewise…either put up or shut up with your salvo model math…

    Still counting how many times I asked you questions which you simply ignore. Do you want me to repeat them yet again? I can even tell you why you are ignoring them, but both me and you we know why.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. FB says:

    Let us now consider the question of the US attack on the Syrian Shayrat airfield on April 6, 2017…

    This topic deserves some discussion that is more than superficial…

    It was my original intent to discuss in a straight line a hypothetical US attack on Russian air assets in Syria…ie a realistic what-if scenario…and I will continue that discussion in further comments…

    However the Shayrat incident, while only peripherally related to any such hypothetical attack …is still instructive…so consider this a small detour that will nevertheless try to be helpful…

    What I have seen here on this discussion site, as well as others, is that ‘ordinary’ people are not dumb …and they simply seek to understand political and military events more fully…the explanations generally offered in the media are often suspect and people realize this…

    There is also a lot of media dedicated to military technology issues…such as National Interest, Business Insider etc…but this writing is generally not helpful at all, mostly because the writers are unqualified to explain important details to the layman…[ie possessing engineering, pilot training, or other military/technical credentials...]

    This type of media is considered ‘popular’ media by definition…like Popular Science magazine for instance…it is often completely unhelpful and unreliable…it can in no way be considered authoritative on anything…only peer-reviewed technical literature can be considered as such…[I have given examples and links to two such pieces of literature previously...ie Lambeth and Riccione...]

    I will also split up this discussion of Shayrat into two separate comments…the first a general discussion of what is factually known…and the second a more technical look inside the weapons used and how they actually work…ie the Tomahawk…and the weapons that may be used to defend against it…

    So let’s dive right in…here is what we objectively know about the Shayrat strike…

    The US launched a total of 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles from an undisclosed location in the Mediterranean Sea, from two Arleigh-Burke class destroyers…one of the TLAMs malfunctioned at launch and 59 continued flying to the target…

    The US claimed that all 59 TLAMs hit the Shayrat field, while the Russian military directly contradicted that claim and stated that only 23 actually hit the field…

    It is scientifically pointless to try to determine which of these two opposing narratives is true…

    However…what we can do is to look at all the information available…both pre and post-strike and see what we can learn that is actually useful and beyond dispute…

    Let us first consider what I will call exhibit 1…

    This is a 2013 plan to attack six Syrian airbases, written by Christopher Harmer, Commander, US Navy [retired]…and published by the Institute for the study of War [ISW]…here is that 2013 Harmer paper…[note...it is actually an 'executive summary'...ie a powerpoint presentation, mostly in bullet form, so it is a quick and easy read...]

    http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/RequiredSorties-to-DegradeSyrianAirPower.pdf

    Cmdr. Harmer’s bio is here…

    http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Chris%20Harmer%20June%202016.pdf

    We note here that Harmer, a retired officer, does possess some legit credentials, including flying as a navy pilot and having studied at the USN War College…

    But we also note that the ISW is a neocon think tank founded by Kimberly Kagan…[no need to go into that name and the Kagan clan...]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Study_of_War

    Before diving into Harmer’s plan for hitting six Syrian ‘primary’ airfields with standoff weapons…let me put up another disclaimer…this ‘plan’ does not necessarily reflect the thinking or approval of the US navy or any other military or government official…we take this document for what it is…a ‘plan’ written by a former USN officer now working for a pro-war think tank…

    Having said that…let us now look at Cmdr. Harmer’s plan…we start with the title…

    Required Sorties and Weapons to Degrade Syrian Air Force Excluding Integrated Air Defense System (IADS)

    Right off the bat we make an important observation [ie the part I highlighted in boldface]…the plan does not include tackling Syrian air defenses…this is because the plan does not include any SEAD component…it only includes standoff weapons like the TLAM, which are useless against SAMs and IADS as I have maintained from the beginning…

    The second observation is that the plan is to ‘degrade’ not ‘destroy’ the Syrian airfields…Harmer explains the difference in his presentation and I will not dwell on this distinction as it is pretty easy to understand the difference as explained by Harmer…

    Let us now move on to a more important point…ie the number of precision guided munitions [aka PGMs] Harmer estimates to be needed for the objective of ‘degrading’ six Syrian ‘primary’ airfields…[note that Shayrat is not considered by Harmer as a primary, but merely a secondary tier of the Syrian air bases...]

    Harmer’s plan requires a total of 72 PGMs to accomplish the job…exactly 12 PGMs per airfield…

    Of these 12 PGMs per field, four would be Tomahawks…another four would be the JASSM [joint air-to-surface standoff missile...basically an air-launched cruise missile very similar to Tomahawk...]

    The remaining four would consist of the JSOW [joint standoff weapon]…

    It is important to note here that the JSOW is not a cruise missile like the other two…it is a glide bomb…ie a bomb with small wings to increase its glide range…it has no engine like the other two…

    Another difference is in the warhead type…the TLAM and JASSM both have 450 kg [1,000 lb TNT warheads]…the JSOW can only carry a bomb half that size [500 lb...227 kg]…

    I will get further into the technical specifics of these weapons in my separate follow-up comment on Shayrat…but here is basic info on the three PGMs proposed in Harmer’s plan…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon

    A quick review of these weapons…

    The TLAM and the JASSM can be considered basically the same thing…they carry the same 1,000 lb warhead…the main difference being the platform from which they are launched…the former being ship launched, the latter aircraft-launched…

    The TLAM has a longer range, but they are both powered by the same small turbofan engine…[more on that when we get into the TLAM specifics...]

