sealordlawrenceHow do you know that? Maybe they flew back the same way they came in? Isn’t it safer that way?
In other words, are you saying that the israelis still consider the old Syrian airdefenses to represent a credible threat to their aircraft?
Again, go and find the map, it was posted here a while ago and has been shown on a number of news programs.
Why would Israel not take every precaution to keep its aircraft safe on such a mission, it would be a political disaster if one of them had been lost. What everybody seems to be ignoring is that all the aircraft involved returned home safely and by some independent accounts successfully hit their targets.
In my opinion what happened was that Israeli aircraft flew up the Med coast then entered Syrian airspace via Turkey dropping their tanks before hand flying down through Syria hitting their targets then making it safely home. It could have happened the other way round, the Israeli aircraft egressing via turkey and dropping their tanks to save fuel.
This idea that the aircraft dropped their tanks becouse they were in trouble has no foundation, why would Syria fire on Israeli aircraft in Turkish airspace? Secondly this idea actually comes from the initial Syrian reports which declared that they had forced the planes to drop their ordnance, however the Syrians were actually referring to the ordnance that was dropped in Syria around the area where the IISS identified facilities tht could be nuclear related and not to the fuel tanks in Turkey. The Syians initially claimed the the countryside was deserted and empty however it soon became clear that this was not the case.
In effect what happened here was that Israeli aircraft penetrated Syrian airspace, flew the entire length of that country, probably successfully hit their targets and returned home safely and Syria was unable to respond. This humiliates Syria and underlines Israel’s overwhelming strategic supremacy.
sealordlawrenceIs it?
If it is a competitive buyers market, why do we hardly find any Indian, Chinese or South Korean weapons in the US and other NATO armies?
I don’t doubt that price, service and quality are important factors. But they are all secondary to the political aspect of arms sales/purchase.
Sorry, it is far from being a buyer’s market….and you as an American patriot, by just looking at how well some of your other industries have been doing over the years, you want to keep it that way.
Anyways, this is all off-topic.
You clearly missed the ‘in the coming years/decades’ part of my post. There are currently quality issues with all those countries but this is now changing. You are wrong, for those countries lacking their own indigenous defence industries price service and quality all play a role more important than politics and in that sense they are at an advantage compared to countries trying to sustain their own industries. If Russia continues in this fantasy land where they think they can treat their customers like dirt then they will suffer.
Why do people buy American? They get quality and good service, sure there are exceptions to the rule and you have to tow the line but you do not get given second hand airframes when you buy new.
sealordlawrencethat sounds plausible but don’t think its as surely the case as you make it out to be 😀
So explain the alternatives. It all seems to fit, fly out of Israel over the Med and into Turkey using the fuel in tanks as you go, just prior to entering Syrian airspace lose the tanks to put the aircraft in the most suitable state for entering hostile airspace and continue the mission. The other advantage is that it makes the flight plan unpredictable if the aircraft are detected.
If the tanks had been jettisoned over Syria itself it would be different but over Turkey, I think not.
sealordlawrencethats a good point but it still doesn’t explain why the IDF had to fly over Turkey, something that surely was not part of the plan.
Go and look up a map of the supposed flight route. The aircraft basically flew round Syria via the med and into turkey so they only passed through Syria only on the return flight when they were at their lightest. Which further suggests that the dropping of the fuel tanks is a standard practice before entering hostile airspace in order to improve performance.
sealordlawrencebwahahahaha the indian MOD needs to be hit with wet sandals
what is wrong with them? 1-2 years more to decide on the upgrade?
are they nuts?
and two slaps to that vivek raghuvanshi who claimed that the mirage 2000 would be all israeli equipped. dummkopf!
The sickening thing about this is that the M2K could have been ordered for the MMRCA contract to the Mirage 2000-5 mk2 standard with part of the deal including the upgrade of the existing fleet to the same standard. This could all have been under way by now and India would have a fleet of 180 very capable aircraft, especially if the Storm Shadow/Scalp/Black Shaheen had been ordered as well. Instead we have this seemingly endless and highly confused MMRCA contract that is going no where fast and despite all the protestations is unlikely to provide any technology that would not be available through a comprehensive Su-30MKI upgrade. Indeed I would suggest now that thebest thing that could be done would be to scrap the entire MMRCA saga and split the 126 figure between the LCA and further Su-30MKI’s.
sealordlawrenceAs consumers, this is the mentality that is deeply embedded in our brains.
Arms deals are as much (if not more) political than financial. Forget the retail mentality where customer is king.
