Russian Air Campaign in Syria

[marauder2048]

The point to continuing to refer to them as "Islamic State" is that, unlike Daesh, Daish, Da'ish or whatever... you know what you're getting. Some organization calls itself the Communist Party, you don't refer to them as the Economic Morons Party just to get their goats... you continue to call them Communists, because the link between the designation and the depravity should not be broken.

Most North Americans never understood the mostly not subtle differences between Socialism, Communism, Titoism, early Social democracy, modern Social democracy, Bolshevism, Menshevism, Stalinism, Maoism and even much of the Catholic social theology - and called it all "Communism" or post-Cold War they called it "Socialism" - which was flattering to most of them and badly misleading about many of them.

I think the elite from Mexico to Panama understand the distinctions quite well. But in reality the distinctions only matter to the "new elite" who rule in these systems and for whom schism and heresy are seen as big threats
to their survival.

 

[lastdingo]

Hi last dingo, hope I'm not picking on you, good to have my perceptions challenged, hope you feel the same.

A few quick points;
- still not clear from where / whom this "tip of the spear" is supposed to come from.
- a (very small) mobile strategic reserve is great, never said it wasn't an advantage, but it's not the war winner in this type of conflict that you are saying it is. In fact Isis is a good example of this. In terms of numbers and commitment their not a million miles from what you are proposing, but Isis lacks the ability for knock out blows against Assad or Iraqi state forces.
- "Controlling ground is not all that difficult..." How much blood and treasure has been spent disproving this statement.....
- Constant refrains condemning "Western" this or that cheapen your arguments and portray a prejudice.
At best it's just lazy...

Some ways to assemble a mobile strategic reserve to break the stalemate
- subsidize (some) FSA leaders so it's able to get the militias under the FSA's roof to commit a few per cent of their fighters (a kind of levy) to it in exchange for supplies
- Assad used Hezbollah and originally the Syrian army as mobile forces, but with both of them exhausted, a Russian mechanized brigade may end up replacing them
- A 'legion' of volunteers, possibly recruited from refugee camps or even Western Muslims
- An Iranian volunteer regiment
- Jordan joining the fray with a brigade
- Legion Étrangère

Da'esh was actually doing fine for a while, but then the culminating point and suppressive bombing weighed them down, as well as the attrition battle at Kobane. Now they seem busy with defence, and will only regain their ability to launch offensives if they learn to accept (more) weakness in many places to free up forces AND find a way to attack in force without getting bombed decisively.

Controlling ground is not difficult. All civil war parties are doing it right now. Only Westerners fail at it in such countries, and nowadays only. You don't control a population by watching it all the time; you control it by having it fear you coming after them once they opposed you. Same as with ordinary policing. Western occupation forces don't do the "coming after them" in a fear-inducing way, and were thus pointless and never numerous enough.

I'm greatly annoyed, astonished and exasperated by the incompetence of political and military leadership in the wars since 2002 at the latest, but also during the Kosovo Air War. It's hugely disconcerting to remember that such incompetents are running our deterrence and defence. At best we're wasting billions every year that could have been saved if we had competents in charge of our defence.

Da'esh is not very interesting to me because it's by no stretch a relevant threat to my country or its alliances. Any Westerner who fears them is in my opinion a fearful p***y.
The Western military forces on the other hand are a part of us. Them being unable to accomplish missions even with a 100:1 superiority in resources is a horrible display of incompetence, unheard-of pre-1950. To bash Da'esh is pointless, redundant and utterly unoriginal, but to express concern about Western foreign policy and military incompetence makes sense.


In the end, the ineptitude (lack of decisiveness) displayed by Western intervention in Syria once again casts severe doubts regarding the competence of political and military leadership in the intervening countries.
What proposals for better strategies do we get? From super-primitive nonsense such as nuke fantasies up to the simplistic demands for more resources, particularly Western ground forces, by the usual suspects on TV and in newspapers (anglophone ones only, of course - as usual). Lots of primitive ideas, no indication of art of war competence anywhere. 14 year olds pulled from a schoolyard could give the same advices.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Da'esh was actually doing fine...

Da'esh is not very interesting to me because it's by no stretch a relevant threat to my country or its alliances. Any Westerner who fears them is in my opinion a fearful p***y.

To bash Da'esh is pointless...

14 year olds pulled from a schoolyard could give the same advices.

Interesting. You use a "primitive" and childish insult-name rather than "Islamic State," and refer to anyone concerned about tens of thousands of people acting (murdering, raping, destroying, enslaving, etc.) on views held by millions as "fearful p***ies," and yet refer to 14-year-olds as a source of bad advice. I wonder if you recognize the irony.

In any event, you are right. Why should anyone in the US give a damn about a group of idjits who dress funny and spout goofy insane whackadoodle stuff about taking over the world and hating the Jews? It's not like there are a lot of beer halls in the middle east. I'm sure it'll be fine.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Any idea what weapons the Russians fired from their warships?

Our old friend the 3M-14T Kalibr (NATO designation SS-N-30A Sizzler). In other words the current main ship launched land attack version of the 3M-54 Kalibr/Klub cruise missile family. Should give already healthy sales of that family's export variants a nice boost.

 

[kaiserd]

Hi last dingo, hope I'm not picking on you, good to have my perceptions challenged, hope you feel the same.

A few quick points;
- still not clear from where / whom this "tip of the spear" is supposed to come from.
- a (very small) mobile strategic reserve is great, never said it wasn't an advantage, but it's not the war winner in this type of conflict that you are saying it is. In fact Isis is a good example of this. In terms of numbers and commitment their not a million miles from what you are proposing, but Isis lacks the ability for knock out blows against Assad or Iraqi state forces.
- "Controlling ground is not all that difficult..." How much blood and treasure has been spent disproving this statement.....
- Constant refrains condemning "Western" this or that cheapen your arguments and portray a prejudice.
At best it's just lazy...

