Russia's reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

"The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov
reached the Mediterranean through the Straits of Gibraltar. Other Russian warships military exercises with Russian warships in international waters continues. According to reports in Russian media, helicopters and ships belonging to NATO warships constantly watching "

The last i heard is that they are now heading for Malta. And the Syrian situation is stable for the moment, but now Iran rattles. They have threaten to close the strait of Hormuz if EU sanctions Irans oil industry.
That will very certainly led to clashes with US and Nato ships in the area.
Then maybe US and Israel will take the oppertunity and bomb Irans nuclear facilities.

Whatever, Kuznetsovs stay in the Med will not be boring...

I hope both sides keep a cool head as Iran is certainly no threat to the world, but it is definitely a power in the region.

If it really hated the US as much as the US seems to hate it, it could easily have allowed sophisticated weapons like MANPADS and ATGMs move from Iranian factories across the border into Iraq and Afghanistan for use against US forces there. In the case of Afghanistan that would have been critical as they rely on helicopters for relatively safe transport that avoids the threat of IEDs. Take that away and they will be in a very difficult position...

In the past the Iranian Navy has been pretty ineffectual, but recent chinese anti ship missiles are rather more capable than the old Silkworm missiles many are based upon and offer a much more serious threat. A few Iranian roll on roll off ships laying mines again doesn't bare thinking about. Let alone ballistic or cruise missile attacks against US assets in the region.

I am pretty sure that a US attack on civilian nuclear facilities in Iran would lead to an end to the reset with Russia, and Russia will likely become much more cooperative with Iran in terms of supplying weapons.

Really don't think it is worth it for the US... but that has never stopped them in the past.

Meanwhile a few thousand Russian sailor enjoy working on their tans in the med.

GarryB wrote:Once on its way, however the Yakhont uses a ramjet engine so there would not be any radar return signal generated by that that would show up on radar.

I'm not so sure about that. The exhaust plume from the J-58 turned out to be a big reflector on the A-12. Hence the idea of adding cesium to the fuel.

Well according to Wiki:

In 1990, the Air Force retired the Blackbirds, the late Ben Rich, the SR-71's co-designer and Director of Lockheed Skunk Works boasted in his book (memoir) titled "Skunk Works"pg 240: "We at the Skunk Works believed that the airplane's height and speed, as well as its pioneering stealthy composite materials applied to key areas of its wings and tail, would keep it and its crew safe, but we fortified that belief by adding a special additive, which we nicknamed "panther piss", that ionized the furnace-like gas plumes streaming from the engine exhaust. The additive caused enemy infrared detectors to break up incoherently."

The 2007 release of the OXCART document confirmed this "Panther Piss" as cesium. In that document around 1959, Johnson statesPg 4: "By this time we were working with P&W on a J58 engine. To overcome the afterburner problem of a large radar cross section return from the aft quadrant, we proposed the use of cesium additive to the fuel. This was first brought up by Mr. Ed Lovick of ADP, and its final development was passed over to P&W. It was eventually a basic part of our cross section reduction methods." and "We were able to prove by 1 January 1960 that our concept of shape, ADDITIVE, and loaded plastic parts had enough promise to warrant going forward with the project."Pg 9

Now I am not sure how you interpret that, but my take is that cesium was added to effect IR sensors by intentionally ionising the engine exhaust, which of course creates a problem because ionised air reflects radar signals so it is like turning the entire exhaust of the engines into a toxic radioactive radar reflector, so by 1st January 1960 they added plastic.

In the event the Soviets and Chinese had not problem at all tracking the SR-71 from take off to landing... adding a metal like cesium to the fuel will create an ionising effect on the engine exhaust... not solve it.

As I mentioned aluminium is commonly added to propellents and explosives to make them burn hotter and either turn HE into HEI or high explosive incendiary, or to make propellent burn hotter and therefore generate more thrust.

The aluminium particles in the air will reflect on radar at certain frequencies and the temperature, plus the metal may ionise the air in the exhaust fumes, which will also generate a radar return.