    The JSOW packs half the warhead punch as noted…and also much shorter range…its maximum range is only 130 km [80 miles]…and that is only from a high-altitude release…dropped from low altitude it can only reach 22 km [13 miles]…

    We recall here that in 2013, the Russian military was not present in Syria…and it would have been considered doable for US aircraft to come within 100 km of their target, especially considering the poor state of repair of the Syrian air defenses at that time…many of the sites having been overrun and seized by militants…

    So let’s step back and consider the amount of destructive power that Harmer estimated for each airfield…ie four TLAMs…four ALCMs…and four glide bombs…

    The combined equivalent of those 12 PGMs per target is equal to 10 Tomahawks…since the JSOWs only pack half the punch of the other two…

    Point number one…

    Let us assume that 59 Tomahawks hit Shayrat…that is six times what this navy man estimated would be required to knock these airfields out of action at least for some amount of time measure in weeks, if not months…

    Point number two…

    The Shayrat field was up and running with aircraft taking off and landing within hours of the strike…

    Conclusion…

    Assuming all 59 TLAMs hit the field, six times more than required by the pre-strike estimate of a qualified naval officer…they obviously did not do enough damage to preclude flight operations for more than a few hours…

    Combat Effectiveness of the Shayrat strike must be assessed as extremely low…

    Now let us move to a far more interesting question…one that reveals who is fibbing and who is not…

    One of the reasons that flight operations were able to resume almost immediately is the fact that neither of Shayrat’s two runways were damaged…

    This was noticed by many…but was quickly explained away by officials…starting with Trump and on down the line…that runways weren’t actually targeted…

    This was done because runways are ‘easy to repair’ and the TLAM does not pack enough punch to take out runways…

    Let’s start by stating categorically that we have no way to determine whether the navy actually targeted the Shayrat runways or not…

    However…we can look at what Cmdr. Harmer said about targeting runways in his 2013 plan…

    We note first that Harmer’s executive summary mentions runways 20 times…

    On page 7 we find a large page heading…

    ‘Analysis: Requirements to Degrade Runway and Support Structures’

    On that page Harmer discusses the differences between ‘destroying’ and ‘degrading’…the Syrian fields…

    He first lists a set of bullet points relating to destroying an airfield…let’s leave that aside and move down to the list that talks about ‘degrading’ the airfield…

    We note first of all that the very first bullet point states this…

    ‘Degradation is achieved by damaging the runway enough to preclude flight operations…’

    The second bullet point states this…

    ‘…US long range PGM were not designed to completely destroy runways, but will cause some cratering of runways, enough to preclude flight operations…’

    The final bullet point states this…

    ‘…Once PGM crater a runway, repairing is a lengthy process that requires specialized equipment, materials, engineering support, and significant manpower…’

    On the next page…p 8…we see even more interesting stuff…

    This page starts off with listing the number of weapons we have already described…ie four each of TLAM, JASSM, and JSOW per Syrian airfield…for a total of 12 PGM per airfield…

    Right after that we get to this…

    ‘Targeting runways: Desired Mean Point of Impact [DMPI]‘

    And right under that…

    ’8 DMPI per SAF AB runway at roughly 1,000 ft intervals’

    So not only are runways the first target discussed, but even the matter of how they should be hit…ie at 1,000 ft intervals…is outlined…

    Are we beginning to smell something ‘fishy’ in the ‘official’ explanation that runways were not targeted in the Shayrat strike…?

    Before leaving page 8, we note that targeting of ‘support’ infrastructure is discussed only after the discussion about targeting runways…

    This gives us a clue as to what the primary target would have been in the Shayrat strikes…

    And it comes as no surprise to anyone that knows anything, or has first hand experience in actual air combat operations…that runways are always the first and primary target when striking an airfield…

    As an example let’s look at a credible account of what is involved in hitting enemy runways, in this case during the first Iraq War…written by Group Captain Andrew Vallance – Director of Defense Studies for the Royal Air Force…

    https://www.raf.mod.uk/history/AirPowerintheGulfWar.cfm

    The RAF was tasked with hitting the Iraqi runways with their Tornado jets …

    ‘…The Tornado GR1s – thanks to their uniquely effective JP233 airfield denial munition – made a particularly distinguished contribution to the counter-air element of the campaign…’

    ‘…The Tornados were tasked to attack over a dozen Iraqi main operating bases at low-level supported by F-15 fighters, F-4G ‘Wild Weasels’ and EF-111A ‘Raven’ electronic countermeasures aircraft…’

    ‘…After four nights the air opposition had been effectively neutralised, for the loss of four Tornados. Eight Iraqi main operating bases had been closed while the operations of several others had been markedly reduced…’

    Now why if hitting runways is so unimportant, did the RAF lose four Tornados along with their two-man crews…for a total of eight airmen downed…?

    The official excuse for not hitting runways at Shayrat can be definitely labeled as patently absurd…

    This kind of crap is put out because they think they can fool the public, many of which may not have direct knowledge of these matters…

    As for the idea that TLAMs don’t pack enough punch to completely destroy a runway…well that much is true…it takes a 2,000 lb or even 5,000 lb bomb to do that…

    But the TLAM’s 1,000 lb warhead is more than enough to cause very serious damage…a 1,000 lb bomb will make a crater of 20 to 30 ft…

    And if anyone tries to tell you that this is easy to fix…then why don’t we see our city freeway repaved overnight, instead of taking a year…?

