Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #12

I was thinking about a good way to retaliate without force and think I have it. So the British have RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus that was used to launch their strike in Homs. The Cypriots only allow it because they pay base rent and are strapped for cash. They were not informed until after the strikes and there are protests going on now. A good way we could get back at them is to encourage these protests and offer a deal to the Cypriots to kick out the British and we will take over their base.

Vladimir79 wrote:I was thinking about a good way to retaliate without force and think I have it.  So the British have RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus that was used to launch their strike in Homs.  The Cypriots only allow it because they pay base rent and are strapped for cash.  They were not informed until after the strikes and there are protests going on now.  A good way we could get back at them is to encourage these protests and offer a deal to the Cypriots to kick out the British and we will take over their base.    

No offense, but they really could not link the dots together with all the NATO plus Saudi aircraft arriving?. over a dozen C-17's landed there to unload the missiles and during the strike the base kept launching non-stop aircraft?.

Or like how the majority of missile strikes did not "hug the terrain" but instead flew at a reasonble attitude suitable for interception?.

this strike was a puppet show, and everyone knows it.

Russia gave the U.S a way out,  Russia did not retaliate, and the U.S "just" fired around 100 in waves of 3.

and really, i prefer this over enduring ww3, but this was all staged to prevent the eventual nuclear escalation.

GarryB wrote: or because last time half the missiles they launched just ran into the ground?

Finally someone putting with intelligence together observation of an, only apparently, strange details of the western cruise missiles employment in the last attack and a scarcely known technical detail about the employment of the same weapon in the attack to the Al Shayrat AB.

For the chronicle the entire salvo of 36 missiles delivered by the USS Ross ,out of the 60 (the other 24 BGM-109 was delivered by the USS Porter with one initialization malfunction), following the North route nearer to Federation AB, do not even managed to reach Syrian soil (none ran into ground, rather into salt water )

Airbornewolf wrote:Or like how the majority of missile strikes did not "hug the terrain" but instead flew at a reasonble attitude suitable for interception?

Aswer is simple. Just look at the map. Damascus is placed under the mountain chain. Cruise missiles launched from US ships fly through Lebanon to avoid Russian bases in Latakia. The reason they fly high is the position of mountain chains, so missiles have to fly over mountains and not following valeys and when they fly over mountain they are at high altitude and this is why Syrian AD shot down missiles at higher altitude.

medo wrote:

Airbornewolf wrote:Or like how the majority of missile strikes did not "hug the terrain" but instead flew at a reasonble attitude suitable for interception?

Aswer is simple. Just look at the map. Damascus is placed under the mountain chain. Cruise missiles launched from US ships fly through Lebanon to avoid Russian bases in Latakia. The reason they fly high is the position of mountain chains, so missiles have to fly over mountains and not following valeys and when they fly over mountain they are at high altitude and this is why Syrian AD shot down missiles at higher altitude.

+1

But only a small proportion had to go high. According to the US only 6 Tomahawks and the UK/F missiles came in from the west. The rest came from the Red Sea and the Gulf, including probably the JJASM from the B-1s.

Mindstorm wrote:

GarryB wrote: or because last time half the missiles they launched just ran into the ground?

Finally someone putting with intelligence together observation of an, only apparently, strange details of the western cruise missiles employment in the last attack and a scarcely known technical detail about the employment of the same weapon in the attack to the Al Shayrat AB.

For the chronicle the entire salvo of 36 missiles delivered by the USS Ross ,out of the 60 (the other 24 BGM-109 was delivered by the USS Porter with one initialization malfunction), following the North route nearer to Federation AB, do not even managed to reach Syrian soil (none ran into ground, rather into salt water )          

Not sure about that claim. According to the US, the surface ships launching the Tomahawks were the USS Monteray, Laboon and Higgins.

The guided-missile cruisier USS Monterey fired 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Red Sea. Nearby, the guided-missile destroyer Laboon fired another seven.

In the Persian Gulf, another destroyer, USS Higgins, fired launched 23.