I figured it out. They added cesium to get rid of the effect of the ejector acting as a large corner reflector and blowing up the rear-hemisphere RCS. Ionizing the exhaust plume made it act like a solid tail fairing, still not spectacular but far less reflective than a pure corner reflector. This was part of the progression from A-11 (Lockheed's "you guys are stupid there's no way to reduce the RCS so we're ignoring that part" design) to A-12 (Lockheed's "well damn, you really can reduce the RCS" design). This is also why you find large fairings covering the engine nozzles in images of a lot of the RCS pole models.

If it happened to affect IR sensors, that was an added benefit and was not the point of the effort. Kinda like how the chines were actually added to reduce side-on RCS, not for aerodynamic purposes, but they had a beneficial aerodynamic effect on the design (despite what some nutcases want you to believe).

At the end of the day they did manage to get the RCS down, but the appearance of TALL KING and its new capabilities basically obliterated most of their work which was designed to overcome current-generation (at the time) blip-scan radar sets. And on more than a few flights over Vietnam or near the DPRK, there was no evidence whatsoever that anybody knew the jet was around. Of course, on other occasions, they were tracked or even fired at, so it clearly wasn't a VLO platform by any stretch of the imagination. But it did represent the first operational aircraft designed to have a reduced RCS, and a lot of the ideas did work to greater or lesser degrees. The best read on the subject is From RAINBOW to GUSTO by Paul Suhler, which is basically a history of the A-12 program from an RCS reduction standpoint.

So we are agreed that the Yakhont might have a radar visible rocket exhaust plume due to potential for aluminium in the mix, but once that has burned out and it changes to ramjet it no longer has a detectible exhaust plume.

And BTW adding Cesium to fuel is a bit like adding plutonium to fuel... cesium is really bad stuff that is absorbed into the body because it is mistaken for a different element. The result is leukemia or thyroid cancer.

The fact that it hemorrhages fuel while on the ground... well I volunteer not to work with that aircraft.

The irony is that because of its flight speed and altitude why would they care about its rear hemisphere RCS?

GarryB wrote:The irony is that because of its flight speed and altitude why would they care about its rear hemisphere RCS?

Because the original intent was always to overfly the USSR. Plus, if someone gets a good track on your heading and altitude from behind you, they can forward that information to people in front of you, people potentially operating missiles and airplanes and other explody things that could present a problem. They always figured the USSR would eventually come up with something capable of reaching the right velocity and altitude to potentially be a threat.

They always figured the USSR would eventually come up with something capable of reaching the right velocity and altitude to potentially be a threat.

That would have been the SA-5 wouldn't it?

All that effort and hazard and pollution and they seemed to have no problems tracking them from enormous distances.

GarryB wrote:That would have been the SA-5 wouldn't it?

In theory, provided they weren't operated by Libyans. In which case they proved unable to hit anything.

GarryB wrote:All that effort and hazard and pollution and they seemed to have no problems tracking them from enormous distances.

You do have to understand that a lot of the work on RCS reduction took place in the late 50's and into the early 60's. There were no serious computer modeling programs capable of giving any really valuable assistance. And those damn commies, they didn't play fair, bringing out TALL KING when they did I do have to wonder how much "stealthier" the A-12 would've been had the CIA not given up on it in 1968. The KEMPSTER system ("plasma stealth," basically) significantly reduced the forward hemisphere RCS spikes from the intakes, and would have been installed in operational airframes if they remained in service.

Stealth, before a Russian invented the maths for it, was largely guess work that proceeded on the basis of trial and error.

Build a model... check its RCS... make changes... check RCS... repeat continuously.

After maths was developed you could use computers to estimate likely rcs results, so you could test hundreds or thousands of designs a week.

Early processing power resulted in stealth aircraft following computer based flight simulators... start out simple wire frame with faceted sides with only a few hundred polygons per plane.