    It is not difficult to imagine the kind of construction machinery, materials and manpower required to fix a runway crater of 30 ft…

    Here are some pictures of a crater left by a 1,000 lb bomb…[from Vietnam...and just for fun...]

    http://www.angelfire.com/tx3/247infantry/crater.html

    I could go on and point out that the Shayrat runway is pavement, not concrete…and is therefore much easier to damage…

    But I think the point has been made…

    So where does that leave us in our initial assessment of the Shayrat strikes…

    Point one…

    The US admits that it did not hit runways, but says it did not try to…

    Everyone who knows anything about these matters finds this excuse totally preposterous…including of course Cmdr. Harmer, who did not write what he did about targeting runways with Tamahawks because he is a dummy who doesn’t know anything…

    there is much more to explore in my next comment…where we will look into how a TLAM works, its engine, airframe, guidance etc…

    PS: I will note in passing that Mr. Martyanov’s Salvo model tells us that it would take 100 TLAMs to destroy 83 percent of Hmeimim airfield…

    I would say that judging by the 59 TLAMs fired at Shayrat…that this may be a bit…er…optimistic…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    PS: I will note in passing that Mr. Martyanov’s Salvo model tells us that it would take 100 TLAMs to destroy 83 percent of Hmeimim airfield…
     
    Now you understand why I am blunt in calling you full of shit?

    1. It is 120 not 100, to start with.
    2. For a fanboy like you--it is not "Mr. Martyanov's Salvo Model"--it is one of the foundations of Operations and is universal across the globe.
    3. Apart from collecting pieces and bits of internet info and then pasting them as some kind of sound analysis, for which you have no background whatsoever.

    So, I repeat it what time now? What are the saturation thresholds for S-300 and S-400? So can you tell me? Or, yet again, you will continue to ignore it?

    Now, try to contradict Murahovsky:

    — Наша система ПВО С-400, которая развернута в Сирии, на авиабазе Хмеймим, чисто технически не смогла бы сбить американские «Томагавки», — отмечает полковник запаса, член Экспертного совета коллегии Военно-промышленной комиссии РФ Виктор Мураховский. — До сирийской авиабазы Шайрат, по которому нанесли удар американцы, от Хмеймима порядка 100 км. Однако для систем ПВО есть ограничительное понятие радиогоризонта.

    Да, максимальная дальность поражения С-400 составляет 400 км. Но надо понимать: это досягаемость по воздушным целям, которые действуют на средних и больших высотах. Крылатые ракеты, которые действуют на высотах 30−50 метров, не видны с такого расстояния просто потому, что Земля «кривая» — шарообразная. Словом, американские «Томагавки» находились за пределами радиогоризонта С-400.

    Замечу: никакая система ПВО — что российская, что американская, — физически не способна увидеть крылатые ракеты на такой дальности.

    Для увеличения радиогоризонта используют различные меры. В частности, в системах ПВО радиолокатор поднимают на вышках. Такая вышка есть и в Хмеймиме, тем не менее, она не позволяет увеличить дальность обнаружения так сильно — до 100 км

    http://www.km.ru/forum/world/2017/04/07/siriiskii-krizis/800203-nash-kompleks-s-400-ne-mog-sbit-tomagavki-vypushchennye-po-

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @FB
    Let us now consider the question of the US attack on the Syrian Shayrat airfield on April 6, 2017...

    This topic deserves some discussion that is more than superficial...

    It was my original intent to discuss in a straight line a hypothetical US attack on Russian air assets in Syria...ie a realistic what-if scenario...and I will continue that discussion in further comments...

    However the Shayrat incident, while only peripherally related to any such hypothetical attack ...is still instructive...so consider this a small detour that will nevertheless try to be helpful...

    What I have seen here on this discussion site, as well as others, is that 'ordinary' people are not dumb ...and they simply seek to understand political and military events more fully...the explanations generally offered in the media are often suspect and people realize this...

    There is also a lot of media dedicated to military technology issues...such as National Interest, Business Insider etc...but this writing is generally not helpful at all, mostly because the writers are unqualified to explain important details to the layman...[ie possessing engineering, pilot training, or other military/technical credentials...]

    This type of media is considered 'popular' media by definition...like Popular Science magazine for instance...it is often completely unhelpful and unreliable...it can in no way be considered authoritative on anything...only peer-reviewed technical literature can be considered as such...[I have given examples and links to two such pieces of literature previously...ie Lambeth and Riccione...]

    I will also split up this discussion of Shayrat into two separate comments...the first a general discussion of what is factually known...and the second a more technical look inside the weapons used and how they actually work...ie the Tomahawk...and the weapons that may be used to defend against it...

    So let's dive right in...here is what we objectively know about the Shayrat strike...

    The US launched a total of 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles from an undisclosed location in the Mediterranean Sea, from two Arleigh-Burke class destroyers...one of the TLAMs malfunctioned at launch and 59 continued flying to the target...

    The US claimed that all 59 TLAMs hit the Shayrat field, while the Russian military directly contradicted that claim and stated that only 23 actually hit the field...

    It is scientifically pointless to try to determine which of these two opposing narratives is true...

    However...what we can do is to look at all the information available...both pre and post-strike and see what we can learn that is actually useful and beyond dispute...

    Let us first consider what I will call exhibit 1...

    This is a 2013 plan to attack six Syrian airbases, written by Christopher Harmer, Commander, US Navy [retired]...and published by the Institute for the study of War [ISW]...here is that 2013 Harmer paper...[note...it is actually an 'executive summary'...ie a powerpoint presentation, mostly in bullet form, so it is a quick and easy read...]

    http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/RequiredSorties-to-DegradeSyrianAirPower.pdf

    Cmdr. Harmer's bio is here...

    http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Chris%20Harmer%20June%202016.pdf

    We note here that Harmer, a retired officer, does possess some legit credentials, including flying as a navy pilot and having studied at the USN War College...

    But we also note that the ISW is a neocon think tank founded by Kimberly Kagan...[no need to go into that name and the Kagan clan...]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Study_of_War

    Before diving into Harmer's plan for hitting six Syrian 'primary' airfields with standoff weapons...let me put up another disclaimer...this 'plan' does not necessarily reflect the thinking or approval of the US navy or any other military or government official...we take this document for what it is...a 'plan' written by a former USN officer now working for a pro-war think tank...