In the Mediterranean, U.S. Navy submarine the John Warner launched six missiles.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/14/pentagon-us-allies-launched-105-missiles-in-syria-successfully-hit-all-three-targets.html

medo wrote:Aswer is simple. Just look at the map. Damascus is placed under the mountain chain. Cruise missiles launched from US ships fly through Lebanon to avoid Russian bases in Latakia. The reason they fly high is the position of mountain chains

Not medo, answer is not simple.

None of the weapons employed in the attack had any range-related constraint, forcing those missiles to come from north-western Damascus sector and, in facts, all of them (how described well by OAN journalist present during the attack in Damascus) came from three different axis: eastern ,southern and western Damascus sector, obviously to generate target discrimination and selection problems for the Soviet-era command and control units of the local SAM batteries; moreover even the missiles coming from western Damascus sector was flying much higher above the mountain formation as easily nocibeable from all the videos of the attack.

Above all what said we must take in consideration that all the JASSM-ER employed was delivered from Jordan airspace.

Simply western forces has been forced, after the attack to Al Shayrt AB, to modify CM flight profile program because none of them could had anymore relied on the data coming from theirs radar altimeters; penalty being not be capable even only to reach the target area

The problem is that ,with a similar flight approach, also the cruise missiles passing through area defended only by modernized samples of Soviet-made SAM systems, such as С-125М "Печора-2M" (for the most important sites defended instead by the few Бук-М2Э, that have downed ,in the last attack, the incoming cruise missiles with a 100% success rate, obviously not noticeable difference exist in capability to engage those type of target independently from its flight pact approach) became much more vulnerable to interception.

The combined effect of those two elements has produced a military failure of historical proportion that , behind closed doors, will likely substantially modify the CONOPS and the same employment's doctrine of subsonic cruise missiles in even barely contested air spaces.

JonhinMK wrote:Not sure about that claim. According to the US, the surface ships launching the Tomahawks were the USS Monteray, Laboon and Higgins.

We talk of different events JonhinMK.

I talk of the attack to the Al Shayrat Air Base of the 7 April 2017 , the very event that have "forced" western forces now to employ theirs cruise missiles with this ,apparently strange, flight-cruise altitude approach to the target.

In that attack the 23 missiles that reached Shayrat AB was just all those delivered by the USS Porter (out of 24, because one malfuction occured for a missile seconds afther tube separation), that followed the Southern approach while none of the 36 delivered by the USS Ross following the North-Western route (all within reach of the Federation's EW air platforms ) managed even only to reach Syrian coast - some US source mix-up the numbers exchanging the 36 missiles of the USS Ross suppressed with those instead reaching the airbases, likely a little problem of number misunderstanding from theirs insiders sources

Mindstorm wrote:
We talk of different events JonhinMK.

I talk of the attack to the Al Shayrat Air Base of the 7 April 2017 , the very event that have "forced" western forces now to employ theirs cruise missiles with this ,apparently strange, flight-cruise altitude approach to the target.

In that attack the 23 missiles that reached Shayrat AB was just all those delivered by the USS Porter (out of 24, because one malfuction occured for a missile seconds afther tube separation), that followed the Southern approach while none of the 36 delivered by the USS Ross following the North-Western route (all within reach of the Federation's EW air platforms ) managed even only to reach Syrian coast - some US source mix-up the numbers exchanging the 36 missiles of the USS Ross suppressed with those instead reaching the airbases, likely a little problem of number misunderstanding from theirs insiders sources      

Sorry for the confusion.

Yet more carrying capacity on the Syrian Express

Yörük Işık ‏Verified account @YorukIsik 14h14 hours ago

Ship of Interest: @USTreasury OFAC/SDN listed Oboronlogistika’s Russia flag, Murmansk registered cargo vessel Pizhma transits Bosphorus en route to #Tartus #Syria. Last summer, Pizhma was outfitted to carry nuclear waste & did @mod_russia deliveries in Arctic & Kuril islands

During Iraq war , the yanks changed flight path of cruise into Iraq from Persian Gulf , to fly over Iran mountains and then to hit Iraq from East . This means that range is not a consideration . But flight path becoming predictable is . Since Iraq lost most radar soon into war . Then this means passive optical tracking LOS or IR homing was becoming a problem . The higher altitude indicates that they were flying a hi - lo operation . Keeping out of range of Man pad . Knowing radar was probably off . So keeping man pads closer to ground target will force a greater dive angle . Resulting in greater error . Looks like none came from north . .......