These days of course the processing power has increased exponentially, though they also cheat and overlay textures on the models which hides faceting and makes it look much smoother than it actually is without making the models too complex, though games like Il-2 have moving parts etc.

To be brutally honest stealth aircraft are first strike weapons and therefore are very destabilising, and I am glad they took so long to develop.

You, as an American might have felt safer, but for the rest of the world it creates a hair trigger on nuclear weapons, which means mistakes are much more likely.

GarryB wrote:Stealth, before a Russian invented the maths for it, was largely guess work that proceeded on the basis of trial and error.

Ufimtsev!

GarryB wrote:Build a model... check its RCS... make changes... check RCS... repeat continuously.

Hence the need for out of the way places to dork around with pole models. The book I mentioned goes into a lot of detail about how they went about getting the set-up to work right, like eliminating the radar return from the pole itself.

GarryB wrote:To be brutally honest stealth aircraft are first strike weapons and therefore are very destabilising, and I am glad they took so long to develop.

Ironically, one of the early reasons they wanted a low RCS for the A-12 was specifically to avoid the USSR thinking it was a fast, high-flying strike aircraft. Dunno about the logic behind that idea, but it's certainly interesting given the context.

GarryB wrote:You, as an American might have felt safer, but for the rest of the world it creates a hair trigger on nuclear weapons, which means mistakes are much more likely.

We're perfectly capable of making nuclear mistakes with non-stealthy airplanes, thankyouverymuch. Reference the B-52 incident of a few years ago... Besides, an Ohio-class SSBN was also a ridiculously stealthy first-strike weapon in theory. So was an Akula (Typhoon) operating under the polar ice cap. Did you feel the same way about those?

At any rate, happy new eyar to you, you ridiculous Kiwi

Did you feel the same way about those?

Not really the same thing... believe it or not the Soviets had lots of underwater listening systems and their radar would detect SLBMs as they launched, but the plan to have planes that can fly over the USSR without being seen could potentially mean the first warning the Soviets got that they were under attack was a toss bombing manouver that lofted a few nukes towards Moscow.

This would result in the Soviets going on alert ready to fire at the slightest warning... a bit like the crew of the Vincennes in the 1980s and we all know how wonderful that turned out.

Obviously like anything else they would have developed counters to the systems as they have now, but anything that risks defeating MAD will always make me uncomfortable... MAD works and does not rely on trust or verbal promises.

Regards, and have a better new year...

Athens approved Russia’s request for aeronautical exercises within the Athens FIR. The demand for the exercises was asked because the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov and its escort ships approach Eastern Mediterranean. The exercise might take place on Tuesday 80-90 miles southwest of Pylos, in the Ionian Sea. Alternative dates are – under Russian request – the 5th and 6th of January.


The Russian naval force is expected anytime now to reach the area of the Athens FIR. The aircraft carrier entered some days ago the Mediterranean through Gibraltar and heads off Syria.

So, the task force is of Grecce, and probably of Syria in a matter of days.
Since the Russian intervention with weapon and politics, the situation has cooled, and hopefully a deal with the opposition can move the country closer to democracy and avoid further bloodshed.

GarryB wrote:I hope both sides keep a cool head as Iran is certainly no threat to the world, but it is definitely a power in the region.

I am pretty sure that a US attack on civilian nuclear facilities in Iran would lead to an end to the reset with Russia, and Russia will likely become much more cooperative with Iran in terms of supplying weapons.

Really don't think it is worth it for the US... but that has never stopped them in the past.

The other hotspot, Iran is getting hotter by the minute. Now 40% of the worlds oil is at stake, if Iran close the Hormuz strait. And oil is what US interests is all about, as it is power and money. Especially money, with many politicians striving to benefit themselves and friends, just as Bush and Dick did.

Now, wouldnt it be wiser to station the Kuznetsov in BSF?
Up in the cold north, nothing is happening.