Some ways to assemble a mobile strategic reserve to break the stalemate
- subsidize (some) FSA leaders so it's able to get the militias under the FSA's roof to commit a few per cent of their fighters (a kind of levy) to it in exchange for supplies
- Assad used Hezbollah and originally the Syrian army as mobile forces, but with both of them exhausted, a Russian mechanized brigade may end up replacing them
- A 'legion' of volunteers, possibly recruited from refugee camps or even Western Muslims
- An Iranian volunteer regiment
- Jordan joining the fray with a brigade
- Legion Étrangère

Da'esh was actually doing fine for a while, but then the culminating point and suppressive bombing weighed them down, as well as the attrition battle at Kobane. Now they seem busy with defence, and will only regain their ability to launch offensives if they learn to accept (more) weakness in many places to free up forces AND find a way to attack in force without getting bombed decisively.

Controlling ground is not difficult. All civil war parties are doing it right now. Only Westerners fail at it in such countries, and nowadays only. You don't control a population by watching it all the time; you control it by having it fear you coming after them once they opposed you. Same as with ordinary policing. Western occupation forces don't do the "coming after them" in a fear-inducing way, and were thus pointless and never numerous enough.

I'm greatly annoyed, astonished and exasperated by the incompetence of political and military leadership in the wars since 2002 at the latest, but also during the Kosovo Air War. It's hugely disconcerting to remember that such incompetents are running our deterrence and defence. At best we're wasting billions every year that could have been saved if we had competents in charge of our defence.

Da'esh is not very interesting to me because it's by no stretch a relevant threat to my country or its alliances. Any Westerner who fears them is in my opinion a fearful p***y.
The Western military forces on the other hand are a part of us. Them being unable to accomplish missions even with a 100:1 superiority in resources is a horrible display of incompetence, unheard-of pre-1950. To bash Da'esh is pointless, redundant and utterly unoriginal, but to express concern about Western foreign policy and military incompetence makes sense.


In the end, the ineptitude (lack of decisiveness) displayed by Western intervention in Syria once again casts severe doubts regarding the competence of political and military leadership in the intervening countries.
What proposals for better strategies do we get? From super-primitive nonsense such as nuke fantasies up to the simplistic demands for more resources, particularly Western ground forces, by the usual suspects on TV and in newspapers (anglophone ones only, of course - as usual). Lots of primitive ideas, no indication of art of war competence anywhere. 14 year olds pulled from a schoolyard could give the same advices.

Oh dear...... In such glass houses of poor strategy you should be careful of throwing stones....

Points of feedback;
- You appear to be critical of the "West" for not using terror to "control the ground", which again you say is "easy". Morally, legally & politically impossible choice of tactics, also probably wouldn't work. Thinkable if your living in an authoritarian state that first and last resort is brutality and distortion (Putins Russia etc), unthinkable if you are in the "West".
- in a related point the US and its allies could probably butcher Isis from the air, but to do so would probably involve slaughtering so many of the Syrian people that the cure and its aftermath may well be worse than the disease. The Russians are risking something similar in minature.
- I won't necessarily defend US and/or NATO countries decision making but it's childishly reductive to say it's all because their all soooo incompetent and in your own words "pu€€ies"; grow up.
- Re: your suggested sources of your allegedly war winning mini-army; isn't the point that these haven't already been done is because the relevant parties didn't and don't want to become directly involved with ground troops because of lack of political and military will, given no obvious way to a final victory/ exit strategy. Good luck finding those Western Muslims for your enterprise, if they have any sense they would run a mile.

 

[sferrin]

Any idea what weapons the Russians fired from their warships?

Our old friend the 3M-14T Kalibr (NATO designation SS-N-30A Sizzler). In other words the current main ship launched land attack version of the 3M-54 Kalibr/Klub cruise missile family. Should give already healthy sales of that family's export variants a nice boost.

IIRC like a Tomahawk but longer.

 

[lastdingo]

Interesting. You use a "primitive" and childish insult-name rather than "Islamic State," and refer to anyone concerned about tens of thousands of people acting (murdering, raping, destroying, enslaving, etc.) on views held by millions as "fearful p***ies," and yet refer to 14-year-olds as a source of bad advice. I wonder if you recognize the irony.

You should pay attention to reality, not to your fantasy. In reality, I called those Westerners who fear Da'esh the op-word, not those who pity the Syirans.
Your attention span was insufficient for the discussion.

Oh dear...... In such glass houses of poor strategy you should be careful of throwing stones....

Points of feedback;
- You appear to be critical of the "West" for not using terror to "control the ground", which again you say is "easy".
(...)
- I won't necessarily defend US and/or NATO countries decision making but it's childishly reductive to say it's all because their all soooo incompetent and in your own words "pu€€ies"; grow up.
- Re: your suggested sources of your allegedly war winning mini-army; isn't the point that these haven't already been done is because the relevant parties didn't and don't want to become directly involved with ground troops because of lack of political and military will, given no obvious way to a final victory/ exit strategy. Good luck finding those Western Muslims for your enterprise, if they have any sense they would run a mile.

You too should pay attention to reality, not to your fantasy.
In reality, I didn't criticize the West for not holding ground in Syria. In fact, I would do so if it was stupid enough to even only try.
I pointed out the victorious civil war factions would succeed to control Syria after defeat of their opposing factions.

And again, I called those Westerners the p-word who actually fear Da'esh, but I don't think Western top politicians actually do so - even those who pretend it. They're rather playing games for their own entertainment or respond to some populist or media expectations and pressure.

