APRichelieuDont believe in the link. Syrian have idea for while since the ships are so close . both Syrian and Ruaf has double down and rebels came out from rat holes in false expectation of not getting bombed are disappointed. It is to make them move around in large formations and getting bombed in one place.
Stupid comment.
Even if they are aware of the ships, they do not know the timing or target.
They only know after they have been warned, and if the base is filled with aircraft, you need to get 40 aircraft
in the air in 30 minutes. That never happened.
APRichelieu[QUOTE=Sens;2384659]
An ALCM in a nap-of earth flight is out of reach of a S-400 site, when a distance of >50 km is kept to it. The Americans had no intention to provoke the Russians or reveal their shortcomings. There was sufficcient warning time for the Syrians too. Those flew out the Sukois in flying condition that night. The Americans were just intrested to show what they can do.
That the Suchoi flew out is mere speculation on Your side.
US says they monitored the runway and no plane left between the warning and the strike.
“The US officials said that none of the planes had been able to scramble before missiles hit, and that no Russian aircraft were at the airfield.”
The missiles struck at 3:45 A.M.
Read somewhere that the Russians were warned, and then the missiles were fired.
The link claims 30 minutes flying time.
How many planes can you get in the air in 30 minutes starting with pilots fast asleep?
There are 40 hardened shelters on the base. Not everyone is neccessarily containing an aircraft.
APRichelieuWell this does not..
https://www.rt.com/news/384144-syria-village-tomahawks-strike-aftermath/
This could be anything from a failure to a missile shot down to a false flag operation.
The British consistently reported V-1 missiles landing in the wrong place, to make the Germans
calibrate their targetting, so they would land outside Central London.
When You look at where the cruise missiles hit, the precision seems to be within a meter of intended target.
APRichelieuIt say damage aircraft shelter it does not tell the aircraft hit are operationally actives. These are old 70s made aircraft . At most 40% operative . unless there is decrease in sortie rate you can’t make claim of effective strike.
If You strike a hardened aircraft shelter, You do not neccessarily know if they contain an aircraft or not.
That is why the original reports said up to 20 aircraft destroyed.
This means that they believe they hit 20 shelters which may or may not contain aircraft.
While only a few of the shelters are totally demolished, videos from the base shows that even a shelter
with a hole on the top can result in a totally destroyed aircraft.
There are 40 shelters on the base, so it is not surprising that there are undamaged aircraft.
The pictures also show the extreme precision of the Tomahawks.
APRichelieuThe legal difference is obvious, what I find hypocritical is the moral righteousness from those who themselves drop plenty of munitions in the ME. Oh I forgot “they didn’t mean to kill civilians”.
Also, I was commenting on the widespread use of say rockets/mortars by both rebel and gov forces in an indiscriminate way vs civilian areas. It is no more humane, nor more legal than occasional CW use.
Do You know what a civilian building with a couple of active snipers inside is called?
— A military target.
Attacking a target with civilians without any known military value is of course illegal.
It is not hypocritical for those that wage war within the limits of the Geneva Convention
to criticize those that wage war outside the limits.
APRichelieuTartus? The Base that had one old drydock and 20 marines guarding it for years and years?
I doubt it. It’s importance is vastly overhyped IMO.
I agree. Not to sound too morbid, but getting so bent out of shape when these sort of civilian casualties rack up in Syria and Iraq from conventional explosives always seems strange to me. Obviously CW have an appeal for terrorists and there is a reason most countries have signed up to destroy them, but still, I don’t see how it is anymore humane to blow limbs and burn skin off with conventional munitions.
Or to hit civilian structures with guided weaponry.
You can never call war humane, but at least some minimal efforts have been taken by
the Geneva Convention and other International treaties.
Those treaties ban the use of Chemical Weapons.
They also ban attacks on purely civilian targets.
Attacking military targets is not banned even if civilians are present (hospitals have special rules).
If civilians are present, civilian losses are limited by proportionality principles.
The decision on what is a crime and what is not is based on intention and knowledge.
Attacking a market square without any known military value and killing 20 is a crime.
Attacking a sniper position in a building, demolishing the building in the process,
without knowing that the building contains 100 civilians, all killed is not a crime.
If the presence of the civilians was known, then the situation needs to be judged
according to proportionality.
The sniper, shooting from a building filled with civilians, is clearly a war criminal.
If you do not understand the difference between following the laws of war,
and not following the laws of war, I suggest You study first, and comment later.
APRichelieuAFAIK Sweden cannot support integration of nukes on Gripen. In any case this discussion is irrelevant.
