ijozicSounds like pretty good logic if you ask me. In CAS operations, helicopter losses are a virtual certainty, why not send some crappy old airframes first. Since SAA probably can’t perform nighttime operations too well anyway, daylight capability should be good enough for most purposes. Some better helicopters can be sent later if need arises. Re: Su-25T. So it’s retired, shame. Wouldn’t it actually now come in real handy against mobile ISIS forces with their technicals and whatnot?
I would disagree. Spotting infantry targets with those obsolete visual channel optics is an exercise in futility – this is where FLIR comes in handy. And it seems SAA can’t perform daytime operations well either so it’s a pat position unless the Russians decide to go all in.
Regarding the Su-25T, I don’t see how it would be used against ISIS technicals when ISIS is not close to Latakia where the Russians operate. I don’t suppose those CAS aircraft would go on “deep” strike missions over enemy (other rebel groups) territory, especially with no modern defensive systems.
ijozicMi-24PN sucks by most accounts. However Mi-28N and Ka-52 have been in regular service for years. What better opportunity than to test operational tempos?
Further, if they must stick with Hinds, why not the Mi-35M? That is a well tested aircraft and the optics alone are a universe better than Mi-24Ps.
I mentioned the Mi-35M in my post afterwards, but I have to admit I thought they had similar equipment and mostly differ as being based on different base models (V and P). On further reading, I see that the PN is the cheaper option for Russia, but presumably they later took advantage of the Mi-35M developments for export market to get a better equipped Hind. Still, the PN would still be better than P’s here with that FLIR and lighter weight and would allow them night time operations presumably.
ijozicThe real question is – WHERE ARE THE Mi-28s AND Ka-52s!!! They would be a giant force in helping the Syrian Army’s push right now.
I wondered that myself, but perhaps the units are still not ready for operations? But, I’d expected at least Mi-24PN’s to be sent since they were delivered to units years ago. Or perhaps Mi-35M’s.. Those 23mm cannons have smaller range, precision and effect, but are perhaps more flexible being turreted for e.g. suppression against unexpected targets.. Either of those should be much more useful with their FLIR sights compared to the old Mi-24P’s equipped with optics working in visual range only.
On another note, I saw some videos of Syrian vehicles being hit by TOW missiles published today which might corroborate the rumors from that dailybeast article that the Syrian attack was stopped with losses in tanks and vehicles thanks to US supplied TOW missiles. I suppose if Syrian offensive achieved anything, it would have been all over the news to boost their morale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDYwAjz2Zjs&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFEliogPkck&feature=youtu.be
This last link seems to show a Russian Mi-24P..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TSMCkbKO18&feature=youtu.be
ijozicOh we were all here, saying the same thing. It is just that “WE” are not important in a political sense. What I say, no matter how correct, sane and logical it is, has absolutely ZERO effect to the outcome of the chosen political games that players such as the US choose (or have decided) to play. This has not to do with hindsight, it has to do with common sense and recognising political realities.
What you said was basically that everyone in position of power at the time and most of their advisors were insane while sane experts in this field such as yourself instead of seeking employment in their field of expertise, confide themselves to blogs and forums. I don’t suppose you can PM me some of those pre-invasion warning posts from the archive?
Edit: moved the rest to PM.
ijozicI don’t think there was a sane man in the world who didn’t know that removing Saddam, Gadafi and Assad would result in chaos. Everything else is an exercise in arguing for no reason whatsoever.
Yes, it seems so obvious now, doesn’t it? That’s called the benefit of a hindsight. I don’t know where all these sane people including you were before it all happened to warn all the insane ones.
But, really, you’ve had chaos before their removal. Like, in Saddam’s case, 8 years of devastating Iran-Iraq war, invasion of Kuwait, subduing the Kurdish and Shia rebellions, deaths due to sanctions on Iraq, etc. Also, IIRC, the rebellion in Lybia was ongoing for two months before the western countries decided to intervene, plus he had his own share of supporting and arming revolutionaries (or terrorists) around the world, invasion of Chad, clashes with Egypt, etc.
I think the influence of foreign factors in causing this chaos is grossly overstated compared to deep and unresolved boiling ethnic and religious divisions in all of these countries created by colonizing forces, the grievances further emphasized by the ruling minorities. The removal of these dictators simply triggered what was long kept under the surface by oppression as there’s little chance to peacefully accepting e.g. giving away power to another group or being dominated by another ethnic/religious group in such let’s say socially undeveloped countries where the winner takes all.
For example, Yugoslavia was arguably much more socially advanced and you’ve had separate republics and regions in federation, but that didn’t stop it from being engulfed in a bloody civil war when one group of people belonging to one of the ethnic groups who also basically controlled the federal army wanted to usurp the power riding the wave of awaken nationalism and past grievances and religious identities long kept forcefully subdued by pipe-dream communist ideologies which were falling apart all around, thus triggering the domino effect of the same subdued nationalism in other groups, the worst part taking place naturally in the most ethnically mixed republic.
ijozicLook, I’m not saying that this half-hearted reforms would suffice, just to make clear that the reality is much more complex that some superficial and often biased news sources put forth.