They and the Western generals are incompetent at waging war, though. That's been proved by their track record, for sure. They lost in Afghanistan despite outnumbering the resources-poor opposing forces throughout the campaign, and their interaction with the 'friendly' Afghans was the zenith of stupidity. They were conned all the way. They did set up incentives for the Afghan 'partners' to NOT complete the build-up of indigenous security forces, and accordingly there were no useful ones even after a DECADE. The very same 'partners' could have raised (or enlarged) effective warlord-model armies within a few MONTHS without Western involvement. That would have kept the TB out after 2001 at hardly any expense for NATO countries.


About what you call 'allegedly war-winning mini army': Read the real context. I introduced it like this:

"You don't need a force several times as large as Da'esh to defeat them and Assad, though. What's missing is a tip of the spear"

So I was pointing out one needs but a few thousand troops and I did point this out in opposition to nonsensical calls for hundreds of thousands of occupation troops (that would embarrass themselves just as already done in iraq and Afghanistan). So before anyone should question the ability to mobilize a few thousand troops for a decision, the same person should first call into question the feasibility to mobilize an army of occupation - at which point I'd be satisfied with seeing the primitive standard hawkish nonsense shot down.

My pointing out of basic art of war ideas such as main effort, reserves, internal lines etc was meant in opposition and in contrast to the primitiveness of the hawkish positions of "more bombs" and "send in ground troops".

 

[kaiserd]

Interesting. You use a "primitive" and childish insult-name rather than "Islamic State," and refer to anyone concerned about tens of thousands of people acting (murdering, raping, destroying, enslaving, etc.) on views held by millions as "fearful p***ies," and yet refer to 14-year-olds as a source of bad advice. I wonder if you recognize the irony.

You should pay attention to reality, not to your fantasy. In reality, I called those Westerners who fear Da'esh the op-word, not those who pity the Syirans.
Your attention span was insufficient for the discussion.

Oh dear...... In such glass houses of poor strategy you should be careful of throwing stones....

Points of feedback;
- You appear to be critical of the "West" for not using terror to "control the ground", which again you say is "easy".
(...)
- I won't necessarily defend US and/or NATO countries decision making but it's childishly reductive to say it's all because their all soooo incompetent and in your own words "pu€€ies"; grow up.
- Re: your suggested sources of your allegedly war winning mini-army; isn't the point that these haven't already been done is because the relevant parties didn't and don't want to become directly involved with ground troops because of lack of political and military will, given no obvious way to a final victory/ exit strategy. Good luck finding those Western Muslims for your enterprise, if they have any sense they would run a mile.

You too should pay attention to reality, not to your fantasy.
In reality, I didn't criticize the West for not holding ground in Syria. In fact, I would do so if it was stupid enough to even only try.
I pointed out the victorious civil war factions would succeed to control Syria after defeat of their opposing factions.

And again, I called those Westerners the p-word who actually fear Da'esh, but I don't think Western top politicians actually do so - even those who pretend it. They're rather playing games for their own entertainment or respond to some populist or media expectations and pressure.

They and the Western generals are incompetent at waging war, though. That's been proved by their track record, for sure. They lost in Afghanistan despite outnumbering the resources-poor opposing forces throughout the campaign, and their interaction with the 'friendly' Afghans was the zenith of stupidity. They were conned all the way. They did set up incentives for the Afghan 'partners' to NOT complete the build-up of indigenous security forces, and accordingly there were no useful ones even after a DECADE. The very same 'partners' could have raised (or enlarged) effective warlord-model armies within a few MONTHS without Western involvement. That would have kept the TB out after 2001 at hardly any expense for NATO countries.


About what you call 'allegedly war-winning mini army': Read the real context. I introduced it like this:

"You don't need a force several times as large as Da'esh to defeat them and Assad, though. What's missing is a tip of the spear"

So I was pointing out one needs but a few thousand troops and I did point this out in opposition to nonsensical calls for hundreds of thousands of occupation troops (that would embarrass themselves just as already done in iraq and Afghanistan). So before anyone should question the ability to mobilize a few thousand troops for a decision, the same person should first call into question the feasibility to mobilize an army of occupation - at which point I'd be satisfied with seeing the primitive standard hawkish nonsense shot down.

My pointing out of basic art of war ideas such as main effort, reserves, internal lines etc was meant in opposition and in contrast to the primitiveness of the hawkish positions of "more bombs" and "send in ground troops".

I think I'm going to bow out of the discussion at this stage.
As final comments;
- Isis (whatever you call them) is a serious but not existential threat outside the Middle East. It will feel pretty existential for the people and countries in that region. Isis has a reputation to "enhance" and maintain and the eye to promote and spread their terror; unfortunately terrorist attacks in the West appear inevitable.
- While I agree that certain "Hawks" will over simplify the situation in Syria and its potential remedies my view is that you are doing the same. It is niave to think that any one "winning" player in Syria is really possible or likely via military means, and doubly so to think they would be able to control the whole unified state without the most extreme bloodbath and terror tactics (and even so their control would probably be short lived).
- My understanding is that the US tried to create a less ambitious force than you are suggesting but failed, the Iranians reluctant to get even more deeply involved (similar story for Turkey, Saudi Arabis etc, regional parties up to this point reluctant to further escalate, trigger domino reaction from other players) and Russia would be crazy to go to the level of offensive operations by their own troops.
As I said before no doubt Isis actual mumerical and overall military strength still relatively modest, a relatively small robust military force could inflict defeat after defeat - the question is how to achieve a final definitive knock-out blow and control the aftermath. No one, even the Russians, see this as realistic and/or currently willing to pay the price to achieve this.
- it's classic armchair generals syndrome - most of the time if the solution were really that simple then they would already be in place.

