The problem started in 1991 when the Cold War finished.

If you no longer have a problem, then you don’t need the solution to that problem.

they are right in one thing only, that it’s a huge upgrade to the existing Pucaras. It is indeed, like a passage from stone age to copper age. :p

I do not have a “book” – I just look at the known facts. Trying to pick out the facts from Iranian ‘news’ stories on military topics is part of what I do for a living. The only verifiable fact in this case is that a single RQ-170 landed (and probably crash-landed) on Iranian territory. Iran’s story that it took control of the UAV is simply a claim, with no verifiable facts to back it up. What may be significant that this alleged ability by Iran to take control of US UAVs has not been demonstrated by the repeated downing of other US UAVs..

Repetition of an action is useful as a means of proof in scientific experiments; in war matters on the other hand, it’s absolutely useless, in fact it’s not just useless, it’s real madness to reveal all your abilities to your oppenents. Perhaps you would be happy if the Iranians were to publish every detail and give the Americans all they need to develop solutions and countermeasures? That’s not the way it works.
Just for the shake of argument though, I accept that the RQ-170 cannot be proved that it was actually intercepted. This still doesn’t negate my initial statement “whoever tries to get into war with arrogance as his primary weapon, will not have a good time”. You can consult for verification with the pilot of the downed F-117 in Serbia. Or did that, too, crash landed? 😀

No, it is Mercurius Cantabrigiensis talking, and comparing the published sortie totals with the published losses.

No problem with that. So it’s Mercurius Cantabrigiensis agreeing with NATO’s view of things.

Even if we assume that only a tenth of the 38,000 sorties flown under ‘Allied Force’ were combat missions, the loss rate to the defences was minimal. Perhaps you would prefer that I accept the unproven claims that the defences shot down 60+ NATO aircraft?

That’s exactly fundamental in NATO’s view, they failed with the mission, so they play with statistics. I don’t really care about how many sorties there were, or how many losses (obviously not many, since Milosevic opted not to fight under his oppenent’s ultimate favorable conditions), but rather I care about the final result, which was like I said, a miserable failure towards the initial goal. The NATO enjoyed absolute air supremacy, yet they failed not only to overthrow Milosevic’ regime, but even to find and destroy his military. You want to use this laughable experience as an example of what to do? Be my guest.

As for the ‘reality’ of the politics of the Balkan situation, and the degree to which the US and NATO achieved their goals in 1999, this is not a subject that interests me, or one in which I wish to express an opinion.

Exactly, why bother? Simply declare that you don’t care about the end result so that you don’t have to face the facts, and all is fine.
Unfortunately, this whole debate started on that very basis, on whether the example of Serbia would be proper in Syria too. So if you don’t care to be interested in that, it’s fine, but it’s also off-topic.

In 1991 it was failed leadership of Gorbi that failed to capitalize on crises. Russia with right leader at that time could have encouraged Syria/Iran to back Iraq against Saudi. this would have prolonged the conflict with all the associated benefits of higher oil prices & money printing for war effort.

…and consequently, if Russia had a more potent leader, the US would adapt their policy better, like dedicating more forces on the mission, seeking more allies in the neighborhood, or provoking internal unrest in Iraq (rings any bell?) or discouraging Saddam from invading Kuwait altogether. That’s the problem with “ifs”. One if brings another, and then another, and another et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. History is not written on the basis of “ifs”, but rather on what actually happened, and the truth is that regardless of one’s interpretation of the reasons, Russia at that time did not oppose the assault on Iraq, in fact, they encouraged it. That’s not the case today. Today I think it’s safe to assume that if it was not for Russia, Assad would have fallen already.

I dont see there is anything left for bargaining with west. Russia primariy goal is higher energy prices which only can be ensured by instability in Middleast.

You can never know for sure. International diplomacy is highly unpredictable, One could bargain anything these days, from delivering a high-profile individual, to the non-delivery of important weapons to unfriendly nations, or the easing of antarctic natural resources claims, to escalate a bit. All depending on how badly they may want something.

Aren’t Cypriots Orthodox Christians?

Yes. A little more fanatic than average, I may add.

permission to conduct combat missions?. Cyprus is going to use politically acceptable language in begining.
If Russian settled in airbase they will use it with full autonomy and Cyprus can do nothing about it. Cyprus realizes only Russia can provide economics and military protection.

Cyprus has realised that for a long time, the catch is that Russia is mostly using Cyprus, exactly due to that lack of options.

The deal for the airbase use is expected to be signed during the Cypriot president visit to Moscow later this year. Cyprus will get to restructure it’s loan and I think it’s basically a done deal.

Note that it may be a done deal by merely today’s data. Tomorrow data may change, and with them, the deal.
Even if it’s not a done deal however, the mere announcement of such an intent, may be enough for the desired effect.

Why? There ws no need to consult or even seek approval from Russia for the Iraqi no fly zone that ws implemented in 1991 and remained in place by 2003.

You compare apples with steaks.
a) In 1991, Russia was in ruins. Nobody knew if it would even break further apart. Today things are… well, slightly different.
b) Russia never disagreed with Desert Storm, or the consequent no fly zone In fact, Russia had voted in favor of all UN resolutions against Iraq. Today Russia does disagree, not because they admire Assad or love the Syrian people, but because of interests.

Even if tomorrow they back down and allow Assad’s overthrown, it will be because they will have gotten something else in return, either in Syria itself or somewhere else. Has been happening in international diplomacy between superpowers for centuries.

Your link says fighters fly low to be un detected. since the close distance between two countries it is far easy to get undetected unless already notified.

US has rule out military solution. Arabs will be disappointed.

http://www.arabnews.com/news/456338

Any no fly zone in Syria would need to have Russia’s approval, which is not due any time soon, not as long as the Tarsus naval base is still active.

In addition, according to this article on a cypriot daily newspaper (a version in English quoting the article here), the Russians have officially asked (and got) permission to use the Paphos air base for military operations. So… a no fly zone in Syria? Good luck with that.

You actually believe Iranians with their QF313 BSplane, their knock offs of 1970s designs and grand statements of superiority?

And it would appear Iranian definition of advanced avionics is commercially available systems for Cessna’s.

You also completely disregard such things as jammers etc as well.

The iranians themselves may be big mouths, no question about it; however, leaving flamboyant announcements aside, the recent interception of a US RQ-170 proves beyond any doubt that whoever tries to get into war with arrogance as his primary weapon, will not have a good time, to say the least.

Erm they’re enforcing a no-fly zone. If they’re going to be doing CAS like over Libya, then call in Tomahawks, B-2s and massed strike packages to turn the crappy Syrian AD system to junk.

The exact same attitude was a miserable failure in Serbia though, so I wouldn’t put my money on it.

Since when does NATO have a problem with China?

Since… always?

Not many real pics published for the F-35 with a Weapons Load. Yet, I did see a good one with a F-35B loaded for bear with Cluster Bombs but couldn’t find it???

there is one in the previous page, but it’s a diagram, not the real thing.

in other news…