Russian Military involvement and aid to Syria

No NEBO-M will be exported. Syria will most likely get Lira or perhaps even Protivnik.

Thing is that with the modern command post (that come along with the S-300 batteries ), Syria will be able to integrate all the other

older SAM system under its command, raising efficiency of the older systems without even investing in them anything.

Talks are about 4-6 S-300PMU2 batteries and 10+ MIG-29M fighters and that is great but according to Russian PVO generals Syrians

should have 12 S-300 batteries. I would add that Syrians should have and up to 100 first class fighters too. Now that would be

a tough AD to break.

Indeed, the Israelis got nervous when Syria started talking about getting S-300, so they must have some respect for this system.

BTw How hard it is to jam russian SAM systems? I've heard that NATO managed to jam BUK.

As Sa'iqa wrote:Indeed, the Israelis got nervous when Syria started talking about getting S-300, so they must have some respect for this system.

BTw How hard it is to jam russian SAM systems? I've heard that NATO managed to jam BUK.

Nato has been playing with single systems but never has it seen anything like whole Russian AD network as such can only be found in

- Russia

GarryB wrote:I wonder about the performance of Yakhont against Patriot batteries...

As I understood, a few months ago, I read an israeli website and they claimed that the Yakhont could easily defeat Patriots and Iron dome.
Do not forget that this missile is hypersonic, using a strong electronic environnement.
If you remember during Desert Storm, in spite of the hype about a so-called Raytheon success, a discret congress report, said that, in fact the Patriot intercepted ....0 Scud. Yes Zero.
Scud is a missile built and design in early 50's, you can easily realize what would be about the newly Yakhont with its high hyper-sonic performances.
The only russian weak point in weaponnery, is the lack of propaganda, and deficiencies in Marketing.
In technical point of view, Russia has nothing to envie US.

Do not forget that this missile is hypersonic, using a strong electronic environnement.

Yakhont is not hypersonic... it is a mach 2.5 missile at high altitude... slower at low altitude.

If you remember during Desert Storm, in spite of the hype about a so-called Raytheon success, a discret congress report, said that, in fact the Patriot intercepted ....0 Scud. Yes Zero.
Scud is a missile built and design in early 50's, you can easily realize what would be about the newly Yakhont with its high hyper-sonic performances.

The problem for Patriot with Scuds was fusing... Patriot is designed as an anti aircraft weapon so an explosion that rips through the body of a plane is sufficient. With the Scuds moving at mach 7 in a ballistic path this is not enough because by the time the Scuds get within range of the Patriots they are already falling with warheads at the nose and engine and fuel tanks to the middle and rear, so a body hit by Patriot could shred the middle and rear of the missile and the warhead will still hit its target... it doesn't need its engine or fuel tanks and it is already falling so a missile blowing holes in its rear make no difference.

During the second campaign with Patriot PAC-3 the Iraqis used low flying anti ship missiles to deliver explosives to target that were successful too as the PAC-3 is optimised for ballistic targets, so low flying subsonic missiles got through.

Low flying and fast Yakhont should also have a very good chance.

GarryB wrote:

Yakhont is not hypersonic... it is a mach 2.5 missile at high altitude... slower at low altitude.

Sorry I confused, between SSN-26, and SS-26.
With new russian designation is somewhere the mess, Yakhont, Iskander, Buk, Igla, Tor, Bullavia,S125, S300, S400, S500, Tungusha,...
In the past soviet designation was better SSC for cruise missile, SSN for naval, AS...for Air to surface, SAM for surface to air missile.

In fact about the so-called success of Shield, a few months ago, US-Israeli propaganda published figured about the last battle between Israel and Hamas. Even with figures full of lies, it was hard to hide the reality, and the result about Iron Dome-with US funds, and help, it is near the same as Patriot- was not shinning against primitive Kassam rockets.
Indeed, the Kassam rocket are at first a handwork weapon, this match with the first Katiushka, during the early 30's, if not the mid 20's.
You have the state of the arts shield with US help,- engineers, moneys, sophicated hardwares provided by US- produced in 2000's against an old rocket that date from the 20's.
As you can remember, some rockets could be intercepted as Israelis claimed, but when palestinians used more modern rockets provided like Fajr provided by Iran, they easily reached Knesset in Jerusalem, and obviously Tel Aviv, where the prime minister rushed to hide.