 

[lastdingo]

- it's classic armchair generals syndrome - most of the time if the solution were really that simple then they would already be in place.

Sadly, military history suggests otherwise. Incompetence and very, very poor reasoning are common in military history.

There's also the issue that the right thing to do may be obvious especially to an outsider, whereas those who are authorised to actually make decisions deliver very poor performance because they are operating with restrictions - including self-interest, corruption, bias, group thinking etc - that keep them from adopting such a course.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Interesting. You use a "primitive" and childish insult-name rather than "Islamic State," and refer to anyone concerned about tens of thousands of people acting (murdering, raping, destroying, enslaving, etc.) on views held by millions as "fearful p***ies," and yet refer to 14-year-olds as a source of bad advice. I wonder if you recognize the irony.

You should pay attention to reality, not to your fantasy. In reality, I called those Westerners who fear Da'esh the op-word, not those who pity the Syirans.
Your attention span was insufficient for the discussion.

Again with the childish insults in place of logic. Very, very few people in the west are afraid of this mythical "Da'esh" you're going on about; but many people in the west are rightly *concerned* about the very real Islamic State. Calling ebola "cooties" doesn't magically negate the fact that it is actually quite dangerous, even if it's not terribly dangerous *to* *you.*

 

[sferrin]

Is it just me or does "lastdingo" sound like yet another account for KadijaMan?

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-real-obama-doctrine-1444429036-lMyQjAxMTI1MjEwMDgxMTA1Wj

 

[sublight_]

Is it just me or does "lastdingo" sound like yet another account for KadijaMan?

I 2nd that vote.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Is it just me or does "lastdingo" sound like yet another account for KadijaMan?

I 2nd that vote.

Nope. Different people. Different countries.

 

[sublight_]

Is it just me or does "lastdingo" sound like yet another account for KadijaMan?

I 2nd that vote.

Nope. Different people. Different countries.

VPN.

 

[bobbymike]

Is it just me or does "lastdingo" sound like yet another account for KadijaMan?

I 2nd that vote.

A third from me.

Kadija Man - Hot Breath (same person) from Australia - last "dingo" wild dog native to Australia.

EXACT same political views.

Spoofing IP's ?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

100% certainly not. How about discussing those Russians in Syria?

 

[Orionblamblam]

100% certainly not. How about discussing those Russians in Syria?

So... is Lastdingo a Russian in Syria? Hmmmm...

In related news:
Russian jet 'shot down by Turkish forces after planes violated country's airspace on Syrian bombing run'
Honestly, the evidence for this claim is Twitter-thin. But *if* true...

We've got us a three-way fight in Syria, with the US backing rebels and opposing Assad and ISIS, with the Russians coming in backing Assad and opposing the rebels. With the US military experienced but tired and probably unenthusiastic, while the Russians are relatively inexperienced and seemingly enthusiastic in their imperialistic ambitions. Yeah, this'll work out great.

 

[Arjen]

We've got us a three-way fight in Syria...

An optimistic assessment.

 

[Orionblamblam]

We've got us a three-way fight in Syria...

An optimistic assessment.

Well, you know how it is. When most humans try to imagine the world, they generally can't go much beyond "one, two three... many."

 

[RobertWL]

The thing I find curious about this report is this.. All of the news reports, intelligence reports, satellite images and media pictures of the airbase have been consistent in showing Su-24s, Su-25,s and Su-30s but no Mig-29s. Granted, I may have missed a credible report detailing Mig-29s deploying there... But what I'm wondering is if maybe this was a Syrian Mig-29? They're still operational, and one report said Syrian Mig-29s escorted the Russian armada in as they deployed to Syria. Its still problematic if even that much is true, but its just something I've been wondering about today.

 

[r16]

there is no shooting down of a plane , merely invented out of thin air by Western forum participants to keep the Syrian rebels in the fight . If there had been , we in Turkey would have heard it in all its glorious details . As for MiGs , there was this French idea that North Koreans were following the Chinese aircraft carrier to combat . Seems not true , so it's Syrians in Su-22 and 24s who ask for Turkish missiles by locking onto F-16s , if you ask the Turkish media .

 

[VH]

Russia seems to have stepped into a pit of Syrian quicksand. It should be recalled that when Russia entered Afghanistan in 1979 they were indeed a superpower. However by 1989, Soviet troops withdrew in defeat after a conflict that cost billions of dollars and watched the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.


Russia is seeing the ineffectiveness of its much ballyhooed air campaign presenting itself even at this early stage and now faces the choice of doubling down on its intervention in Syria. Russia may come to realize that it is easy to get in but much harder to get out


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/world/middleeast/hussein-hamedani-iran-general-killed-in-syria.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

"BEIRUT, Lebanon — The Islamic State registered significant gains on Friday in the area of northwestern Syria that Russian warplanes have been bombing, taking six villages near Aleppo and threatening to cut off an important route north to the Turkish border. Late in the day, there were reports that rebels had reasserted control in one village."

 

[Triton]

"No, the Turkish Air Force has not shot down a Russian aircraft near the Syrian border (at least, not yet)"
Oct 12 2015
By David Cenciotti

Source:
http://theaviationist.com/2015/10/12/no-russian-aircraft-shot-down-over-syria/

 

[Triton]

"Putin’s Smart Bombs Aren’t All That Smart"
by Paul McLeary

Originally published in Foreign Policy magazine.

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/putin-smart-bombs-aren-t-223939119.html

Since kicking off its bombing campaign in Syria on Sept. 30, Russian newscasts and social media accounts have carried images of precision-guided bombs strapped to the wings of Moscow’s latest fighter planes and have broadcast videos of what they claim are direct hits on intended targets.