Not that i like Iran much, i just dont see the justification to sanction Iran and then bomb it back to the stone age, when other countries were allowed to get nucs. Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea. And Israel cannot be said to be a peaceloving country by any means.

I dont see the K moving to interfere with a US-Iran naval clash, but it cannot hurt to be nearby, observing and decoding target radars.

So, any bet the K is going through Suez in a few weeks?

Now, wouldnt it be wiser to station the Kuznetsov in BSF?
Up in the cold north, nothing is happening.

It is going into refit in 2013... next year, for a major overhaul and refit so there is no point in stationing it in the Black Sea.

Not that i like Iran much, i just dont see the justification to sanction Iran and then bomb it back to the stone age, when other countries were allowed to get nucs. Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea. And Israel cannot be said to be a peaceloving country by any means.

Irans crime was that it nationalised its national resources... something Venezuela and Cuba did too. The very concept that the Iranian or Venezuelan people should benefit from the oil under the soil in their countries instead of some already rich western oil company is blasphemy to the US. In cuba it was sugar... cubans should just be happy to earn a few dollars a day on the sugar plantations or in the casinos or as waiters delivering drinks to fat foreigners sitting on beautiful cuban beaches.

The point is that by putting sanctions on Iran the US and EU are starving them of funds because the US and EU thinks they might be breaking the rules... how exactly can they prove they aren't?

The whole point of enriching their own fuel is so they can be self sufficient in nuclear energy and the west cannot withhold fuel as leverage to force them to do stuff.

These sanctions show the Iranians they are right to want to be independent of the outside world for their power, because they know the west does not want them to grow.

I dont see the K moving to interfere with a US-Iran naval clash, but it cannot hurt to be nearby, observing and decoding target radars.

So, any bet the K is going through Suez in a few weeks?

I think the K in the med near syria will have a good effect on the US and EU... they will think twice before meddling directly.

In the Persian Gulf however I don't think the K can do any good, and if Iran wants to close the straights I doubt the Russians want their ships there at all... who knows what might happen.

What if Iran starts mining the gulf and the K hits a mine?

The Russians have nothing to gain by getting in the way there, and would not be of much help to Iran... at the moment with western sanctions on Iran pretty much all of Irans crude oil exports stop, so Iran will be happy to fire on any naval traffic in the straight as they know it wont be theirs... and if they can't ship oil then why should anyone else...

GarryB wrote:

I would expect them to visit Cyprus and Egypt, as the latter is free from influence of US.

Did CNN tell you that?

As far as I can tell the military pretty much removed Mubarak and kept power themselves.

Seems to me that apart from Mubarak going little has actually changed and the people in power now in Egypt are largely the same people that were there before under Mubarak.

With the military in control the US will have its greatest influence... it is US aide that goes directly to the military to control Egypt all this time.

They talk about an Arab Spring, but it is far more likely that the NSA picked up a conversation by Mubarak where he may have said he was sick of being a US stooge and being nice to the Israelis while they build new settlements and cage the Palestinians like animals... or perhaps it was considering buying Russian planes like Migs and Flankers...

A simple combination of encouraging his opponents and getting the regime to "allow" an uprising they could take over and use to get rid of Mubarak would not be hard to engineer.

Good point about the Nerpa being in the wrong ocean, but regarding Sev, that was pretty predictible as the French had to pick which Russian yard does the Russian side of production for the 4 Mistrals (20% or so for the first two, and 80% or so for the second two) and Sev makes sense for the French to pick as they are the best equipped and will need the least money and time to get up to speed to do the job.

This is probably why they are talking about fairly superficial upgrades for the two Kirovs initially, but if they keep these ships they will remain in service beyond 2030, so in the 2020s they will likely put them through a more complete and thorough upgrade.

Garry , U.S didn't control Egyptian army, I explained that in the U.S drone thread .

ahmedfire wrote:Garry , U.S didn't control Egyptian army, I explained that in the U.S drone threat .

So, where does Egypt stand now, close to US-Israel or are you moving away from that?
Any chance of Kuznetsov visiting Egypt, as a sign of changing interests zone?