If a so-called shield is enable to protect Israel against primitive rockets, how could this shield protect against state of the arts Yakhont and its supersonic speed ?
My conclusion is : Presently, we have not any technology in the world able to intercept old and obviously modern missiles.

As I understood, a few months ago, I read an israeli website and they claimed that the Yakhont could easily defeat Patriots and Iron dome.

Check the following below below links.NONE of the LINKS RELATE TO S-300 WEAPON sales to SYRIA.


SOMETHING VERY fishy IS GOING ON.



U.S general on Russia cruise missile sales(No S-300 HERE)

U.S criticize Russia cruise missile sale(There is NO S-300)

U.S diplomats on Russia cruise missile sale Syria
All the articles are given by TOP U.S army generals and Diplomatic .
These articles are much reliable than jerusalem, some ria novosti, pressTV etc.

This is the crux .We dont know about the information about Russian weapon sales if we keep reading
 rian(ria novosti), presstv, some Israeli sites.
U.S russia have strategic know how and intelligence on weapon sales , so this information proves that there is no S-300
 weapon sales
occuring atleast till end of MAY 2013.

Actually the S-300 sales MOVIE SHOW STARTED from June 1st week so hence and after that Krenlin did compromise and "may be stopped"
teh S-300 sales or whatever.

There is NO ISKANDER IN THESE WEAPON SALES..!What is there is Yakhont..
Kremlin has not delivered Iskander but I guess Yakhont.

Do not forget that this missile is hypersonic, using a strong electronic environnement.

Well this missile is super sonic. But from here all the dark things start..
From here on everything is speculation.Please dont consider Yakhont of 1970..There is no use of that..


 This Yakhont can be fired in suburban, urban centres , dense traffic- population centres with pin point accuracy.
Forget about anti ship. This missile this is some thing "really different".
This yakhont missile is land attack version of Yakhont. Well I dont have any proof of that.But all the hue and cry created by U.S points to something else.


  

Iskander will not be delivered and it was never said to be delivered in the first place. 

Yakhont was delivered year or two ago and deliveries are still coming. 

S-300 will be delivered as it has been confirmed. Question is when. Reports say by autumn and will be operational by 2014.

That is it.

around S-300 a kind of game is going on. Syrian sources announce about their delivery, Russians are neither confirming nor denying. It seems someone wants to obtain some other goals. One is certain, the deal was signed, and now Russians have the problem, not with delivery but political one. According to the officials, Syrian specialists in Russia are being trained for S-200 system. Is it really true, difficult to say or check.

In the past soviet designation was better SSC for cruise missile, SSN for naval, AS...for Air to surface, SAM for surface to air missile.

That wasn't a Soviet system, it was the ASCC, or Air Standards Coordinating Committee that pretty much arbitrarily gave Soviet systems designations based on their own system.

There is no standard NATO designation system either... try looking up M1 regarding US weapons and you will find dozens of systems from tanks and rifles and carbines to mines and engineer equipment etc etc.

connect2raza wrote:PAKISTAN will help their brother SYRIA. FROM PAKISTAN

Nop, I wish ur wright, but Pak. wont help Syria cause ur government is unfortunately western asslicking puppet like mine  

Viva La Syria!!

Here is the scenaris of the war in Syria. Xavier Moreau is military specialist, and most of his analysis, in the past revealed true.
He said that the cruise missiles strikes will be completly ineficient, as it was during the war in Yougoslavia. Except if the goal is slaughter civilians, in that case, US army is very very efficient.




Russian version
http://www.realpolitik.tv/2013/08/%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%B8-%D0%BE%D0%BE%D0%BD-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE/

French version
http://www.realpolitik.tv/2013/08/la-russie-et-lonu-contre-lotan/

I dare disagree. The intervention (if it takes place) will seriously hamper SAA movements around the country. Syrian air defence has no chances of repelling NATO attack, the best we could see is 4-5 downed aircraft.

As Sa'iqa wrote:I dare disagree. The intervention (if it takes place) will seriously hamper SAA movements around the country. Syrian air defence has no chances of repelling NATO attack, the best we could see is 4-5 downed aircraft.    

