https://youtu.be/YQ3D6RrG8ig

LOL! So will The Russian Ministry of Defence now be claiming that A-10s were also in the area? Sorry but they missed that opportunity when they only came up with the US Predator claim. I bet they are kicking themselves that they didn’t include manned aircraft in that initial claim. How on earth did the Russians track the Predator but fail to track the likes of A-10s? It is just ridiculous but they must be kicking themselves that they didn’t throw it in the mix. The eyewitness reports also include cannon strikes on the convoy/compound.

…. then put out tosh to deliberately confuse about Danish and UK (UK not supposed be there!) aircraft doing the raid because they don’t fly A-10s….

The F-16s that bombed were Danish working together with the USAF A-10s. The Australians also took part likely in a support role with KC-30A and or E-7A Wedgetail. Why is the UK not supposed to be there? Nothing unusual about an RAF Reaper operating over Syria. Typhoon, Tornado and Reaper have been active against ISIS targets in Syria.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-air-strikes-against-daesh

This was the first RAF Reaper airstrike in Syria during 2015.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4549871.ece

“Two Danish F-16s participated along with other nations’ aircraft in these attacks.”

https://www.thelocal.dk/20160919/danish-f-16s-part-of-attack-that-allegedly-hit-syrian-forces

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248395[/ATTACH]

i tired my best but it looks like the cheese cracker looking thing would be the size of his arm, maybe they have like “3 foot long” cheese crackers in syria.. who knows but as you can see its not realistic , cardboard would burn up or disintegrate

Your “Cheese cracker” is a box of medical supplies. Looks like a pharmaceutical product for children?

Link to large image.

http://siol.net/media/img/3a/36/40d173a8b80696beb8b9.jpeg

No, it’s you – who live in fantasy world. As well, you don’t understand that EWR like 36D6(19G6) is a “приданные средства”, not “штатные” – they’re NOT a part of ANY SAM, but common EW assets that may work alone or together with various SAMs, as S-200, S-300, army’s Osa, Buk and S-300V or even with foreign SAMs as Georgian Spyder. You know nothing about our SAMs and still think you can learn others about them.

LOL! It is still an associated S-300 radar. What part of that don’t you understand? What part of 36D6 and legacy S-300s don’t you understand? It doesn’t matter how you twist it. Remember the claim is that you doubted that the likes of US/UK managed to get their hands on parts of the S-300 system. I understand that it is difficult for you to realize that instead of using emulators the US actually got their hands on the real thing. I get it though. It is a mindset!

The Russian gear ranges from the upgraded SA-6 to the newest SA-15b, as well as various detection and targeting radars

Billy D. Smith, the chief of electronic combat training requirements for Red Flag at the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC), is more than a software integrator. He is responsible for acquiring most of the advanced Russian surface-to-air combat gear that dots the range. These JPARC radars and missile systems are not aging holdovers from the Cold War. While some of them have their roots in that period, they all represent the latest systems that might be employed by an adversary in a coalition operation.

Smith regularly journeys to Ukraine, where many of these systems still are manufactured. Under regular international export transactions, he buys them and ships them back to JPARC for installation and use. Lately, he has been purchasing them with service contracts so that he can add software or hardware upgrades when they become available without having to negotiate new sales agreements.

The list of Soviet- and Russian-designed systems used at JPARC reads like a directory of surface-to-air defense systems. They include the SA-10/Flap Lid, the 2S6, the SA-8, the SA-6, the SA-11b, the SA-13 and the new SA-15b. Red Flag participants also train against early warning radars such as the Clam Shell, Tin Shield, Spoon Rest, Flat Face, Long Track and Thin Skin.

Many of these systems work together to constitute complementary air defense. The SA-10 uses the Tin Shield radar, which can be a stand-alone system or an integrated one and serves as an early warning system. Data from this detection radar, which can track as many as 100 targets, is passed on to other radars such as the Flap Lid phased array radar. This is the SA-10’s fire control radar, and it can track six targets and launch 12 missiles. The Clam Shell radar, which concentrates on low-flying targets, also feeds data into this network via the same control van as the Flap Lid, from which it also is controlled. ……

http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=pacific-air-over-alaska

http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=node/2751

Let me think…becuase it NOT a part of S-300 air-defense system???