But this image of precision is little more than wartime public relations, as the majority of Russian strikes have used older “dumb” bombs that can’t actually be guided to their intended targets — and are not guaranteed to come anywhere close to hitting them. Some of the first videos released by the Russian government show bombs striking only near their intended targets.

The Russians are mostly “bombing from medium altitude with unguided munitions,” said Michael Kofman, a public policy scholar at the Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute. That said, he cautioned, Moscow may not care: “All they need is close enough” when hitting targets tied to al-Nusra Front and other groups battling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s sophisticated propaganda machine has gone into overdrive since the start of Moscow’s air war in Syria. RT and other state-supported media outlets, for instance, have published photos of Russian KAB-500S precision-guided bombs — a weapon the Russian Defense Ministry was thought to have rejected in 2012 due to high costs — strapped to the bellies of advanced fighter planes parked on Syrian runways.

Photos taken in Syria and pushed out through social media have also made sure to showcase other precision-guided weapons, including the Su-24 “Fencer” aircraft outfitted with the Kh-25ML laser-guided air-to-surface missile.

Russia’s use of these precision weapons in actual combat has been minimal, however, and some analysts believe Moscow has different motives in trying to convince the world otherwise. “Using precision-guided munitions are more expensive than traditional gravity bombs, and Moscow may prefer to lose some precision in its airstrikes to save money on what is an already expensive military intervention in the Middle East,” said Jorge Benitez of the Atlantic Council.

Putin, Benitez added, may also believe that exaggerating how often Russia is using precision weapons makes it easier to deflect Western criticism about civilian deaths on the ground, regardless of whether he’s making any serious effort to cause them.

Moscow has “greater willingness to be indiscriminate in the use of force,” he said, adding that “the Russians do not care as much about collateral damage.”

One thing Russia does care about deeply, however, is making its military appear to be as modern and powerful as that of the United States. The wars in Crimea, eastern Ukraine, and now Syria have been a great opportunity for Putin to showcase some of his newest and most advanced equipment, even if the Russian military only possess them in limited numbers. In Ukraine, advanced spy planes and electronic warfare equipment have completely shut down communications for Ukrainian forces, while sophisticated Russian signals-intelligence vehicles have been rushed to Syria in recent weeks to tap into rebel communications and bolster Assad’s offensive against his enemies.

These capabilities don’t come cheap. Russia allocated $81 billion for defense in 2015, the largest the military’s budget has been since the end of the Cold War, and in the face of high inflation and reduced oil revenues, it announced this month that it is rolling back planned cuts for next year, citing the conflict in Syria as a reason to maintain higher spending.

Sustaining these new platforms and overseas commitments will add pressure to an already stressed system that has seen submarines sink and catch fire and multiple military jets crash during routine training missions. The Kursk disaster in 2000 — in which 118 sailors drowned, prompting mass protests — was a searing moment in the political career of Putin, who assumed office just three months before the tragedy.

Syria, however, has emerged as a learning opportunity for a Russian military emerging from the humiliations of the 2008 war in Georgia. The Su-34 fighter plane had never seen combat before its deployment to Syria, and Russian troops are “going to war with a combination of older aircraft technology they already know and platforms that are essentially being combat-tested,” along with pilots who are learning to use them in a new environment, the Wilson Center’s Kofman said.

One more capability that the Syria deployment — however modest — has brought to light is the ability of the once lethargic Russian military to do multiple things at once. “Russia’s air force has been buying more airplanes than any Western country, and its pilots flying more hours” than any other country in Europe, Kofman said.

At the same time, thousands of troops are deployed in Crimea and Kaliningrad, while other units have been conducting snap exercises along the Ukrainian border and in the Arctic. Wartime PR aside, modernization has started to come to the Russian armed forces, just not in the way they may like to post it on Twitter.

 

[lastdingo]

"and are not guaranteed to come anywhere close to hitting them"

The author doesn't seem to know the subject matter well.

A 1980's Su-25 was capable of hitting targets reliably in a dive attack. The effective radius of a bomb, 80 mm rocket salvo or single large unguided rocket is larger than the dispersion. Guided bombs are needed only if ShorAD (not VShorAD such as Igla) keeps you from releasing close while flying steady, or if you insist on reducing the CEP to less than about 15-20 metres for a single round.

Meanwhile, it's guided munitions that "are not guaranteed to come anywhere close to" their target. A small technical malfunction or user error can produce much greater impact errors with guided munitions than possible with almost all unguided munitions. The only modern unguided A2G munitions with a potential for horribly large error are the ones with unreliable air brakes, such as the early folding retarder Mk 82 Snakeyes (still in use in many places), which often impacted hundreds of metres from the intended target because without retardation their external ballistics were very much off.

 

[Gridlock]

C-130 gunships are pretty accurate when it comes to pounding hospitals though.


Never mind Putin, this thread might turn into WWIII.

 

[Avimimus]

A 1980's Su-25 was capable of hitting targets reliably in a dive attack. The effective radius of a bomb, 80 mm rocket salvo or single large unguided rocket is larger than the dispersion. Guided bombs are needed only if ShorAD (not VShorAD such as Igla) keeps you from releasing close while flying steady, or if you insist on reducing the CEP to less than about 15-20 metres for a single round.

Largely true - The Su-25's laser range finder allows fairly high accuracy at medium altitudes. However, there are a couple of caveats: Also, at maximum range the dispersion on unguided rockets is high enough that you need to fire large salvoes (i.e. 20-40 rockets) to be sure of getting a close hit. The actual blast radius for an 80mm rocket isn't that large. This is amplified if you need a direct hit to take out the target (e.g. if it has even minimal armour).