I don't know whether you are specialist, expert, or military professional, in anyway, Mr Moreau knew exactly what he say.
Take a look about the topics relating to S-300, if US, its western's allies and Israel were worry about the S-300, these missiles are really efficient, and able to inflict a severe blows to US.
I did not say that they forbide the syrian's sky to US aircrafts, but they caused a significant damages, if and only if they were used by high skills professionals.
In Syria, this is the case, moreover, they are at least 17.000 russians working in all areas, I repeat, working in all areas.
This war, if it takes place, it will open a new chapter in international relations, and this will be the end of US presence in Middle east, aside the western decline, you will see Russia's back.

Just last things, during the first iraq war, in 1991, for most of people US claimed that only few aircrafts were downed, in fact, most of the figures were provided by DOD, it appears that much of the figures were cheaped in order to mislead us, and mislead the world. They successfully did.
The losses were far heavy than claimed, do not be abused by the western's hype, the soviet/russian's hardware were far be efficient than you can imagine, US claims's purpose is politic, economic, and chieflty propaganda. I was abused during nearly 20 years by western propaganda, it is no use to tell more.

During the war in 2006, Hizbollah inflicted -with old russian's antitank hardware- to israelis tanks a such losses -more than 100-, that forced Israel withdrew from the war.
Western barbaric imperialism is far more weaker than you can imagine, and if this war takes place against Syria, we will witnessed several dozens F-22, F-15, F-16-no use to tell more about this shits- downed.
In 2013, this is the end of US western barbaric imperialism in Middle East.

We will see, I am skeptical as for now...

And Syria doesn't have S-300 and probably won't get it...

SAA air defence pretty much doesn't matter. Israel has conducted successful attacks against Syria without even entering its airspace. US Navy can fire about 500 Tomahawk missiles from 1000+ km range - greater than the range of even the most formidable anti ship missiles Syria possesses.

That's basically what I've been telling the media, who have been pestering me since Wednesday morning.

Well Husein has one more obstacle to overcome and than Russia can asses efficiency of Pancir-S1 and BUK-M2 against CM.

SAA air defence pretty much doesn't matter. Israel has conducted successful attacks against Syria without even entering its airspace. US Navy can fire about 500 Tomahawk missiles from 1000+ km range - greater than the range of even the most formidable anti ship missiles Syria possesses.

You are thinking too defensively... if the US attacks Syria then they are an enemy of Syria... what sort of military response can Syria mount to respond to US air attacks?

Syria has Scuds and clearly has chemical weapons... it also has Yakhont...

GarryB wrote:what sort of military response can Syria mount to respond to US air attacks?

Syria has Scuds and clearly has chemical weapons... it also has Yakhont...

About zero. If they're intelligent they simply fire from outside Yakhont range, and while an airbursting SCUD with a chem payload might make things interesting there isn't that much danger because 1) the thing just isn't all that accurate, 2) you can quickly move out of the affected area at sea, and 3) surface combatants are able to be sealed against these kinds of things, so you aren't going to really bother anyone inside pressing the fire button.

About zero. If they're intelligent they simply fire from outside Yakhont range, and while an airbursting SCUD with a chem payload might make things interesting there isn't that much danger because 1) the thing just isn't all that accurate, 2) you can quickly move out of the affected area at sea, and 3) surface combatants are able to be sealed against these kinds of things, so you aren't going to really bother anyone inside pressing the fire button.

Wasn't really thinking about US naval targets... was thinking more about targeting Israel or Turkey... both US allies, and not so much actually attacking them but making it very clear that any US attack on Syria would result in attacks on US allies in the region with the threat that what the US targets in Syria, Syria will target in Israel and Turkey. Of course as you mention, the Scud only has a fraction of the accuracy of a western air strike... but that is hardly Syrias problem.

GarryB wrote:

About zero. If they're intelligent they simply fire from outside Yakhont range, and while an airbursting SCUD with a chem payload might make things interesting there isn't that much danger because 1) the thing just isn't all that accurate, 2) you can quickly move out of the affected area at sea, and 3) surface combatants are able to be sealed against these kinds of things, so you aren't going to really bother anyone inside pressing the fire button.

Wasn't really thinking about US naval targets... was thinking more about targeting Israel or Turkey... both US allies, and not so much actually attacking them but making it very clear that any US attack on Syria would result in attacks on US allies in the region with the threat that what the US targets in Syria, Syria will target in Israel and Turkey. Of course as you mention, the Scud only has a fraction of the accuracy of a western air strike... but that is hardly Syrias problem.