Vladimir79 wrote:I was thinking about a good way to retaliate without force and think I have it.  So the British have RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus that was used to launch their strike in Homs.  The Cypriots only allow it because they pay base rent and are strapped for cash.  They were not informed until after the strikes and there are protests going on now.  A good way we could get back at them is to encourage these protests and offer a deal to the Cypriots to kick out the British and we will take over their base.    

It looks like my plan is coming along well.





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5618047/Protest-breaks-British-air-base-Cyprus-Tornado-warplanes-left-Syria.html

[quote="Vladimir79"]

Vladimir79 wrote:I was thinking about a good way to retaliate without force and think I have it.  So the British have RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus that was used to launch their strike in Homs.  The Cypriots only allow it because they pay base rent and are strapped for cash.  They were not informed until after the strikes and there are protests going on now.  A good way we could get back at them is to encourage these protests and offer a deal to the Cypriots to kick out the British and we will take over their base.    

Nope, they don't pay any rent and Cyprus, since 2015 has more than enough cash.
Currently, the limited British presence is not a problem for anyone other than some communists.

The problem in Cyprus is the occupation by Turkey.

KiloGolf wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:I was thinking about a good way to retaliate without force and think I have it.  So the British have RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus that was used to launch their strike in Homs.  The Cypriots only allow it because they pay base rent and are strapped for cash.  They were not informed until after the strikes and there are protests going on now.  A good way we could get back at them is to encourage these protests and offer a deal to the Cypriots to kick out the British and we will take over their base.    

Nope, they don't pay any rent and Cyprus, since 2015 has more than enough cash.
Currently, the limited British presence is not a problem for anyone other than some communists.

The problem in Cyprus is the occupation by Turkey.

If they had let russians there instead of brits the island would have never been occupied by Turkey.

@vladimir just give some sukhois to argentina and lot of cruise missiles like kh-59mk2 with 550km domestic version to destroy the falklands uk bases if you want a revange.

Isos wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:I was thinking about a good way to retaliate without force and think I have it.  So the British have RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus that was used to launch their strike in Homs.  The Cypriots only allow it because they pay base rent and are strapped for cash.  They were not informed until after the strikes and there are protests going on now.  A good way we could get back at them is to encourage these protests and offer a deal to the Cypriots to kick out the British and we will take over their base.    

Nope, they don't pay any rent and Cyprus, since 2015 has more than enough cash.
Currently, the limited British presence is not a problem for anyone other than some communists.

The problem in Cyprus is the occupation by Turkey.

If they had let russians there instead of brits the island would have never been occupied by Turkey.

@vladimir just give some sukhois to argentina and lot of cruise missiles like kh-59mk2 with 550km domestic version to destroy the falklands uk bases if you want a revange.

How exactly do that? Nobody liked Soviet Union and their Cold War Hellenophobic agenda, apart from some minority marxist snowflakes. The Brits were leaving in 1960 and reached an agreement similar to the Russian one in post-USSR Crimea (Ukraine). Whatever the UK has and does in Cyprus is absolutely legal.

As much as one may not approve of the Syria strikes, it's a sovereign right of theirs, to do as they please with their mandated military bases, as per treaty of establishment of Cyprus. On the other hand the Turkish invasion and occupation is in violation of the said treaty, as well as international law.

Britain bought Cyprus from Ottoman Empire in 1878. How could an enslaved population "let russians"??

Let them invade the island

More seriously, I didn't know that nor the story of the island. But now it's a recognized state so if they want British to leave UN has to support them to make them leave. But they definitly need someone to protect them. If it is Greece they will go at full war with Erdogan so Russians are the best option. British already let the turks invade.