    Having said that...let us now look at Cmdr. Harmer's plan...we start with the title...

    Required Sorties and Weapons to Degrade Syrian Air Force Excluding Integrated Air Defense System (IADS)
     
    Right off the bat we make an important observation [ie the part I highlighted in boldface]...the plan does not include tackling Syrian air defenses...this is because the plan does not include any SEAD component...it only includes standoff weapons like the TLAM, which are useless against SAMs and IADS as I have maintained from the beginning...

    The second observation is that the plan is to 'degrade' not 'destroy' the Syrian airfields...Harmer explains the difference in his presentation and I will not dwell on this distinction as it is pretty easy to understand the difference as explained by Harmer...

    Let us now move on to a more important point...ie the number of precision guided munitions [aka PGMs] Harmer estimates to be needed for the objective of 'degrading' six Syrian 'primary' airfields...[note that Shayrat is not considered by Harmer as a primary, but merely a secondary tier of the Syrian air bases...]

    Harmer's plan requires a total of 72 PGMs to accomplish the job...exactly 12 PGMs per airfield...

    Of these 12 PGMs per field, four would be Tomahawks...another four would be the JASSM [joint air-to-surface standoff missile...basically an air-launched cruise missile very similar to Tomahawk...]

    The remaining four would consist of the JSOW [joint standoff weapon]...

    It is important to note here that the JSOW is not a cruise missile like the other two...it is a glide bomb...ie a bomb with small wings to increase its glide range...it has no engine like the other two...

    Another difference is in the warhead type...the TLAM and JASSM both have 450 kg [1,000 lb TNT warheads]...the JSOW can only carry a bomb half that size [500 lb...227 kg]...

    I will get further into the technical specifics of these weapons in my separate follow-up comment on Shayrat...but here is basic info on the three PGMs proposed in Harmer's plan...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon

    A quick review of these weapons...

    The TLAM and the JASSM can be considered basically the same thing...they carry the same 1,000 lb warhead...the main difference being the platform from which they are launched...the former being ship launched, the latter aircraft-launched...

    The TLAM has a longer range, but they are both powered by the same small turbofan engine...[more on that when we get into the TLAM specifics...]

    The JSOW packs half the warhead punch as noted...and also much shorter range...its maximum range is only 130 km [80 miles]...and that is only from a high-altitude release...dropped from low altitude it can only reach 22 km [13 miles]...

    We recall here that in 2013, the Russian military was not present in Syria...and it would have been considered doable for US aircraft to come within 100 km of their target, especially considering the poor state of repair of the Syrian air defenses at that time...many of the sites having been overrun and seized by militants...

    So let's step back and consider the amount of destructive power that Harmer estimated for each airfield...ie four TLAMs...four ALCMs...and four glide bombs...

    The combined equivalent of those 12 PGMs per target is equal to 10 Tomahawks...since the JSOWs only pack half the punch of the other two...

    Point number one...

    Let us assume that 59 Tomahawks hit Shayrat...that is six times what this navy man estimated would be required to knock these airfields out of action at least for some amount of time measure in weeks, if not months...

    Point number two...

    The Shayrat field was up and running with aircraft taking off and landing within hours of the strike...

    Conclusion...

    Assuming all 59 TLAMs hit the field, six times more than required by the pre-strike estimate of a qualified naval officer...they obviously did not do enough damage to preclude flight operations for more than a few hours...

    Combat Effectiveness of the Shayrat strike must be assessed as extremely low...

    Now let us move to a far more interesting question...one that reveals who is fibbing and who is not...

    One of the reasons that flight operations were able to resume almost immediately is the fact that neither of Shayrat's two runways were damaged...

    This was noticed by many...but was quickly explained away by officials...starting with Trump and on down the line...that runways weren't actually targeted...

    This was done because runways are 'easy to repair' and the TLAM does not pack enough punch to take out runways...

    Let's start by stating categorically that we have no way to determine whether the navy actually targeted the Shayrat runways or not...

    However...we can look at what Cmdr. Harmer said about targeting runways in his 2013 plan...

    We note first that Harmer's executive summary mentions runways 20 times...

    On page 7 we find a large page heading...

    'Analysis: Requirements to Degrade Runway and Support Structures'

     

    On that page Harmer discusses the differences between 'destroying' and 'degrading'...the Syrian fields...

    He first lists a set of bullet points relating to destroying an airfield...let's leave that aside and move down to the list that talks about 'degrading' the airfield...

    We note first of all that the very first bullet point states this...

    'Degradation is achieved by damaging the runway enough to preclude flight operations...'
     
    The second bullet point states this...

    '...US long range PGM were not designed to completely destroy runways, but will cause some cratering of runways, enough to preclude flight operations...'
     
    The final bullet point states this...

    '...Once PGM crater a runway, repairing is a lengthy process that requires specialized equipment, materials, engineering support, and significant manpower...'
     
    On the next page...p 8...we see even more interesting stuff...

    This page starts off with listing the number of weapons we have already described...ie four each of TLAM, JASSM, and JSOW per Syrian airfield...for a total of 12 PGM per airfield...

    Right after that we get to this...

    'Targeting runways: Desired Mean Point of Impact [DMPI]'
     
    And right under that...

    '8 DMPI per SAF AB runway at roughly 1,000 ft intervals'
     
    So not only are runways the first target discussed, but even the matter of how they should be hit...ie at 1,000 ft intervals...is outlined...

    Are we beginning to smell something 'fishy' in the 'official' explanation that runways were not targeted in the Shayrat strike...?

    Before leaving page 8, we note that targeting of 'support' infrastructure is discussed only after the discussion about targeting runways...

