Russia Deploys S-300VM to Syria

Reports on current military activity
kilo365
Regular contributor
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:49 am

Tue Oct 04, 2016 6:54 pm

Putin had recently said... "We shall see how they "US" like living in fear for a change..

I believe this is just the first lick of a tootsie roll lollipop..

I believe the world's power just shifted...

The US spent billions on wars that benefited Oil moguls like The Bush family.
Some countries they call it treason, war crimes. In the name of NATO...
Meanwhile the rest of the globe updated their protection, military defense, kept money in the country, took American money as well.
And here we are bringing 1950's era ICBM that can be shot down by a friggen BiPlane.
Tanks that the brits made.
Military jets made by China owned corporations.
We even sold our farms, dairy farms, food processing plants to China.

coldFusionGuy
Regular contributor
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 3:34 am

Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:05 pm

pnitro4 wrote:not sure if confirmed, he didn't post any source but his tweets in Arabic translated into English

White House: We have no interest in targeting the Syrian army and the strain the atmosphere with the Russians

White House: The only solution in Syria is a political solution, not a country that can impose a solution on the Syrian people

White House: Decissions of former President George W. Bush Jr. in Iraq has undermined America's reputation and Obama does not intend to repeat it in Syria

EDIT: Link https://twitter.com/MIG29_/with_replies

Unless you get it from the White House website, don't believe it. They'll release the info or leak it when they want to release it.

chiari
.
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:27 am

Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:25 pm


steve5304
.
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:29 am

Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:27 pm

MadDJacoby wrote:If we unleashed a cruise missile barage against Syria I would suspect a much greater event going on than the typical drone warfare and surgical strikes. But you're right, the S-300 can only handle so many targets.

A 40% rate isn't so bad, but still on the losing end.
Hopefully the F-35 will have better odds.

a SEAD is a fire and forget capability that homes in on radar, 40% kill rate aint bad.

workingdog
.
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:35 pm

Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:43 pm

chiari wrote:https://t.co/6Swpjf8L1J

Washingtonpost
One proposed way to get around the White House’s long-standing objection to striking the Assad regime without a U.N. Security Council resolution would be to carry out the strikes covertly and without public acknowledgment, the official said.
Oops!

steve5304
.
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:29 am

Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:46 pm

Trump is right. Leadership are morons we are telegraphing the fact the strikes will be covert or 'accidents'

matty1053
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 1933
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:03 am

Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:55 pm

workingdog wrote:
chiari wrote:https://t.co/6Swpjf8L1J

Washingtonpost
One proposed way to get around the White House’s long-standing objection to striking the Assad regime without a U.N. Security Council resolution would be to carry out the strikes covertly and without public acknowledgment, the official said.
Oops!
LMAO.

Well we could try the F35 out! :P But bombing Syria (and possibly Russia) would nearly be impossible secretly. Especially with the S300 system there now. (I believe they have a S400 also?). And Russia would come out very angry blaming the US for bombing Syrian military.

Fox One
.
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:17 am

Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:32 am

Richardson makes a valid point about Russian and Chinese systems. One example are the incredible ranges you often see quoted for the Russian S-400 SAM system. They like to advertise that they can shoot down aircraft 250 miles away with this system. But what they don't elaborate on is that the S-400 system uses a family of different missiles and that only one of them actually has that sort of range. And even then, you are only going to get that kind of range when employing the weapon against a target with a pretty large RCS that is at high altitude and lacks the speed needed to evade. Curvature of the earth, varying radar cross sections, low flying aircraft and a myriad of other factors determine maximum effective range for the S-400 system. You might achieve the advertised maximum range under perfect conditions, but in combat, you're not going to be presented with perfect conditions. When it comes to actually using the system in combat, the much vaunted and talked about S-400 will possess about the same practical effectiveness as our own Patriot system.

Navarro
Power poster 2
Power poster 2
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:01 am

Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:18 am

Oswald wrote: ...no longer employ the acronym ...We’ll no longer use the term A2/AD as a stand-alone acronym ... Richardson challenged the notion that a so-called A2/AD zone was "an impenetrable keep out zone that forces can only enter at extreme peril."
It sounds like he's trying to redefine A2/AD in order that entry into such a zone sounds more palatable to field commanders and planners stateside. Could be that the Navy and Air Force doesn't appreciate operating in the SCS, Kaliningrad and Syrian A2/ADs, which must seem like having a cocked pistol pointed at you the entire time you're in area. Could also be that strategists struggle with the idea of entering a zone in which they've been "denied entry," where they'd be subject to "extreme peril." Plans being developed may call for extensive use of cruise missiles and standoff weapons, in order to avoid entry into denied areas prior to attack, and this may be unacceptable for some reason. Maybe planners are generally avoiding these zones, leaving targets occupying these zones immune to American attack.
Oswald wrote:So while Russia and China can develop missiles and radars and declare their ranges on paper, things get a lot trickier in the real world, where the US has the most and best experience in operating."Potential adversaries actually have different geographic features like choke points, islands, ocean currents, mountains," said Richardson, who urged against oversimplifying complicated, and always unique circumstances in so-called A2/AD zones.
So he's suggesting that these zones shouldn't be thought of as area denial, but attempted or alleged area denial. Russia and China's technological claims are untested by the Americans, and we shouldn't simply accept their word when they suggest that they've denied America entry into these zones. After all - if PRC and RF announced that they had secretly deployed S-600s along their entire border area and coastline, and that the S-600 missile has an effective range of 2000 miles, with a radar detection range of 3000 miles, which would outrange even the AGM-86B (1500 miles), does this mean Russia and China's air defense is now impenetrable? Surely it would only mean that this is what Russia and China would like the Americans to think. As nothing's been proven, Russia and China would then have an alleged A2/AD of 2000 miles surrounding the entirety of their nations, and America must feel comfortable with challenging these allegations. Otherwise, RF and PRC will in fact be impenetrable, but not due to their physical hardware, but instead due to counter intelligence and psychological warfare.
Oswald wrote:Just because China's "carrier-killer" missile has a greater range than the planes aboard a US aircraft carrier doesn't mean the US would shy away from deploying a carrier within that range
There's something very audacious about that statement. Knowingly positioning carriers within range of carrier-killers. The idea doesn't represent "common sense."

You know, you don't counter a destroyer with a submarine. You don't even counter a tank with a tank - you counter it with air power. You definitely don't counter a CV killer with a CV. Even if your intention isn't the counter it, you still don't position a CV within the kill zone of a CV killer, because the expected result is that your CV will be killed. Never the less, I'm sure Admiral Richardson knows a thing or two more about naval strategy than I, especially considering I happen to know absolutely nothing about naval strategy. I'd guess that whatever point he intended to make was well-made, and I just don't understand it.
Twitter: @DefconNavarro

hrng
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:15 pm
Location: Middle of nowhere, Australia

Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:22 am

Navarro wrote:You definitely don't counter a CV killer with a CV. Even if your intention isn't the counter it, you still don't position a CV within the kill zone of a CV killer, because the expected result is that your CV will be killed.
What do you counter it with? Maybe the carriers carry something that renders it ineffective. I know nothing about these missiles so just throwing ideas out there :D

I just googled the missile (DF-21?) - its max speed is mach 10 and its max range is 1770km. If it was travelling at max speed for the duration of flight and you were sitting at the edge of the range, that's about 9 minutes the missile would be in the air. If the carrier had some way of detecting when the missiles were launched 1770km away, that'd be more than enough time to organise some kinda countermeasure I'd think... perhaps electronic based in the F35?

Locked