Of course, wind can also throw an initial salvo off.

 

[sferrin]

C-130 gunships are pretty accurate when it comes to pounding hospitals though.

Classy.

 

[Dreamfighter]

Meanwhile what about the US air missions in Syria? Last I heard even F-22s were flying missions there.
So, have US air-operations over Syria halted because of the Russian intervention, or are there reasonable possibilities of encouters between Russian and US fighters in Syrian airspace?

 

[RobertWL]

Meanwhile what about the US air missions in Syria? Last I heard even F-22s were flying missions there.
So, have US air-operations over Syria halted because of the Russian intervention, or are there reasonable possibilities of encouters between Russian and US fighters in Syrian airspace?

Air Operations have continued. I've read a couple articles about it, and saw a couple of maps showing the location of US Air-strikes in Syria, I forget where but it was based on information from DOD. Its getting a bit crowded over there though.

 

[kaiserd]

"and are not guaranteed to come anywhere close to hitting them"

The author doesn't seem to know the subject matter well.

A 1980's Su-25 was capable of hitting targets reliably in a dive attack. The effective radius of a bomb, 80 mm rocket salvo or single large unguided rocket is larger than the dispersion. Guided bombs are needed only if ShorAD (not VShorAD such as Igla) keeps you from releasing close while flying steady, or if you insist on reducing the CEP to less than about 15-20 metres for a single round.

Meanwhile, it's guided munitions that "are not guaranteed to come anywhere close to" their target. A small technical malfunction or user error can produce much greater impact errors with guided munitions than possible with almost all unguided munitions. The only modern unguided A2G munitions with a potential for horribly large error are the ones with unreliable air brakes, such as the early folding retarder Mk 82 Snakeyes (still in use in many places), which often impacted hundreds of metres from the intended target because without retardation their external ballistics were very much off.

I'm reluctant to re-engage with this discussion (almost as bad a quagmire as Syria itself).

However I would note that some of the comments above are embarrassingly misleading. There are 3 aspects to this question; targeting, accuracy and tailored yield/effect.

To pretend that the Russian air strikes are in the same league as, say, the US airforce or the RAF in these regards would be ridiculous.

The Russians don't have the same targeting resources (Russia infamously way behind in fielding UAV's etc).
As far as I am aware they have not fielded any up to date targeting pods in the class of the Sniper, Lantern etc.
My understanding is that the Russian airforce has very few precision weapons to hand and the vast majority of weapons they are using are not precision weapons.

Russia's most advance planes such as the Su-34 will probably deliver a very small number of precision weapons and be rather more accurate with iron bombs than the earlier generation jets. That's as good as it gets. The pretence that unguided iron bombs and/or rockets launched from medium altitude equate to anywhere near the level of accuracy the rest of the world would consider as minimally satisfactory to limit civilian casualties is laughable.

It is "accurate" to say that precision weapons aren't accurate if there is a technical failure (also possible for there to be failures in the underlying targeting); world of difference ethically and legally between that and use of indiscriminate weapons with indifference to the resulting civilian casualties

I'm afraid mr dingo and some other contributors are either suckers for Russian propaganda or are seeking to propagate it.

 

[lastdingo]

I didn't write about them avoiding civilian casualties, and I don't think it matters to them. In fact, it's hard to claim that American style bombardment is competent at avoiding civilian casualties.
Da'esh fighters no doubt don't sit in the open most of the time, and whenever you engage them inside a settlement you cannot know whether there are civilians in the same building.

I'm afraid Mr. kaiserd doesn't pay attention to what I write for real, instead replying to a debate fantasy generated by his prejudice.
I did not claim that
- Russians "have the same targeting resources"
- Russians have "fielded any up to date targeting pods in the class of the Sniper, Lantern etc." (LANTIRN isn't up to date, and Russians appear to prefer integral solutions over pods anyway)
- the Russians have many precision munitions
- the Russians have used many precision munitions
- "unguided iron bombs and/or rockets launched from medium altitude equate to anywhere near the level of accuracy the rest of the world would consider as minimally satisfactory to limit civilian casualties" because I was actually only writing about how unguided munitions are effective enough


So I'm really afraid the only thing "embarrassingly misleading in this thread in the last 30 hours was kaiserd's reply that utterly misled about what had been written (about) previously.


By the way, the quote "use of indiscriminate weapons with indifference to the resulting civilian casualties" makes no sense. For starters, this is about munitions, not weapons. Second, precision bombs are as "indiscriminate" as dumb bombs (or not). It's the user who bears responsibility.

 

[kaiserd]

I didn't write about them avoiding civilian casualties, and I don't think it matters to them. In fact, it's hard to claim that American style bombardment is competent at avoiding civilian casualties.
Da'esh fighters no doubt don't sit in the open most of the time, and whenever you engage them inside a settlement you cannot know whether there are civilians in the same building.

I'm afraid Mr. kaiserd doesn't pay attention to what I write for real, instead replying to a debate fantasy generated by his prejudice.
I did not claim that
- Russians "have the same targeting resources"
- Russians have "fielded any up to date targeting pods in the class of the Sniper, Lantern etc." (LANTIRN isn't up to date, and Russians appear to prefer integral solutions over pods anyway)
- the Russians have many precision munitions
- the Russians have used many precision munitions
- "unguided iron bombs and/or rockets launched from medium altitude equate to anywhere near the level of accuracy the rest of the world would consider as minimally satisfactory to limit civilian casualties" because I was actually only writing about how unguided munitions are effective enough


So I'm really afraid the only thing "embarrassingly misleading in this thread in the last 30 hours was kaiserd's reply that utterly misled about what had been written (about) previously.