    This gives us a clue as to what the primary target would have been in the Shayrat strikes...

    And it comes as no surprise to anyone that knows anything, or has first hand experience in actual air combat operations...that runways are always the first and primary target when striking an airfield...

    As an example let's look at a credible account of what is involved in hitting enemy runways, in this case during the first Iraq War...written by Group Captain Andrew Vallance - Director of Defense Studies for the Royal Air Force...

    https://www.raf.mod.uk/history/AirPowerintheGulfWar.cfm

    The RAF was tasked with hitting the Iraqi runways with their Tornado jets ...

    '...The Tornado GR1s - thanks to their uniquely effective JP233 airfield denial munition - made a particularly distinguished contribution to the counter-air element of the campaign...'

     


    '...The Tornados were tasked to attack over a dozen Iraqi main operating bases at low-level supported by F-15 fighters, F-4G 'Wild Weasels' and EF-111A 'Raven' electronic countermeasures aircraft...'
     

    '...After four nights the air opposition had been effectively neutralised, for the loss of four Tornados. Eight Iraqi main operating bases had been closed while the operations of several others had been markedly reduced...'
     
    Now why if hitting runways is so unimportant, did the RAF lose four Tornados along with their two-man crews...for a total of eight airmen downed...?

    The official excuse for not hitting runways at Shayrat can be definitely labeled as patently absurd...

    This kind of crap is put out because they think they can fool the public, many of which may not have direct knowledge of these matters...

    As for the idea that TLAMs don't pack enough punch to completely destroy a runway...well that much is true...it takes a 2,000 lb or even 5,000 lb bomb to do that...

    But the TLAM's 1,000 lb warhead is more than enough to cause very serious damage...a 1,000 lb bomb will make a crater of 20 to 30 ft...

    And if anyone tries to tell you that this is easy to fix...then why don't we see our city freeway repaved overnight, instead of taking a year...?

    It is not difficult to imagine the kind of construction machinery, materials and manpower required to fix a runway crater of 30 ft...

    Here are some pictures of a crater left by a 1,000 lb bomb...[from Vietnam...and just for fun...]

    http://www.angelfire.com/tx3/247infantry/crater.html

    I could go on and point out that the Shayrat runway is pavement, not concrete...and is therefore much easier to damage...

    But I think the point has been made...

    So where does that leave us in our initial assessment of the Shayrat strikes...

    Point one...

    The US admits that it did not hit runways, but says it did not try to...

    Everyone who knows anything about these matters finds this excuse totally preposterous...including of course Cmdr. Harmer, who did not write what he did about targeting runways with Tamahawks because he is a dummy who doesn't know anything...

    there is much more to explore in my next comment...where we will look into how a TLAM works, its engine, airframe, guidance etc...

    PS: I will note in passing that Mr. Martyanov's Salvo model tells us that it would take 100 TLAMs to destroy 83 percent of Hmeimim airfield...

    I would say that judging by the 59 TLAMs fired at Shayrat...that this may be a bit...er...optimistic...

    PS: I will note in passing that Mr. Martyanov’s Salvo model tells us that it would take 100 TLAMs to destroy 83 percent of Hmeimim airfield…

    Now you understand why I am blunt in calling you full of shit?

    1. It is 120 not 100, to start with.
    2. For a fanboy like you–it is not “Mr. Martyanov’s Salvo Model”–it is one of the foundations of Operations and is universal across the globe.
    3. Apart from collecting pieces and bits of internet info and then pasting them as some kind of sound analysis, for which you have no background whatsoever.

    So, I repeat it what time now? What are the saturation thresholds for S-300 and S-400? So can you tell me? Or, yet again, you will continue to ignore it?

    Now, try to contradict Murahovsky:

    — Наша система ПВО С-400, которая развернута в Сирии, на авиабазе Хмеймим, чисто технически не смогла бы сбить американские «Томагавки», — отмечает полковник запаса, член Экспертного совета коллегии Военно-промышленной комиссии РФ Виктор Мураховский. — До сирийской авиабазы Шайрат, по которому нанесли удар американцы, от Хмеймима порядка 100 км. Однако для систем ПВО есть ограничительное понятие радиогоризонта.

    Да, максимальная дальность поражения С-400 составляет 400 км. Но надо понимать: это досягаемость по воздушным целям, которые действуют на средних и больших высотах. Крылатые ракеты, которые действуют на высотах 30−50 метров, не видны с такого расстояния просто потому, что Земля «кривая» — шарообразная. Словом, американские «Томагавки» находились за пределами радиогоризонта С-400.

    Замечу: никакая система ПВО — что российская, что американская, — физически не способна увидеть крылатые ракеты на такой дальности.

    Для увеличения радиогоризонта используют различные меры. В частности, в системах ПВО радиолокатор поднимают на вышках. Такая вышка есть и в Хмеймиме, тем не менее, она не позволяет увеличить дальность обнаружения так сильно — до 100 км

    http://www.km.ru/forum/world/2017/04/07/siriiskii-krizis/800203-nash-kompleks-s-400-ne-mog-sbit-tomagavki-vypushchennye-po-

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Easy there fella...

    You're getting a little too free in the language you're directing at me...

    As for your salvo model...yes it is your model...just as if I were to construct a mathematical model of an aircraft's aerodynamic characteristics...it would be my model...

    I have looked at your math [which you have explained quite inadequately] and acquainted myself briefly with the 'Hughes Salvo Model'...

    http://weaponsanalysis.com/docs/SalvoModel.pdf

    As I said before...this model has no applicability in a suppression of enemy air defense [SEAD] discussion...

    The Hughes model and all the updates to it appear to be primarily concerned with Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. FB says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    PS: I will note in passing that Mr. Martyanov’s Salvo model tells us that it would take 100 TLAMs to destroy 83 percent of Hmeimim airfield…
     
    Now you understand why I am blunt in calling you full of shit?