Did you not see the mission scenarios in the RFP?
Do you really think that 4 Gripen NG without additional support will manage those missions? I am sorry but although the Gripen is a very impressive little bird, this is too much.
As stated previously I don’t think the SH and Typhoon will be very successful either — and they are significantly larger than the Gripen.
Gripen is expected to have state-of-the-art EWS, however it is IMHO too small to manage such missions single-handed.
F-35 will be the next Belgian fighter jets; that’s for sure. Rafale may be able to handle most (or even all?) of the missions however it will be more expensive than F-35 and it will be less capable. Add in the added value of operating the same a/c as most of NATO (and the Netherlands in particular) and it becomes a no-brainer.
Gripen NG is not for countries that consider the F-35 — it is for countries that do not consider the F-35 and want something Western but cost-effective. E.g. Switzerland (and I guess also Austria, when they need to replace their Typhoons 15 years from now).
As far as understand, Sweden does not need to be involved.
The customer should be able to integrate the weapon themselves using an App.
I might be wrong of course, but this type of flexibility was one of the drivers behind the S/W architecture.
APRichelieuI have serious doubts Sweden accepts that anyone puts nukes on the Gripen (and even if somebody buys the aircraft, they can’t do something forbidden in selling agreement, as the seller has a very good way to ground your entire air force by simply stopping support if you don’t comply with the agreement you signed)…
Anyway, as said before, chances are Belgium buys the F-35, first of all because its american (while I lived in Belgium, a friend of mine qualified it as “European capital country sponsored by the USA”… while it was said as a joke, fact is that they have no business going to war anywhere, and yet equip themselves for wars far away from their country…
As far as I know, Svenska Freds brought up the issue of possible use of Gripen with nuclear devices in 2010, and was ignored. Svenska Freds is an organisation of peace activists trying to influence the government.
It has not been debated since then.
APRichelieuMore than just EMP hardening. Irrespective of that, it appears that Sweden has already made that decision.
I doubt Sweden has commented on this.
This was highlighted during the Indian MMRCA process, and the sale was approved from the Swedish side.
APRichelieuI’m not confident the US would allow B61 integration on the Gripen.
The App based architecture would allow Belgian Air Force to have B61 integration,
without making it available to anyone else, so why not?
APRichelieuInteresting point. On the other hand (i) no B-61 mentioned in RFGP (although one may see an allusion inside growth part). (ii) If that was required one day, would Sweden accept a nuclear bomb to be induced on one of their product fighter?
I would be surprised if Gripen owners would not get enough information to qualify weapons on their own.
The new App based S/W architecture should allow this.
APRichelieuThere are ideological requirements that have to be met for the US to sell F 35’s particularly (not many being sold to Gulf allies notice) but even F 16’s or any US jet . This is not the same as Russia, Sweden or whoever trying to book an export deal.
Secondly. These F 35 prices that get thrown around are just what LM can bare for the good of the coalition. They are not the same as cash/carry prices for other jets
Sweden certainly restricts who can buy Gripen fighters.
It is not marketed in the Middle East AFAIK, and Pakistan got a no, when they asked 2004.
APRichelieuLIMA 2017: MRCA contenders jockey for pole position
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/lima-2017-mrca-contenders-jockey-pole-position/
Why is not LM in this race with the F-35?
If they are really considering the Rafale and Typhoon, they should IMHO also be able to consider the F-35, which is already in the same price range.
It can’t be because they will avoid US a/c for political reasons because SH seems to be in the race.
So what is the reason?
Malaysia’s defence minister Hishamuddin Hussain has squashed reports that the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon had been shortlisted for the Malaysian air force’s multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) requirement.
Asked if the ministry would settle for Eurofighter Typhoon by BAE Systems or the Rafale by Dassault Aviation, he said the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Saab Gripen “are still in the running”.
APRichelieuSecond hand Gripens from Swedish Air Force could be a good choice for Austria IMO. Should be quite a few airframes with relatively low hours available in the 2020-2030 timeframe, unless our government finally realize what a a big waste it is not to keep them.
It has still not been decided what to do with the Gripen C/D when the Gripen E is inducted.
They can be cannibalized to reduce the cost of the Gripen E, by reusing parts.
They can be kept in service, to increase the numbers of the Air Force,
or sold/leased to another country.
Seems a waste to cannibalize them.
APRichelieuWhat do you mean; are there problems with upgrading from bl 3 to bl 4??
Norway’s first F-35 are bl 3 of course…
The post indicates that there are H/W changes in Block 4 aircraft.
It will cost to upgrade Block 3 to Block 4.
Sign In