By the way, the quote "use of indiscriminate weapons with indifference to the resulting civilian casualties" makes no sense. For starters, this is about munitions, not weapons. Second, precision bombs are as "indiscriminate" as dumb bombs (or not). It's the user who bears responsibility.

Come on lastdingo, I believe you are on some level trying to have a reasonable discussion but you comments consist of praising the accuracy of Russian non-guided weapons (specially rocket-wielding Frogfoots) versus everyone else's precision weapons.
Your comments were alos in direct response to an article that made similar points to mine and I am afraid you are making a profoundly dishonest argument.

In abstract I might agree with a contention that certain unguided weapons are more accurate than many would perceive, and it is an important point that precision weapons can and will on occasion fail, likely leading to terrible consequences, as will the underlying process of identifying and selecting targets.
To be simplistic, apart from technical issues "smart bombs" are only as smart as the people in the targeting process.

However by your comments you have clearly exaggerated the relative accuracy and effectiveness of unguided versus precision weapons (and that's before you factor in aspects like operating at medium altitude to avoid lower altitude threats that will only act to increase the clear superiority of precision weapons re: accuracy and effectiveness).

If it was just an abstract discussion about financial cost/ benefit re: military effectiveness I wouldn't really care; I hope to give you the benefit of any doubt but you are propagating many of the same arguments of Putin's regime's propaganda about how accurate their bombing is and minimizing the human cost of their lack of capacity and greater indifference to the loss of human life.
I'm not an apologist for say, the US, when a mistake is made or a technical issue occurs (or issues around the design and implementation of specific rules of engagement); people should be punished harshly for such instances when they are culpable.

But the US, because of substantial technical superiority, greater related experience, and greater accountability and awareness/ concern for avoiding unnecessary civilian losses (for self-interest and moral reasons) is far more competent at, and interested in, avoiding civilian casualties than Russia in Syria
To state or imply otherwise is a falsehood that you appear biased enough to propagate.

 

[sferrin]

I'm afraid mr dingo and some other contributors are either suckers for Russian propaganda or are seeking to propagate it.

That's a Bingo!

 

[Avimimus]

I'm afraid mr dingo and some other contributors are either suckers for Russian propaganda or are seeking to propagate it.

That's a Bingo!

It is important to recognise that the difference in accuracy between:
1) Optical bombing from high altitudes (what we did in WWII, Korea and most of Vietnam)
2) Laser sighted bombing from medium-low altitudes (what the Russians are doing now) is lower than the
3) Guided munitions from fast platforms at medium-high altitudes
4) Precision attacks with yield tailored munitions and help from persistent observation platforms

It is worthwhile to note the fact is that the difference between 2) & 3) is less than the difference between 1) & 2) or 3) & 4).

It is also worth noting that about 30% of munitions NATO drops are unguided and that there have been complaints by NATO forces about the inability of pilots to distinguish ISIS targets from civilians due to lack of good intelligence and observation.

We need to be brutally honest if we don't want to fall in line with anyone's propaganda.

 

[sferrin]

I think you'd be hard pressed to even FIND a picture of a US aircraft with a dumb bomb on it over there.

 

[lastdingo]

kaiserd,
look what I wrote for real. I countered the notion that the Russian munitions are not guaranteed to come close to hitting, while the text implied American ones would be.

As you know and mentioned, fact is the largest miss distances will be achieved by guided munitions malfunctions.
Unguided munitions will reliably impact quite close to their target when properly employed by 1980's technology platforms; a bomb or rocket salvo would almost always reach the aim point with blast or frag effect on an open field.
S-24 rockets have about 1% dispersion relative to the firing range, for example.

I'm not aware of what Putin's propaganda claims about the effects of the bombings; I'm interested in the real effects, and those are CAS for an ongoing Assad troops offensive that appears to make small gains where none were expected to be feasible without the CAS. Unlike with the attrition /assassination combing campaign post-Kobane, it's actually possible to point at an influence of the air attacks on events on the ground.

The media reports in English and German appear to follow a well-known pattern; critical of Putin, they highlight all the critical points (not hitting Da'esh much as if Turkey had / civilians dead as if the other bombing hadn't the same effect / suggesting an aura of illegitimacy) while ignoring the actual influence.

To be honest, a campaign that achieves operational decisiveness is a much more competent campaign than another one that's rather excelling at causing more attrition, spending more expensive munitions that impact right at the aim point if they don't malfunction. The Russian way of war may be crude, but it's been more successful post-1999 than the American way of war.

Too many pundits and other multiplied voices insist on recipes that failed again and again or are inappropriate again and again, such as no-fly zones, training missions of the U.S. Army, assassination campaigns, bombing from faraway bases etc - meanwhile denigrating ways of warfare that actually prevailed, such as warlord organisations, Russian brute power, online propaganda that actually succeeds at influencing at least part of the enemy camp etc.

Part of the outrage at the Russians now appears to be that Americans and others cannot bully them the way they could have bullied Assad's regime. According to rumours Israeli fighters were pushed out of Syrian airspace - they would rather have shot down Syrian fighters than fleeing from them. Russian bombs delivered to Assad would have led to a No-fly zone enforced over sovereign Syria without UN approval, while Russian Frogfoots bombing the FSA doesn't. The Russians are not merely propping up an opposing proxy; they're no mere prey, but an opposing great power. That's what appears to outrage officials in the West. Someone joined their stupid playground sandbox, stomped on their sand castle and is too big to bully and beat away. Thus the crying and finger-pointing.
I'm not sympathetic to ANY great power gaming, thus I have no sympathy for the Western great power gaming in Syria, and don't mourn the Western officials' loss of joy from it. I think the intervention in Syria is another story of blundering and now also of huge hypocrisy.