I did understand this, but it's not how the world works at present.
Well, not if self-preservation is something Assad has in mind for his country at least.
Israel is playing the 'bully's friend' here. They're playing this rather smart actually.
Why fight directly and have your soldiers put in harms way, when you can push someone else to fight for you.
It's been proven to be quite successful so far, and there's no need to change tactics yet.

I did understand this, but it's not how the world works at present.
Well, not if self-preservation is something Assad has in mind for his country at least.
Israel is playing the 'bully's friend' here. They're playing this rather smart actually.
Why fight directly and have your soldiers put in harms way, when you can push someone else to fight for you.
It's been proven to be quite successful so far, and there's no need to change tactics yet.

If the US and the west get their way Assad is a dead man... ask Gaddafi... ask Saddam... no wait you can't... perhaps in terms of self preservation he might realise that if the US attacked Syria that unless his military can effectively protect the country that the air power will become key to a rebel victory because to fight the rebels he has to amass his forces and amassed forces are targets for air power... just like the Taleban found in Afghanistan fighting a rag tag enemy with western air power in support is actually quite difficult because to fight you need to concentrate men and equipment, and when you do that you become an air target. If you remain scattered then the enemy will defeat you with local superiority in numbers and equipment.

Israel is playing things very skillfully... pulling strings in the back ground to get what they think their ally wants... the main problem of course is that they are not really thinking things through as Assad was not really a friend of Israel but who knows what rag tag ass about regime will take power when Assad is murdered and left at the side of the road... it almost certainly will be more dangerous to Israel than Assads regime ever was.

Getting Israel involved will destabilise the anti Assad arab coalition, and indeed if they can ferment unrest in Saudi Arabia that would be of use as well in undermining the anti government forces in Syria.

Cornered animals are the most dangerous...

It's unlikely that there will be a full scale bombing campaign as in Libya. Probably we'll see just a brief attack, mostly for propaganda purposes.

GarryB wrote:If the US and the west get their way Assad is a dead man... ask Gaddafi... ask Saddam... no wait you can't... perhaps in terms of self preservation he might realise that if the US attacked Syria that unless his military can effectively protect the country that the air power will become key to a rebel victory because to fight the rebels he has to amass his forces and amassed forces are targets for air power... just like the Taleban found in Afghanistan fighting a rag tag enemy with western air power in support is actually quite difficult because to fight you need to concentrate men and equipment, and when you do that you become an air target. If you remain scattered then the enemy will defeat you with local superiority in numbers and equipment.

I agree with everything you've said in your post, but I think you didn't understand my reaction to your previous post.
Or perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough.
What I meant is that if Assad chose to use chemical weapons against US allies (especially against Israel), I'd expect nothing less than a full scale war against Syria (with an aim of totally destroying the country) by the US/NATO/Israel crowd. Nuclear strike on Syria by Israel is also a possibility. They're beating the war drums now, with WMD evidence that's farcical at best, what do you think they'll do when given a proper excuse?!

GarryB wrote:Israel is playing things very skillfully... pulling strings in the back ground to get what they think their ally wants... the main problem of course is that they are not really thinking things through as Assad was not really a friend of Israel but who knows what rag tag ass about regime will take power when Assad is murdered and left at the side of the road... it almost certainly will be more dangerous to Israel than Assads regime ever was.

Getting Israel involved will destabilise the anti Assad arab coalition, and indeed if they can ferment unrest in Saudi Arabia that would be of use as well in undermining the anti government forces in Syria.

Cornered animals are the most dangerous...

I actually believe that Israel is quite comfortable as things stand now and considers itself far better off with any of the scenarios you've proposed, rather than having a strong Syrian government as its neighbor. I'd wager that things going this way might have been the plan all along. Syria in ruins, with no actual central power to hold it together, embroiled in sectarian violence is less of a strategic threat to Israel than it was before.
True, Assad wasn't a threat to Israel since he came to power, but strategic planing in Israel I think is done more by looking into the far distant future, and one thing is certain to the Israelis - that they might have peace for some time perhaps, but they'll never be strategic partners with any Arab or Muslim nation which surround them. I don't think they would want to even if it was feasible. So breaking them up along sectarian lines, and if possible, into several different states that they could play against each-other should the need arise, is quite a strategic accomplishment.

Of course they know all about how frail the balance in the region is, especially between them and the Arabs, hence the need for the Americans to do the actual fighting, and be at the front of the coalition of the willing. No Arab nation would join a coalition headed by Israel, but one headed by the US is a different matter...