    1. It is 120 not 100, to start with.
    2. For a fanboy like you--it is not "Mr. Martyanov's Salvo Model"--it is one of the foundations of Operations and is universal across the globe.
    3. Apart from collecting pieces and bits of internet info and then pasting them as some kind of sound analysis, for which you have no background whatsoever.

    So, I repeat it what time now? What are the saturation thresholds for S-300 and S-400? So can you tell me? Or, yet again, you will continue to ignore it?

    Now, try to contradict Murahovsky:

    — Наша система ПВО С-400, которая развернута в Сирии, на авиабазе Хмеймим, чисто технически не смогла бы сбить американские «Томагавки», — отмечает полковник запаса, член Экспертного совета коллегии Военно-промышленной комиссии РФ Виктор Мураховский. — До сирийской авиабазы Шайрат, по которому нанесли удар американцы, от Хмеймима порядка 100 км. Однако для систем ПВО есть ограничительное понятие радиогоризонта.

    Да, максимальная дальность поражения С-400 составляет 400 км. Но надо понимать: это досягаемость по воздушным целям, которые действуют на средних и больших высотах. Крылатые ракеты, которые действуют на высотах 30−50 метров, не видны с такого расстояния просто потому, что Земля «кривая» — шарообразная. Словом, американские «Томагавки» находились за пределами радиогоризонта С-400.

    Замечу: никакая система ПВО — что российская, что американская, — физически не способна увидеть крылатые ракеты на такой дальности.

    Для увеличения радиогоризонта используют различные меры. В частности, в системах ПВО радиолокатор поднимают на вышках. Такая вышка есть и в Хмеймиме, тем не менее, она не позволяет увеличить дальность обнаружения так сильно — до 100 км

    http://www.km.ru/forum/world/2017/04/07/siriiskii-krizis/800203-nash-kompleks-s-400-ne-mog-sbit-tomagavki-vypushchennye-po-

    Easy there fella…

    You’re getting a little too free in the language you’re directing at me…

    As for your salvo model…yes it is your model…just as if I were to construct a mathematical model of an aircraft’s aerodynamic characteristics…it would be my model…

    I have looked at your math [which you have explained quite inadequately] and acquainted myself briefly with the ‘Hughes Salvo Model’…

    http://weaponsanalysis.com/docs/SalvoModel.pdf

    As I said before…this model has no applicability in a suppression of enemy air defense [SEAD] discussion…

    The Hughes model and all the updates to it appear to be primarily concerned with Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    You’re getting a little too free in the language you’re directing at me…
     
    Nope, I call you for what you are. An amateur hack, who obviously doesn't understand what missile exchange is and continues a spread of utter BS, including ignoring answering key questions which are exposing you as a fraud.

    I repeat for n-th time the question--any professional will easily answer it--what is saturation threshold for S-400? I omit here S-300--I made it easy for you, just S-400. So, quoting you, "put up or shut up". I can see why this question runs you into stupor--it will demolish all your BS you spewed here in an instance in relation to Syria. Now, here is from your hyperlink in response to your another ignorant BS, I quote your BS below:

    The Hughes model and all the updates to it appear to be primarily concerned with Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs)
     
    This, however, what your source puts into the description of SAMs:

    SAM Defense The SAM defense strategy attempts to assign a fire control channel to each ASCM and decoy in the salvo.
     
    Remind me please, my memory is a bit fuzzy here, what is SAM? (wink, wink).

    Evidently you do not understand (it is expected) why I stressed a Missile Exchange and, obviously, you never opened Captain Hughes' book (I own one) with the title Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat, which gives a superb transition from Osipov-Lanchester to salvo Model. But since you are obviously way out of your depth, here is a little bit of education for you which gives (you don't need to know Russian) an Osipov-Lanchester approach to.... armored warfare. It is from the Operational Research textbook from 1980s from Armored Warfare War College (Akademia Bronetankovykh Voisk) in late USSR. Math doesn't change, coefficients, of course, do.

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JbWIBo5qSP4/WelRgQrDypI/AAAAAAAABNA/Z5UNPjuogWIvwHxY9N7HZrEW9CDHjrNngCLcBGAs/s1600/O-L.jpg

    Here comes a bomb for you. Tell me then, why ground warfare uses mostly Osipov-Lanchester Model? If you will answer this correctly, the whole BS about "mostly ASCM" will come crushing down on you. So, we start clock (or counter) on how long or how many times it will take you to avoid answering this question, by ignoring it. I repeat it again: Why ground (such as armored) warfare concerns itself mostly with Osipov-Lanchester Model? Is question understood? You can distill at least some answers even from this post of mine, until I will completely expose you as a Clanciesque fraud. As one real professional wrote in his superb book:

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sedAY30eMNU/WePbxPiZDgI/AAAAAAAABL4/pejyAaAbkNY051sC0HVJT4m4BdYlfxXVQCLcBGAs/s1600/Clancy.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. FB says:

    My comment got accidentally posted before I was finished…

    ASCMs are fundamentally different from TLAMs and ALCMs in that they are designed to strike a moving target…ie a ship…

    The difference as I have already explained is that TLAMs and ALCMs lack any kind of seeker capable of homing in on moving targets…such as radar guidance…either passive or active…

    In summary I find the application of this salvo model completely inappropriate…not to mention that any math model is just that…I have seen math models used very well, and I have also seen them used very poorly…

    Also I must reject your denigration of my source material…

    I have presented here…

    1. a paper published in the Aerospace Power Journal…the flagship technical publication of the USAF…

    2. A paper published by one of the most noteworthy air combat experts of our time…Col. Riccione…

    3. A paper by an acknowledge SEAD PhD-level expert and RAAF [retired] aviator…

    4. An article by an RAF captain and Director of Defence Studies for the Royal Air Force…

    What are some of the sources you have presented…

    I have seen none…

    My position remains the same…

    I have considered your model and find it completely unrelated to the subject under discussion…

    Read More
    • LOL: Andrei Martyanov
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  199. @FB
    Easy there fella...