Bashir Al-Assad promised these reforms 15 years ago, had his chance to deliver and then backed out and returned to his father’s modus operandi. I’m not basing my post on news articles only, but on the history books I’ve read on the Middle East, like e.g. the regime methods applied to Lebanon, both during the war and the occupation afterwards, so there’s very little to doubt about how they handle their domestic opposition, the lengths they’re willing to go to and the real nature of these late cosmetic reforms made during the ongoing civil war. If it wasn’t for the mass revenge slaughter and exodus that would follow, I’d say the regime had it long coming and deservingly so, but unfortunately it’s the civilians and soldiers who are paying the price.
ijozicThey are there to help Assad.. They don’t need to excuse their deployment otherwise.. I don’t think they’re even trying..
They were repeatedly making official statements that they’re there to fight ISIS during their deployment which is what prompted me to post that I doubt that they will be hitting ISIS targets since there’s no threat from them to the coastal areas currently.
Exactly.. that is why such debates make no sense.. Syria would never be in such mess if there weren’t foreign powers constantly stiring up the nest of hornets. Do you really think that the problem is anything else than huge now? What was it good for, then?
I’m not advertising their approach. I think most neutral observers would agree the an ideal approach would have been to force the regime to reforms by various diplomatic and economic pressure. But, the fact is that the rebellion started and the regime helped firing it up by it’s brutal response and then by releasing those very radical Islamists that they were “keeping under control” as they started to fear that the rebellion might get the support of the middle class. As said, the Assad regime will stop at nothing to remain in power. For example, nobody even knows how many people were killed at Hama in ’82 when the whole city was supposedly reduced to rubble (estimates go in tens of thousands given that supposedly around 1000 government troops died in the operation).
Who cares? Frankly, I have zero idea regd. what religionus group leaders in my country belong to. I have never bothered to check.. If it turns out they’re protestants while the majority is catholic, for example, does it makes their government “unstable” and fit for removal?
You’re not seriously comparing the situation in some Western country and the Middle East where the religion plays a big part of the identity? I don’t think that it needs much explaining how being ruled by a religious minority your religious group considers heretics can be abused to stir strife. Of course, the opposite works as well as being a religious minority in a Muslim country (depending on the country, of course) can potentially reduce you to a second-class citizen in practice.
ijozicThe original topic is why do Russians attack targets which are “not ISIS”? I have answered why – for them, al-Nusra, FSA or ISIS is all the same.
That’s a bit simplistic – they just use ISIS as an excuse for their deployment and label whoever is threatening the regime position as the same as a matter of convenience to justify bombing them, but we don’t know that they are “all the same to them” unofficially. For example, the Russians did give some vague statements that they could negotiate with FSA. http://www.expatica.com/ru/news/country-news/Moscow-says-ready-to-contact-Western-backed-Free-Syrian-Army_510256.html
True. The same way it’s also nobody’s business if the corrupt Sunni govt in Yemen is losing to the Shiite rebels. But if the invasion of Saudi, Qatari or Sudanese forces in Yemen is tolerated, then why whine about Russians in Syria?
But, I was just giving examples to show how silly the “nobody’s business” theory can become. We don’t have to go into genocide examples, but for sure ignoring developments in some countries might then become a huge problem for their neighbors, hence it’s logical that neighboring countries decide to influence the events before it’s too late. For instance, would it still be nobody’s business still if those Shia rebels are winning e.g. because they were secretly armed by Iran? Or if the Islamist rebels in Syria are winning the civil war because they are armed by their Islamist sponsors? Obviously, it depends which side with a stake in this you ask.
So, is the way they have gained power more acceptable than Assad’s? I frankly can’t see much difference.
I never claimed that, but the point is that in most of those countries, the rulers are not from a minority religious group (except in Bahrein). It also helps that those countries are rich with oil and the population at least enjoys some economic benefits of that, which is not what a big part of Syrian population could say.
Assads have been ruling Syria for 45 years already. Is that “unstable” by any means to you? That rebellion was 33 years ago and current president was 17 at that time.. but nevermind… 🙂
Unstable as in inherently unstable (with the leader being from a religious minority) and thus requiring constant acts of legitimization through e.g. Arab nationalism by supporting the Palestinian militants against Israel, interventions in Jordan and Lebanon, participation in Desert Storm, etc. (requiring large expenditures for the military equipment and a relatively big standing army which drains the limited resources) and a huge security apparatus to keep the population in check by oppression, torture and killings – you might want to read about some of their accounts given how disturbed you were by that one video of the Islamist leader; they have killed far more people in their prisons only than ISIS did in total:
https://en.qantara.de/content/political-prisoners-in-syria-around-the-clock-torture
ijozicShame. I think that’s a loss in capability. I loved the Su-25T on DCS World and the Ka-50. I guess Ugrozas haven’t been introduced yet either?