GarryB wrote:It is going into refit in 2013... next year, for a major overhaul and refit so there is no point in stationing it in the Black Sea.

Is it? I thought the overhaul wast postponed and had to be minor, as the verf will be busy with building the two Mistrals?

In the Persian Gulf however I don't think the K can do any good, and if Iran wants to close the straights I doubt the Russians want their ships there at all... who knows what might happen.
What if Iran starts mining the gulf and the K hits a mine?
The Russians have nothing to gain by getting in the way there.

Right, but they would want a spyship to monitor, or perhaps they can fly patrols over and whatch with Bears.
A modern naval clash would be very interesting to watch closey, and analyse radar and weapons signatures, as the last modern naval clash was Argentina- UK 1982.

runaway wrote:

ahmedfire wrote:Garry , U.S didn't control Egyptian army, I explained that in the U.S drone threat .

So, where does Egypt stand now, close to US-Israel or are you moving away from that?
Any chance of Kuznetsov visiting Egypt, as a sign of changing interests zone?

Having agood relations with someone doesn't mean you are aslave for him, after Soviet Union fall, We found only world one power , so you can deal smartly with her or go to hell ,

From decades ,Egypt has good relations with all countries depends on benefits , having good relations with U.S doesn't mean bad relations with russia ,, We have very very good relations with russia in all fields economy,military, and wait some months we will give russia ( not U.S )the nuclear contracts to establish many nuclear reactors in egypt,

But we have Sovereignty on our land, so we refuse to establish any foreign military bases in egypt ,

I don't see reasons that obstacle making anavy maneuvers with russia if she demand that !

Garry , U.S didn't control Egyptian army, I explained that in the U.S drone threat .

No, they clearly don't, but lets face it, if the US wanted Mubarak to stay in power they could have ensured that.

I am pretty sure the successful uprisings were only successful because either the US supported them or didn't care.

Note the uprisings in Bharain where Saudi Arabia sent troops to help the government and crush the people didn't get a whisper in the western media because Bharain does as it is told so there is "no need for regime change there".

Mubarak clearly didn't behave so the CIA supported the coup in Egypt.

Is it? I thought the overhaul wast postponed and had to be minor, as the verf will be busy with building the two Mistrals?

AFAIK the two being made in Russia will not start till 2014-5 and will end up in the Northern Fleet.
The overhaul of the Kirovs was going to be minor, the Kuz is going to get its Granits removed to expand the hangar deck, and is likely to get a fairly extensive electronics and radar upgrade and nuclear propulsion, with EM cats most likely.

Right, but they would want a spyship to monitor, or perhaps they can fly patrols over and whatch with Bears.
A modern naval clash would be very interesting to watch closey, and analyse radar and weapons signatures, as the last modern naval clash was Argentina- UK 1982.

Considering the location of the Persian Gulf I rather suspect they will do what they did for the Falklands war and send up a satellite to monitor what was happening.

With the Persian Gulf so close to the equator however that means geostationary orbit satellites with continuous coverage.

Not really safe sending aircraft or surface vessels into potential war zones.

Well, so much for a "visite to syria is not planned". Also the submarine theory is proven right, i would guess a couple of Akulas 971.

Russian Navy's flotilla headed by aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov has already moored at Syrian port Tartus, report news agencies of Damascus. According to local media, the call of Russian carrier group is carried out in solidarity with Syria which is Moscow's close ally.

The 6-day visit of the Russian naval flotilla is called to strengthen stance of Syrian government which is currently under pressure of the Western and Arab countries as a result of sanguinary repression of protest actions.

"The port call is aimed at bringing the two countries closer together and strengthening their ties of friendship", reports SANA citing the Russian Navy's spokesman Vladimir A. Yakushev. According to the news agency, Russian warships will call at Tartus by rotation to demonstrate solidarity with Syrian people.