My response wasn't triggered by the quoted article alone, but you guys clearly guessed wrong on what else had triggered me.

 

[kaiserd]

kaiserd,
look what I wrote for real. I countered the notion that the Russian munitions are not guaranteed to come close to hitting, while the text implied American ones would be.

As you know and mentioned, fact is the largest miss distances will be achieved by guided munitions malfunctions.
Unguided munitions will reliably impact quite close to their target when properly employed by 1980's technology platforms; a bomb or rocket salvo would almost always reach the aim point with blast or frag effect on an open field.
S-24 rockets have about 1% dispersion relative to the firing range, for example.

I'm not aware of what Putin's propaganda claims about the effects of the bombings; I'm interested in the real effects, and those are CAS for an ongoing Assad troops offensive that appears to make small gains where none were expected to be feasible without the CAS. Unlike with the attrition /assassination combing campaign post-Kobane, it's actually possible to point at an influence of the air attacks on events on the ground.

The media reports in English and German appear to follow a well-known pattern; critical of Putin, they highlight all the critical points (not hitting Da'esh much as if Turkey had / civilians dead as if the other bombing hadn't the same effect / suggesting an aura of illegitimacy) while ignoring the actual influence.

To be honest, a campaign that achieves operational decisiveness is a much more competent campaign than another one that's rather excelling at causing more attrition, spending more expensive munitions that impact right at the aim point if they don't malfunction. The Russian way of war may be crude, but it's been more successful post-1999 than the American way of war.

Too many pundits and other multiplied voices insist on recipes that failed again and again or are inappropriate again and again, such as no-fly zones, training missions of the U.S. Army, assassination campaigns, bombing from faraway bases etc - meanwhile denigrating ways of warfare that actually prevailed, such as warlord organisations, Russian brute power, online propaganda that actually succeeds at influencing at least part of the enemy camp etc.

Part of the outrage at the Russians now appears to be that Americans and others cannot bully them the way they could have bullied Assad's regime. According to rumours Israeli fighters were pushed out of Syrian airspace - they would rather have shot down Syrian fighters than fleeing from them. Russian bombs delivered to Assad would have led to a No-fly zone enforced over sovereign Syria without UN approval, while Russian Frogfoots bombing the FSA doesn't. The Russians are not merely propping up an opposing proxy; they're no mere prey, but an opposing great power. That's what appears to outrage officials in the West. Someone joined their stupid playground sandbox, stomped on their sand castle and is too big to bully and beat away. Thus the crying and finger-pointing.
I'm not sympathetic to ANY great power gaming, thus I have no sympathy for the Western great power gaming in Syria, and don't mourn the Western officials' loss of joy from it. I think the intervention in Syria is another story of blundering and now also of huge hypocrisy.


My response wasn't triggered by the quoted article alone, but you guys clearly guessed wrong on what else had triggered me.

As you know and mentioned, fact is the largest miss distances will be achieved by guided munitions malfunctions.
[/quote]

But malfunctions are not THAT common, even taking those exceptions into account the average guided munition is far far more accurate than the average unguided munition, as you well know. Your argument here is actively misleading.

The Russian way of war may be crude, but it's been more successful post-1999 than the American way of war.
[/quote]

I'm not going to defend every as aspect of US policy and decisions during period but this statement is patently absurd and exposes your blatant bias.

Part of the outrage at the Russians now appears to be that Americans and others cannot bully them the way they could have bullied Assad's regime. According to rumours Israeli fighters were pushed out of Syrian airspace - they would rather have shot down Syrian fighters than fleeing from them. Russian bombs delivered to Assad would have led to a No-fly zone enforced over sovereign Syria without UN approval, while Russian Frogfoots bombing the FSA doesn't. The Russians are not merely propping up an opposing proxy; they're no mere prey, but an opposing great power. That's what appears to outrage officials in the West. Someone joined their stupid playground sandbox, stomped on their sand castle and is too big to bully and beat away. Thus the crying and finger-pointing.
[/quote]

Point above but more so. I literally don't know where to begin.... are you a Russian propaganda spouting stooge or perhaps just a gullible biased fool?

No more benefit of the doubt and no more engagement in regard to you on this particular subject, what would be the point.

 

[Avimimus]

Lastdingo,

Respectfully:
- Manufacturer's statistics for dispersion tend to be under idealised circumstances and not representative of actual use
- You mention guided weapons can fail, but a slight gunsight glitch, turbulence, or pilot error can also throw off a rocket salvo (or even part of a salvo) by hundreds of metres. Guided weapons are usually a bit better because they are less dependent on aircraft launch conditions.

However, it is important for everyone to note that a salvo of 80mm rockets may not actually cause collateral damage to a larger area than a laser guided 2000lb bomb will (Why? The bomb has a much larger blast radius).

Last dingo, I highly recommend that you try this simulator: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/

The Su-25 is free to try (with both unguided and laser guided munitions). The modelling of blast effects is very limited and there are a number of flaws - but it does give a feel for what it is like to try to put Russian rockets, bombs and laser-guided missiles on target in actually combat conditions.

I think you'd be hard pressed to even FIND a picture of a US aircraft with a dumb bomb on it over there.

The ratio quoted was based on statistics regarding munitions expended - I think that is going to be a hell of a lot more accurate than a handful of press photos. If we went by your logic the Russians have produced lots of photos of PGMs... (which you dismiss - probably rightly in most cases).

However, my statistics are a few years old - so the ratio may have shifted slightly. I'd be happy to hear if anyone has up-to-date statistics on what munitions are being used up.