    You're getting a little too free in the language you're directing at me...

    As for your salvo model...yes it is your model...just as if I were to construct a mathematical model of an aircraft's aerodynamic characteristics...it would be my model...

    I have looked at your math [which you have explained quite inadequately] and acquainted myself briefly with the 'Hughes Salvo Model'...

    http://weaponsanalysis.com/docs/SalvoModel.pdf

    As I said before...this model has no applicability in a suppression of enemy air defense [SEAD] discussion...

    The Hughes model and all the updates to it appear to be primarily concerned with Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs)

    You’re getting a little too free in the language you’re directing at me…

    Nope, I call you for what you are. An amateur hack, who obviously doesn’t understand what missile exchange is and continues a spread of utter BS, including ignoring answering key questions which are exposing you as a fraud.

    I repeat for n-th time the question–any professional will easily answer it–what is saturation threshold for S-400? I omit here S-300–I made it easy for you, just S-400. So, quoting you, “put up or shut up”. I can see why this question runs you into stupor–it will demolish all your BS you spewed here in an instance in relation to Syria. Now, here is from your hyperlink in response to your another ignorant BS, I quote your BS below:

    The Hughes model and all the updates to it appear to be primarily concerned with Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs)

    This, however, what your source puts into the description of SAMs:

    SAM Defense The SAM defense strategy attempts to assign a fire control channel to each ASCM and decoy in the salvo.

    Remind me please, my memory is a bit fuzzy here, what is SAM? (wink, wink).

    Evidently you do not understand (it is expected) why I stressed a Missile Exchange and, obviously, you never opened Captain Hughes’ book (I own one) with the title Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat, which gives a superb transition from Osipov-Lanchester to salvo Model. But since you are obviously way out of your depth, here is a little bit of education for you which gives (you don’t need to know Russian) an Osipov-Lanchester approach to…. armored warfare. It is from the Operational Research textbook from 1980s from Armored Warfare War College (Akademia Bronetankovykh Voisk) in late USSR. Math doesn’t change, coefficients, of course, do.

    Here comes a bomb for you. Tell me then, why ground warfare uses mostly Osipov-Lanchester Model? If you will answer this correctly, the whole BS about “mostly ASCM” will come crushing down on you. So, we start clock (or counter) on how long or how many times it will take you to avoid answering this question, by ignoring it. I repeat it again: Why ground (such as armored) warfare concerns itself mostly with Osipov-Lanchester Model? Is question understood? You can distill at least some answers even from this post of mine, until I will completely expose you as a Clanciesque fraud. As one real professional wrote in his superb book:

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...I repeat for n-th time the question–any professional will easily answer it–what is saturation threshold for S-400?...'
     
    Any professional what...?...wrestler...figure skater...pianist...?

    A saturation threshold in the context of an S400 defending against incoming missiles implies two possible scenarios...

    1. The attacker knows the location of the S400 and is directing all his fire on that location [including TLAMs...the attacker's missiles need not have any kind of radar-homing seeker because the attacker knows the position of the S400 and the S400 has decided to stay exactly where it is...deciding that the weapons designers who provided for a truck chassis and wheels obviously didn't know what they were doing...for reasons known only to God...A. Martyanov...and possibly Osipov, Hughes and Lanchester...

    2. The attacker does not know the location of the S400 components and needs to find them first before attacking with weapons designed to target a SAM...specifically HARM missiles which seeks out radio emissions from SAM radars...and homes in on them...

    If number 1, then yes your salvo model could be used to game some grade-school level scenario of two opposing forces firing at one until one guy runs out of bullets...I'm sure there are good video games along these lines...

    If number 2, then what...?

    The AGM88 HARM missile is carried by F16, F18, F35, Tornado and other aircraft...it has a maximum range of 150 km...that's a high altitude shot...typically the aircraft will be flying low and using terrain masking to hide from powerful SAM radars...making its missile range only several tens of km...

    The range of S400 anti aircraft missiles is 400 km...I would like to the see the F16 driver who is going to volunteer for this mission of flying around over Russian airspace in Syria, trying to figure out where the S400 is hiding...

    But let's say the US manages to find the location of the S400 and direct some shots at it...the Pantsir goes with every S400 like a shadow...designed to take out Harms like taking candy from a baby...

    After the initial Harms are defeated then what...I guess in your scenario the S400 crew, knowing now that their location is known to the enemy decides to do what...?

    Why of course they decide to stay right where they are...after all they have been taught all about Lanchester and Hughes...

    Or perhaps someone has the bright idea to pack up in five minutes and get the hell out of there...

    Now let's look at what the US does...it has now discovered the location of the S400...Of course they also guess correctly that the S400 crews...being disciples of Hughes and Lanchester are going to stay put...

    They thereby launch a volley of 450 Tomahawks [500 million bucks] from eight warships that somehow sneaked up over the last two weeks...because they know for sure that the S400 has stayed exactly where it was last seen...

    the tomahawks arrive about one hour and 20 minutes later and the S400 and Pantsir are eventually overwhelmed...

    Hooray...Lanchester, Osipov, Hughes and Martyanov have won the battle...