That’s just my half-assed guess as I couldn’t find any mention of the Vikhrs and the SM upgrades so I presumed that the Russians were not very satisfied with the Vikhrs on the Su-25T.
There seems to be a recurring notion of 4 targets attacked on one pass for the SM3, but they don’t specify the details like weapon and guidance type.
ijozicWhat about the Su-25SM? I though Atakas were used by Mi-28 and Vikhr-M were used by Ka-50/52?
Vikhr requires a different optical system, the Shkval AFAIK and the Prichal laser designator which were installed on the Su-25T. The Su-25SM didn’t upgrade the original Klen optics IIRC so it can’t use it.
The SM3 will have the before mentioned SOLT-25 optics, but I don’t know if the Vikhr missiles are supported – somehow doubt it.
Regarding the Ataka missiles on the Ka-52, there is mention of some newer variant which uses laser guidance rather than radio (since the Ka-52 doesn’t seem have the radio antenna typical for that missile system).
EDIT: there seems to be a vehicle launched version of Ataka (called Ataka-T) and here it says it’s laser beam riding like Vikhr so perhaps a similar missile would then be used on the Ka-52:
ijozicA recent news article stated that Saudi bombing in Yemen was responsible for more civilian deaths than the terrorism.
Yes, it’s appalling what’s happening there, but makes me wonder how many civilians died in Syrian airstrikes then. I did read the first article when it came out, but already forgot the magnitude of death and expected much less casualties given the claims that US was giving them intelligence data on potential targets, but perhaps all targets of military value have been hit already so they switched to civilian infrastructure to force them to capitulate. Obviously they don’t pay much attention at the casualties or the damage they inflict which is odd given their Yemeni loyalist allies.
The U.S. administration’s total silence on this is shameful, but unfortunately old news. EDIT: it seems that the Democrats in US Congress are trying to block further PGM deliveries to Saudis. Perhaps their stocks are running low with all the bombing.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/10/saudi-war-yemen-senate-arms-sale.html
ijozicFour missile ships have launched 26 cruise missiles on 11 targets.
Caspian Flotilla ships fire 26 cruise missiles on IS targets in Syria — Defense Minister
I guess it’s these ships of the Buyan-M class:
According to the wiki, three of those are a part of the Caspian flotilla.
ijozicI do find it entertaining how people act like Barrel bombing is somehow unique to Syria or Assad’s invention.. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia often strikes civilians with PGM’s in Yemen and no one bats an eyelid.
The topic is Syria; I don’t see anybody mentioning that it’s an invention of the current regime, just that it’s indiscriminately dropped over the cities out of their control for no other purpose than punishing the civilians which are supposed to be their own people. So, you’re saying that Saudi Air Force aims their PGM’s at civilian targets? Have any proof for such claims? I’m not debating their intervention, but there is a however slight difference between intentionally bombing the civilians and those who are hit as a collateral. Not that it matters to the victims, granted, but at least occurrences are less numerous and the numbers that die are much smaller.
Besides, barrel bombing was never the topic of the argument, but generalization of all rebel groups ideologically unacceptable to general Western public as being the same based on e.g. some individual example caught on video.
ijozicYou can’t fight a war trying to discriminate between various units.
I’m talking about your generalizations based on one video towards all the Islamist rebel groups.
It’s not anyone’s business, in the first place. Do Saudi Royal family treat their opposition better? Is there any opposition to speak of, at all?
That’s a very debatable logic. Then it’s also nobody’s business if he’s losing to Islamist rebels and they establish a Sharia law state in Syria. And perhaps it’s also nobody’s business what ISIS does to people on territories under it’s control?
How did current Qatari, Saudi or Bahraini royals gain power? Surely not through elections..
By getting set up by the British (also Jordan, Kuwait, UAE and the former royal rulers of Iraq), except Saudis which made a deal with Wahhabi bedouin tribes which basically conquered the territory by themselves.
I fail to see why opinion of Qatar or Saudis has any relevance here.
You asked why suddenly Assad has to go: “But hey, he needs to be removed. I am just still struggling to learn why. Because Netanyahu can’t stand him? Because Saudis want a pipeline to Southern Europe? Or because he buys MiGs instead of F-16s?”
It’s an unstable minority regime and occasionally people rebel against it (like e.g. in Hama 1982.) and the external powers with interests in his removal or stay in power decide to act on that chance or not depending on various other factors.
ijozicgood dictator: tortures, kills, imprisons, and so on… but he’s our buddy
Well, that’s not far off the mark, especially if it’s one of only a few buddies in the important region.
Sign In
