ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)

nicky

Junior Member
tales of missed missiles necessary to downplay unpleasant discovery of strategic vulnerability of the persian gulf assets. you are free, of course, to post them all over again all the time to avoid substantive analysis.

missile range is about 2 600 km and deployment date goes back as far as 2012.
three years old, but still a surprise, right?

it's also good to compare costs of a carrier strike group with that of four tiny missile vessels.

and finally INF issue: no violation since they are all sea-based.

more to follow;)
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Not too long ago many a Tomahawk launched against Al-Q in Afghanistan ended up surfing sand dunes rather than hitting their targets. I didn't remember anything like as much of a song and dance being made about it in the western media back then as they are with the alleged crashed Russian cruise missiles.

The attitude back when it was American cruise missiles that crashed was more of a "sh!t happens" nonchalant shrug rather than the near hysterics of now.

Although I wouldn't put it past the western media to spin this as some sort of illegal arms transfer from Russia to Iran.

I mean, if Al-Q sold crashed Tomahawks to Pakistan, who then passed them onto China, and who ultimately benefitted from the recovered technology, maybe those sneaky Ruskies crashed some cruise missiles in Iran on purpose so the Iranians could recover them and learn how to make super long range cruise missiles themselves, neatly bypassing international 300km range caps on missile sales.

Isn't it "convenient" that all the missiles crashed in Iranian territory while none malfunctioned over Iraq??? Its a smoking gun conspiracy!!!.

:p
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I concur. Having said that the problem I see with Obama's approach is the one foot in commitment and the flawed insistence on regime change that is not backed by any constructive plan on how to bring about an end game that would offer stability to Syria.


I think Putin's immediate objective is to demonstrate Russia's relevance to any political solution and that I think the point is made. The intermediate objective is to change the narrative of regime change and that also is resonating. The end game fro Russia is to ensure the Assad regime remain in power, and to strengthen its ability to remove all credible opposition and that includes ISIL. I think with Russia providing air support and ISR, and Syria with the boots there is a good chance of success. It also stops the Western power from continuing to degrade Assad's forces in the process.


I think it demonstrates that Russia can deliver bang for buck and that resonates well with many countries that don't have big military budget. It also demonstrate that under Putin, the Russian military has been able to reconstitute itself into a meaningful force not just on paper. It also demonstrate that Putin knows how to play the political game skilfully unlike Obama and his team. Optics matter.

Putin imo is trying to punch above its weight. In China's exercises with Russia, the Russians have been pretty stingy with how many missiles they fire, because they simply have limited resources. US just needs to keep supporting the kurds and other forces who are not anti-US. Russia doesn't have enough money or missiles to keep this cruise missile strike going very long.

tales of missed missiles necessary to downplay unpleasant discovery of strategic vulnerability of the persian gulf assets. you are free, of course, to post them all over again all the time to avoid substantive analysis.

missile range is about 2 600 km and deployment date goes back as far as 2012.
three years old, but still a surprise, right?

it's also good to compare costs of a carrier strike group with that of four tiny missile vessels.

and finally INF issue: no violation since they are all sea-based.

more to follow
How much damage has 26 missiles really created? And how many of them actually hit their targets?
US can go in anytime it wants to protect what it needs. That's the value of having carrier group in the region. Russia has very few fully operational oceangoing vessels and a lot of old planes in its air force. It's a second rate power. It's stock of missiles is limited and their accuracy is not great despite what the Russians want to proclaim. Russia's bark is more than its bite.
 
Last edited:
The launcher for these missiles is surely the VLS. What else can it be?

what missiles do you mean? as I said, the ships involved in the attack do NOT have anti-air missiles in a VLS (but in either the Palma or the Gibka, here shown by navyreco :)
Ghibka_3M-47_Gibka_naval_turret_mount_air_defense_missile_system_4_Iglas.jpg

and as I said, I said the Russians had said they launched the anti-land missiles from VLSs, which they did :) (the same VLS can be used to launch the anti-shipping missiles; the designations are also in my previous posts here, and
thunderchief
concurred, so I'm done here)

 
Just heard on the news the US is abandoning the training of the Syrian rebels looks like we're going to cut and run another example of leading from behind

it's in DefenseNews now:
US To End Syrian Train and Equip Program
President Obama is expected to announce the end of the Pentagon's train and equip program for Syrian rebel forces, amid widespread criticism about the ineffectiveness and cost of the mission.

The administration plans to issue new guidance for how it will attempt to build up a force of so-called moderate fighters in Syria, abandoning the current strategy that has cost millions of dollars for almost no output.