    Or perhaps I forgot I was in disneyland and talking to one of the seven dwarfs...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. FB says:

    Your obvious hysteria and name calling is beneath the dignity of any professional I know…

    This petulant reaction also proves that you know you have lost the argument…it’s like the kid who gets punched out and then runs away screaming insults…

    As for your mention of shipboard SAMs…yes the Salvo model talked about in that paper I linked to talks specifically about the threshold of a warship’s SAM defenses to withstand enemy attack by anti-ship cruise missiles…

    Now that you have confirmed that this is your analogy to a possible SEAD operation against Russian air assets in Syria…it makes it very easy to debunk…

    The problem with your scenario is that a ship-borne SAM cannot go anywhere…it is on the ship and stays on the ship…it cannot disperse its launchers and radars across hundreds of square kilometers in a matter of minutes…

    This type of fight is all about how much punishment the defending ship and its SAMs can withstand before they fold…obviously this is a very simple scenario and is nothing more than a numbers exercise…

    If you are trying to tell me that this bears any kind of resemblance to the scenario of a SEAD operation against RF forces in Syria…then I have to dismiss this as complete frivolity…

    And while I’m at it…your math is quite nonsensical…

    You present the salvo model as a means to solve for the most important variable…ie how many cruise missiles would it take to overwhelm a stationary defense…?

    In your previous statement where you outlined the steps of your calculations…you said this…

    ‘…4. Your b1, which is the number of TLAMs required to put Khmeimim out of action is 120…’

    But wait a minute…?

    Where does this number of 120 TLAMs come from…you have presented this as one of the ‘assumptions’…ie a known variable in the equation…or one of the known coefficients…whatever…

    I thought the whole point of the salvo model was to figure out how many missiles it takes to overwhelm the defender…?

    But it appears that in your salvo ‘model’ we already know that it takes 120 missiles…the only thing we don’t know is how much damage will be done…in percentage terms…ie in your ‘worked example’ 83 percent…

    So this is your ‘model…?’

    Also I will just finish by saying that this is more a mathematical simulation than an actual ‘model’ in the proper sense of the terms…

    When real professional talk about numerical methods we talk about things like finite element analysis in structural engineering, or computational fluid dynamics in the area of aerodynamics and thermal science…this is quite involved mathematics that is mostly transparent to the user…

    What you have presented here is a very simple algebraic construct…which appears to have started with the study of ballistics…ie gunnery…but has been ‘updated’ to reflect more modern weapons…

    Any person engaged in real science knows that simulation tools have their place…in the case of this tool I would say it is a very minor place…

    The fact that you have been harping on this as the ‘final word’ on this issue tells me that you do not bring a balanced approach to the question…

    Bottom line: I am not impressed with this tool, nor they way you apply it…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  201. FB says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    You’re getting a little too free in the language you’re directing at me…
     
    Nope, I call you for what you are. An amateur hack, who obviously doesn't understand what missile exchange is and continues a spread of utter BS, including ignoring answering key questions which are exposing you as a fraud.

    I repeat for n-th time the question--any professional will easily answer it--what is saturation threshold for S-400? I omit here S-300--I made it easy for you, just S-400. So, quoting you, "put up or shut up". I can see why this question runs you into stupor--it will demolish all your BS you spewed here in an instance in relation to Syria. Now, here is from your hyperlink in response to your another ignorant BS, I quote your BS below:

    The Hughes model and all the updates to it appear to be primarily concerned with Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs)
     
    This, however, what your source puts into the description of SAMs:

    SAM Defense The SAM defense strategy attempts to assign a fire control channel to each ASCM and decoy in the salvo.
     
    Remind me please, my memory is a bit fuzzy here, what is SAM? (wink, wink).

    Evidently you do not understand (it is expected) why I stressed a Missile Exchange and, obviously, you never opened Captain Hughes' book (I own one) with the title Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat, which gives a superb transition from Osipov-Lanchester to salvo Model. But since you are obviously way out of your depth, here is a little bit of education for you which gives (you don't need to know Russian) an Osipov-Lanchester approach to.... armored warfare. It is from the Operational Research textbook from 1980s from Armored Warfare War College (Akademia Bronetankovykh Voisk) in late USSR. Math doesn't change, coefficients, of course, do.

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JbWIBo5qSP4/WelRgQrDypI/AAAAAAAABNA/Z5UNPjuogWIvwHxY9N7HZrEW9CDHjrNngCLcBGAs/s1600/O-L.jpg

    Here comes a bomb for you. Tell me then, why ground warfare uses mostly Osipov-Lanchester Model? If you will answer this correctly, the whole BS about "mostly ASCM" will come crushing down on you. So, we start clock (or counter) on how long or how many times it will take you to avoid answering this question, by ignoring it. I repeat it again: Why ground (such as armored) warfare concerns itself mostly with Osipov-Lanchester Model? Is question understood? You can distill at least some answers even from this post of mine, until I will completely expose you as a Clanciesque fraud. As one real professional wrote in his superb book:

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sedAY30eMNU/WePbxPiZDgI/AAAAAAAABL4/pejyAaAbkNY051sC0HVJT4m4BdYlfxXVQCLcBGAs/s1600/Clancy.jpg

    ‘…I repeat for n-th time the question–any professional will easily answer it–what is saturation threshold for S-400?…’

    Any professional what…?…wrestler…figure skater…pianist…?

    A saturation threshold in the context of an S400 defending against incoming missiles implies two possible scenarios…

    1. The attacker knows the location of the S400 and is directing all his fire on that location [including TLAMs...the attacker's missiles need not have any kind of radar-homing seeker because the attacker knows the position of the S400 and the S400 has decided to stay exactly where it is...deciding that the weapons designers who provided for a truck chassis and wheels obviously didn't know what they were doing...for reasons known only to God...A. Martyanov...and possibly Osipov, Hughes and Lanchester...

    2. The attacker does not know the location of the S400 components and needs to find them first before attacking with weapons designed to target a SAM...specifically