Wrong, and this is what Russia needs to learn and fast if wants to keep its markets. The defence market is likely to get even more diverse in the coming years/decades with the likes of India, China and South Korea joining in at the upper end of the market. It is a buyers market and Russia needs to get that into its head and fast. This idea that defence deal are mostly political is becoming more and more wrong as time goes by.
sealordlawrenceActually, as per the Chief of the Indian Space Research Organization, Mr. Madhavan Nair, such a test is not difficult. As per this news report, he has stated that it is “no big deal” for India to also perform such a test as its rockets too can reach that altitude.
It may be noted that as of 2000, India was developing a beam weapon that could potentially severely damage the electronics components of satellites and ballistic missiles by sending a highly concentrated pulse of EMI.
The KALI-5000 has already been used in the study of the trajectory of ballistic missiles, and in the testing of the vulnerability of electromagnetics in the Tejas combat jet.This beam weapon need not be placed into space, but can be on the ground itself. However, after 2000, work on this system has been classified.
Reference :-
http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19990819/ige19013.html
It is not simply a case of getting a rocket to the required altitude it is necessary to locate the target, track it and then guid the interceptor to it. Saturn 5 could go to the moon, does not mean it could intercept satellites.
The use of Lasers is hardly new either, Skif-D supposedly had a laser and the Chinese have reportedly used lasers to ‘dazzle’ US recon satellites.
sealordlawrenceThe latest GPS satellites are supposedly many times harder to jam than previous models. I’m pretty sure there are inactive satellites in orbit ready to be activated if necessary should a bird be disabled and provide a level of redundany. Guess deterrence is the best defense – – fool around with a GPS satellite and expect a pissed off US to come calling.
Might be Jam proof but not missile proof.;) But you are right, any really effective ASAT capability needs to be able to destroy a very large number of satellites in a very short period of time.
sealordlawrenceChina last January launched a missile that destroyed one its old satellites in orbit. Something Western intelligence agencies believed China wasn’t capable of for another 10 years at least.
I dont know which western intelligence agencies you are referring to but the test fitted in perfectly with a prediction from a report from the US DoD back in 2003. If anything this was a bit of an intelligence success.There is evidence that China should be capable of far more than that through the use of micro-satellites.
sealordlawrenceProtecting satellites is more or less impossible and as I previously stated it is currently reliant upon destroying the opposing ASAT systems.
sealordlawrence100 miles is well within range of land based ASW ac, even helos. Whats suprising about that? :confused:
Yes in the Taiwan Straights US SSN’s would slaughter Chinese submarines, You have still not explained where these hordes of Chinese ASW aircraft are coming from, you might want to check their orbat.:rolleyes: As of now Chinese ASW capabilities are pathetic.
sealordlawrenceMay be so. But i think its better if we just end this whole thing here. Someone who is reading ‘Are old syrian systems still effective against newer ECM capabilities of Israeli systems?’ and ‘i think its ‘quite reasonable‘ to ‘assume’ that those fighters might have been in some sort of trouble if they did so (in Turkey) during an aggressive operation (in Syria)’-plain English-as CLAIMS and wants evidence, probably needs to re-read them after xmas…with a clear mind.
Anyway have a very merry xmas and happy new year.:)
It is not ‘quite reasonable’ without any evidence.
sealordlawrenceTrident, in a war-time scenario, carpet bombing, surgical strikes, and strikes of targets not known in advance are performed by stealth bombers. Cruise missiles may be inadequate for each of these specific roles.
Besides, strategic targets can be defended against possible cruise missile attacks as cruise missiles have been defeated in actual tests by Israel, US, Russia and India. Medium range and quick reaction SAMs have been tested against UAVs and sea-skimmer missiles.
However, the effect of the same will be negated in case of nuclear armed cruise missiles. For such purposes, long range anti-cruise missile defence like India’s Pradyumna are being developed with AWACs support.
Thats funny becouse the US and the UK have both used long range cruise missiles for strategic strike, Russia retains such a capability and appears to be seeking to improve it and numerable countries are persuing shorter range stand-off cruise missiles. What we have here is once again your obsession of thinking in absolutes, just becouse an AD system can stop one kind of cruise missile it does not mean that it can stop another.
sealordlawrenceHow disappointing.
Yes most of your posts are.
sealordlawrenceThat easily puts it within range of hoards of SSKs and land based ASuW aircraft.
SSK’s maybe, although how long they would last up against Virginia’s and Sea Wolfs could probably be measured in seconds, but the second bit is just hilarious. Firstly you have your terminology wrong, you should be talking about ASW warfare not ASuW which refers to anti surface operations. Secondly maybe you could explain where these hordes of ASW aircraft are going to come from?:rolleyes:
Sign In