The news of the new direction was first reported by the New York Times.

Funding for the program was approved last December, with training beginning in May. But despite lofty goals — the Pentagon initially predicted 5,400 trainees by the end of the year — the program never truly got off the ground.

The final nail in the coffin seemed to occur during a Sept. 16 hearing when Gen. Lloyd Austin, chief of US Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that there were only "four or five" trainees currently operating in Syria.

Not helping the argument for keeping the program alive was an incident in September when a number of trainees turned over their equipment to the Nusra Front, an al-Qaida associated group,

The Pentagon has since hit pause on transferring new trainees from centers in Jordan and Turkey back into Syria. While Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook denied last week that meant the program was over, it is now clear the administration is going in a new direction.

Part of the challenge with the program has been finding fighters willing to combat the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS or ISIL, and not the government of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. While consistently calling on Assad to step aside, the US has avoided any direct antagonism with Assad's regime.

That situation has only become more complicated with the presence of Russia, which over the last month has set up bases and begun airstrikes in Syria — strikes that Russia claims are targeting ISIS, but which the US says have almost entirely been targeted against anti-Assad rebels in non-ISIS territory.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

GreenestGDP

Junior Member
US To End Syrian Train and Equip Program

... ...three 1,000-ton Buyan-M corvettes and the 2,000-ton guided missile frigate Dagestan fired the SS-N-30A cruise missiles from ships to target sets including plants producing ammunition and explosives, suicide mission command centers, storages of munitions, armament, and POL as well as a training camp of terrorists on the territory of the Raqqah, Idlib and Aleppo provinces ... ...


Buyan--M--corvettes--1000 tons--1.jpeg


Street talk ... ...

Way to go, gutsy and stalwart Russian ally.

I guess after all, ... ... Russian Tech must be really awesome and accurate, ... ...
despite what the knowledgeable Naysayers say about Russian weapons.

I hope Russian proliferate these absolutely Most--Bang--for-the--Buck and Must--Have corvettes and frigates to all friendly navies.

such as Cuba, Venezuela, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, South Africa, ... ...

Let's see if Daesh & Dajjal supporters can handle these proliferation ... ...


Dagestan--frigate.jpg
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Guys, I see that this thread needs some serious work.

CUT THE CONSPRIACY THEORIES, the political ideology, the partisan snipes, and any other disallowed comments and discussions.

SD is not that kind of site. I will be going through and cleaning up this and other threads of such rift-raft that has crept in over the last 10 days of my absence.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION.


WalkingTall3.jpg
 

Brumby

Major
Putin imo is trying to punch above its weight. In China's exercises with Russia, the Russians have been pretty stingy with how many missiles they fire, because they simply have limited resources. US just needs to keep supporting the kurds and other forces who are not anti-US. Russia doesn't have enough money or missiles to keep this cruise missile strike going very long.
You are probably right that Russia is potentially over extending itself particularly with falling oil prices. In the interim though it is significantly disrupting Western plans, forcing recalibration, and making the US looking rather ineffectual in its foreign policies.

How much damage has 26 missiles really created? And how many of them actually hit their targets?
In the absence of information on damage assessment it is not possible to make a judgement especially viz-a-viz alternative means of delivery. However that is not the point. The significance of this event is demonstration of technology that the Russians have similar capability for long range strike using cruise strikes. This point is probably not lost on existing and potential clients of Russia that may not have access to U.S. technology. It opens up the reality that a second or third rate Navy can park their 1000 ton Corvette 200 nm offshore and pose a threat to other nations.

In terms of probability of arrival (PA), assuming the 4 that landed in Iran is accurate it is still a 85 % hit rate, albeit that the targets probably offered no counter measures to degrade the PA. As a comparison, on opening night of Operation Desert Storm, a B-52 delivered 35 CALCMs against high priority targets in Iraq with 30 hitting their targets. During the same campaign, the hit rate of laser guided bombs were 85 % and 80 % for F-111 and F-117 respectively. In essence, 80% to 85 % PA for PGM's is the norm based on past experience.

US can go in anytime it wants to protect what it needs. That's the value of having carrier group in the region. Russia has very few fully operational oceangoing vessels and a lot of old planes in its air force. It's a second rate power. It's stock of missiles is limited and their accuracy is not great despite what the Russians want to proclaim. Russia's bark is more than its bite.
The conversation is not about US capability to do the same as there is no dispute that the US has the widest options to do the same through its carriers, SSGN's, Burkes, et al.
The point is that it opens up a whole new ball game for nations with very tight military budget. This is demonstration of asymmetry warfare using low end vessels.
 
Top