Syrian Crisis...2013

Jura said:

Syria operates 20 Su-24 bombers, and purchased 78 X-31 anti-ship missiles (I don't know of which version); each aircraft can carry up to three of them. How dangerous this would be to a modern destroyer?

Click to expand...

Several things about the Kh-31.

First, it is a decent missile...and dangerous under the right conditions.

As far as this engagement would be concerned, there are three very important advantages that the US forces will have.

1st: The Kh-31 range is less than the range of the Standard Missiles that the AEGIS vessels carry for air defense.

2nd: The US will be providing heavy over-watch via E-3 Sentry aircraft...the US will know if any flight of aircraft are approaching the vessels.

So, based on those first two issues, if the SU-24s or Mig-29s (because they are capable of carrying the Kh-31 too), enter the Standard Missile engagement envelope (presuming other allied aircraft like the French do not intercept them first) they will get shot up badly before they ever launch their missiles.

3rd: In the 1990s the US bought a bunch of MH-31 drones and worked extensively with them to ensure that the AEGIS system could handle the Kh-31. So, if they do get some of them launched, I would expect the combined strength of five AEGIS vessels and their Standard Missiles, ESSMs and finally the CIWS to be very effective against them.

Remember too, the French sent an Horizon DDG to operate with the five US AEGIS destroyers for additional AAW defense. That Horizon is probably going to be effective against these threats as well.

kwaigonegin said:

[video]https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CEYQtwIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBSA 6YZcdOQg&ei=aP4pUqTmJOX4yQHryID4Bw&usg=AFQjCNFK5B1SZGPA-d7JoHD6fqhMdbtYXg&sig2=RbvbeUb8orSw-E9gYrmZeQ[/video]

I;m surprised no here here posted this yet.. it has pretty much viral.

Click to expand...

BAsed on what CNN said the head of that battalion is a moderate...

And history repeat's itself... Oh god I hope not.

As far as this engagement would be concerned, there are three very important advantages that the US forces will have.

Click to expand...

Plus one more..

written by a retired US Navy Captian who was a Surface warfare specialist.

War Reserve Modes (WRM). For those who are unfamiliar with the term, a WRM refers to parameters of combat systems (to include missiles) operation that are kept under wraps until "the big one...a real shooting war.

I'll use the SPY-1 radar systems found in both the Ticonderoga-class cruisers, and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers as an example. There is it's advertised contact acquisition range, the demonstrated contact acquisition range, and then there's the WRM contact acquisition range. No one has ever seen that, nor will they unless and until the situation warrants it. The other side has them too; everyone does.

Click to expand...

...nuff said...

Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

cn_habs said:

In a couple of years, those Al Quaida nutjobs will be taking runs at American bases or interests all across the Middle East. Maybe there will be a couple of more London bombings to boot.

Mission accomplished. Stupidity at its finest.

Click to expand...

Just in case you've forgotten, some factions of AQ have declared a jihad against China ,so there's every likelihood they will target Chinese interests as well.

Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

B.I.B. said:

Just in case you've forgotten, some factions of AQ have declared a jihad against China ,so there's every likelihood they will target Chinese interests as well.

Click to expand...

Well I think those are extremist fringe elements that don't have much in the way of support or funding.

The big secret is that the bulk of AQ's funding comes from Saudi Arabia and a few other Gulf States. Those guys have nothing against China, in fact, Chinese demand and money is only going to become more important to them as America becomes more self sufficient with shale gass and oil reserves at home.

In addition to the financial consideration, there is also good old fashion common sense, and even religous fanatics have them to some degree.

When you are at war with the world's superpower and loosing, you don't go pick a fight with the rising superpower.

America alone is giving AQ a hell of a beating, add Chinese money and boots to the fight and AQ has no chance whatsoever. To declare war on China is to sign their own death warrants.

Although saying that, Chinese security at airports, train stations, ports etc are pretty relaxed, a little too much so IMO. If AQ or some other terrorist group were to target China, they could cause a lot of damage and casualties. I think China should do more to beef up security and not rely so much of deterrence to prevent attacks.

Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

plawolf said:

Well I think those are extremist fringe elements that don't have much in the way of support or funding.

The big secret is that the bulk of AQ's funding comes from Saudi Arabia and a few other Gulf States. Those guys have nothing against China, in fact, Chinese demand and money is only going to become more important to them as America becomes more self sufficient with shale gass and oil reserves at home.

In addition to the financial consideration, there is also good old fashion common sense, and even religous fanatics have them to some degree.

When you are at war with the world's superpower and loosing, you don't go pick a fight with the rising superpower.

America alone is giving AQ a hell of a beating, add Chinese money and boots to the fight and AQ has no chance whatsoever. To declare war on China is to sign their own death warrants.

Although saying that, Chinese security at airports, train stations, ports etc are pretty relaxed, a little too much so IMO. If AQ or some other terrorist group were to target China, they could cause a lot of damage and casualties. I think China should do more to beef up security and not rely so much of deterrence to prevent attacks.

Click to expand...

I would agree with your assessment. AQ probably knows also that while the Chinese may not have as much firepower or technology as the USA, they are also more likely to not hold back as much if something terrible happens to their homeland and their ROE and adherance to their version of the UCMJ may be a little bit hmm shall we say more loose than the US.

I would imagine if an event like 911 happened in Shanghai, Beijing etc we would see a million Chinese troops transited Kyber Pass by now and I guarantee you they will not be as 'nice' as the Americans in country. They won't be there to dig wells and build schools either if you know what I mean.

bd popeye said:

Plus one more..

written by a retired US Navy Captian who was a Surface warfare specialist.

War Reserve Mode (WMR)

...nuff said...

Click to expand...

Yes...the US definitely holds back on the actual operating parameters. Weapon ranges, radar performance and ranges, sonar, top speeds (ie. US nuclear Aircraft Carriers can do a LOT more than 32 knots if they have to...even said to be able to outrun most torpedos if they can get oriented to where it is a straight stern chase).

But then, I expect that is also a two-edged sword because I have no doubt that adversaries with capable systems (ie. the Ruskies) do the same thing. Then it comes down to intelligence and what we each REALLY know of each other beyond the "official" specs.

Jeff Head said:

Yes...the US definitely holds back on the actual operating parameters. Weapon ranges, radar performance and ranges, sonar, top speeds (ie. US nuclear Aircraft Carriers can do a LOT more than 32 knots if they have to...even said to be able to outrun most torpedos if they can get oriented to where it is a straight stern chase).

....

Click to expand...

You mean more than 40 kn, Jeff?

Yesterday a Dutch radio station mentioned that Free Syrian Army and another outfit whose name escaped me had said that US had informed them that they will be warned in advance to enable them to start offensives at the time of the US assault.