You are living in a fantasy world. It can and has been used as part of S-300 systems. So you are telling me that 36D6s Tin Shields have never been used as part of an S-300 system? Seriously? Really? It is an associated S-300 radar system. You can put “Period” all you want but the fact is that 36D6 is an associated S-300 radar system. Legacy S-300 systems used it and later variants also used it as back-up when replaced by newer radar systems. Regardless how you like to twist it the 36D6 is still an S-300 associated radar.

You are asking for images of S-300 systems at Tolicha Peak and you cite US Su-27s images in your previous posts. Have these US military Su-27s images been officially released? Has the Su-27 program been declassified? Of course it hasn’t and just like the Tolicha Peak radars detailed images of them will remain that way until the program is declassified. Due to restricted airspace and until the program is declassified then you are not going to see images of this facility and the S-300 radars.

http://geimint.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/us-restricted-and-classified-test-sites.html

Why do you find it so hard to believe that the US and other interested parties didn’t exploit the break up of the Soviet Union? Why is it so hard to understand that along with Su-27s the US also got S-300 systems?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/belarus/sov94249.htm

Oh, i finally found this British “S-300”. 😀 US one can easily be something similar to this, on closer look. :highly_amused:

Where have you been? You were part of this thread where the images were posted. It is used as a visual target at RAF Spadeadam. What part of “visual target” don’t you understand?

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137131-S-400s-coming-ro-Syria!&p=2279818#post2279818

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137131-S-400s-coming-ro-Syria!/page6

Would it be possible to withdraw some of the Tu22m3 from the START treaty, a squadron amount. To use as heavy theatre bombers with the inflight refueling probes reinstalled? Or would the Ruaf have to withdraw the whole type?

It would be the opposite scenario. Any Tu-22M3s with the in-flight re-fuelling probe re-installed would take them into the long-range bomber category and those modified would be eligible for inclusion into the NEW START treaty. There would be away around it with those Tu-22M3s subjected to an inspection to ensure that they were incapable of delivering nuclear weapons. Currently the B-1Bs are taken out of the nuclear treaties and declared non-nuclear by the US. The Russians agreed to inspect the B-1B and to verify that they were not capable of carrying nuclear armaments.

‘START I: Letter on B-1’ at following link.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/tc/treaties/start1/other/letters_bear_b1.htm

Nearly half of the B-52Hs are also out of the nuclear treaty agreements with their conversion to the conventional role only.

The US Air Force (USAF) has begun converting nearly half of its Boeing B-52H Stratofortress strategic bombers to the conventional role only, in line with the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) signed with Russia in April 2010, the service announced on 17 September.

Conversion of the first (serial number 61-1021) of 30 operational aircraft into non-nuclear-capable platforms was completed at Barksdale Air Force Base (AFB) in Louisiana over the previous weeks.

The USAF’s B-52 fleet currently comprises 76 operational platforms, which are controlled by the Air Force Global Strike command (AFGSC) headquartered at Barksdale AFB. A further 12 non-operational B-52H bombers are stored at the ‘boneyard’ at Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona, and these will also be converted (94 B-52G platforms in the boneyard are slated for disposal).

Work to convert the 30 operational and 12 mothballed bombers is scheduled to be complete by early 2017.

http://www.janes.com/article/54673/usaf-begins-removing-nuclear-role-from-some-b-52-bombers

Captain Ouuf,
That is an image of Tu-22M1 Backfire A. The image was taken during 2008 at the Riga Aviation Museum, Latvia.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tupolev_Tu-22M1_refuelling_probe.jpg

The Tu-22M3 does not have the capability. To re-instate the aerial refuelling capability it would have to be re-negotiated with the US as part of the New START Treaty. The Backfire was taken out of the various treaties by the US/Soviet agreement to remove the capability. Babak Taghvaee is simply incorrect about Tu-22M3 refuelling from IL-78s. He just assumed that the Backfire had the capability.