The governor of Tartus province, Atef al-Nadaf, paid tribute to the "honourable position adopted by Russia which has stood by the Syrian people". Private but para-governmental Syrian newspaper Al-Watan reported last week that aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov with an escort group including submarines was heading for Syria.

Now, how long will they stay in the Med, and where do they go from Tartus?

The 6-day visit of the Russian naval flotilla is called to strengthen stance of Syrian government which is currently under pressure of the Western and Arab countries as a result of sanguinary repression of protest actions.

So they plan to stay for just under a week...

Russian warships will call at Tartus by rotation to demonstrate solidarity with Syrian people.

And they plan to have a rotation of warships visit to perhaps keep a near constant presence there to ensure against external interference.

I would expect they will take the opportunity to show the Syrian AF the Indian Mig-29Ks and some of their capabilities as they are very similar to the Mig-29M2 aircraft they might get.

I would expect that this would be a useful place to stop for Russian vessels on anti piracy missions off Africa to operate from as transit times will be reduced.

A Russian naval task force, led by the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, has left the Syrian port of Tartus after a three-day visit, Russia’s Northern Fleet said in a statement on Tuesday.

The task force called on the Syrian port on Sunday amid ongoing bloody protests in Syria against the rule of President Bashar al-Assad. Some media reports said the visit of the Russian warships was a signal of Russia’s support for Assad’s regime but the Russian military denied any connections of the visit with the political situation in the country.

“The naval task force has completed its visit to the Syrian port of Tartus with the aim of replenishing [food and water] provisions. The warships left the Syrian territorial waters on Tuesday afternoon and continued on their route in accordance with their schedule,” the statement said.

Syria’s SANA news agency reported earlier that it viewed the visit of the Russian warships as a sign of solidarity with Syria saying that the country “highly respects Russia’s honorable stance in support of the Syrian people.”

The Russian Defense Ministry repeatedly stated that the purpose of the visit at the Syrian port was to replenish water and food supplies during the naval task force’s long-term training mission in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.

Russia maintains a Soviet-era naval maintenance site near Tartus and it is the country’s only military foothold in the Mediterranean. Moscow is planning to modernize the facility to accommodate large warships, including missile cruisers and even aircraft carriers after 2012.

http://www.en.ria.ru/world/20120110/170695026.html

Wonder where they are headed now?

Don't know but this seems interesting :

Russian weapons ship arrives in Syria - paper

RIA Novosti

18:30 12/01/2012

MOSCOW, January 12 (RIA Novosti) - A Russian-owned ship reportedly carrying weapons to Syria docked in Tartus on Thursday despite assurances it would change destination, Turkey’s Hurriyet Daily News reported.

“The Turkish navy has learned that the Russian ship MV Chariot docked at the Syrian port today,” the paper said, citing Turkish Foreign Ministry official Selcuk Unal.

Russia maintains a Soviet-era naval maintenance site near Tartus, which is the country’s only military foothold on the Mediterranean.

The cargo ship MV Chariot, flying the St. Vincent and Grenadines flag, was en route from St. Petersburg to the Syrian port of Latakia carrying from 35 to 60 tons of ammunition and explosives meant for the Syrian Defense Ministry.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said the ship carried a “dangerous cargo,” but did not elaborate. According to the documents, the cargo sender was the Russian state arms trader Rosoboronexport.

The ship's initial route lay in the waters of Turkey, not an EU member, so there was no violation of the relevant EU restrictions on Syria. The ship, however, was forced to dock for refueling at the Cypriot port of Limassol on Tuesday.

Cypriot authorities boarded the ship for a document check. They also tried to examine the cargo, but could not open four containers it was stored in because of “confined space,” the Greek Cypriot Foreign Ministry said in a statement. They, however, ruled that the ship carried “dangerous cargo.”

In about an hour, it was allowed to leave “after the ship decided to change its destination and not go to Syria,” Cypriot government spokesman Stefanos Stefanou said.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/syria/2012/syria-120112-rianovosti01.htm