Syrian Civil War Developments

[citanon]

Reuters is reporting that fighters are operating from Shayrat airfield again, including further attacks on Khan Sheikhoun.

It's probably the ones parked on the side of the runway that they didn't hit.

[Doktor]

I remember the good Col saying there is no point in hitting runways, since in 48 hours his buddies will pave a new one. He was also full of praise for his Russian peers abilities.

[Parihaka]

An interesting and pertinent read from the CIA's reading room.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...00770001-5.pdf

[astralis]

pari,

We're now guaranteed there's no opportunity for that to change

that wasn't going to change, regardless. which other country is going to spend billions to prop up that guy?

Have you not read Russia's response that they will be substantively improving Syria's air defence? IIRC, outside the hack the Israelis recently achieved, their top systems are more than capable of taking on anything you can shoot or fly at them.

lol...no. how long do you think that will take-- delivery, sustainment, training, spares? moreover, talking about any one system is useless in this context. it's akin to going from walking across a room to walking across a room with a cobweb or two in the way. Syrian air defense is not exactly in the big leagues, nor will it ever be.

You, as in America, has been in nearly constant war since 1945. This escalated post 9/11 massively. As a country you now assassinate on average between one and three foreign citizens a day, depending on whose numbers you believe. You regularly bomb Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. As for your special forces well, http://www.commondreams.org/views/20.../year-commando
The DC Establishment IS the war party.

actually, America's been in near constant war since the early 1900s if bombing/gunboat diplomacy counts as "war". if that's the standard, there's little meaning to the term "war party", because even the most dovish Dems or libertarian Republicans won't back away from that. how long did it take for Mr America First to backtrack on this? hell, this wasn't even the first time; the Yemen raid was executed how many days into his Presidency?

[snapper]

Have you not read Russia's response that they will be substantively improving Syria's air defence? IIRC, outside the hack the Israelis recently achieved, their top systems are more than capable of taking on anything you can shoot or fly at them.

What? More S-400s?

[Parihaka]

What? More S-400s?

Let me help. Each is coloured blue, which means it's a link to full details.

[snapper]

Yes I know what they are but they had S-300s, S-400s and Pantsirs around Latakia and Tartus and either chose not to use them or failed to do for some reason, even though alerted of the incoming strike. If they chose not use their systems it has several possible implications; if they failed it has other implications and we need to know which is true.

[kato]

The strike supposedly went across the hills of Lebanon, considerably outside the range of the systems at Latakia and Tartus (which pretty much cover the coast from the Lebanese to the Turkish border).

[snapper]

The strike supposedly went across the hills of Lebanon, considerably outside the range of the systems at Latakia and Tartus (which pretty much cover the coast from the Lebanese to the Turkish border).

Well they do not 'point' in any one direction. The range of an S-400 is upto 400km and the entire length of the Lebanese coast around 230km. What gives? Hills a problems? Chose not to use them? It is important to know.

[Doktor]

Well they do not 'point' in any one direction. The range of an S-400 is upto 400km and the entire length of the Lebanese coast around 230km. What gives? Hills a problems? Chose not to use them? It is important to know.

What, all of the peeps here saying it's a futile exercise to use them is not enough for you?

A) They didn't want to give ELINT over few dozen hits on Syrian targets. They were never at jeopardy.
B) They'd get oversaturated (they only can shot down few missiles before running out of ammo)
C) Why raising the stakes?

[Doktor]

BTW, any news on that rendezvous near Cyprus?

[Parihaka]

Well they do not 'point' in any one direction. The range of an S-400 is upto 400km and the entire length of the Lebanese coast around 230km. What gives? Hills a problems? Chose not to use them? It is important to know.

It's radar is 400km, it's effective range against subsonic ground hogging cruise missiles is effectively 40. It's also like using a baseball bat to swatting a fly. The pantsirs are also too much club simply for cruise missile interception. The S400s were deployed after the Turks shot down a Russian fighter (border control) and the Pantsirs were there to threaten American aircraft after the US started talking about direct strikes on Syrian forces (internal to Syria).
The Russians have any number of highly mobile cruise missile interception systems which they can deploy, and which Medvedev has said they will.
Meanwhile US flights over Syrian airspace have dropped from twenty or more per day to single digits, all outside the effective range of the Russian systems.

[snapper]

What, all of the peeps here saying it's a futile exercise to use them is not enough for you?

A) They didn't want to give ELINT over few dozen hits on Syrian targets. They were never at jeopardy.
B) They'd get oversaturated (they only can shot down few missiles before running out of ammo)
C) Why raising the stakes?

Well if there are deficiencies in their systems it matters. If they chose not to use them - or perhaps agreed in advance not to use them - it has other obvious implications. If as Pari says the number of flights on targets in Syria is substantially decreased, no runways were hit, hardly any perceptible damage done, then the implication is that the whole thing was pantomime, and the subsequent Muscovite 'anger' a feigned facade. Forget that the whole Trump administration is under investigation for collusion to pervert the election; watch some fireworks.

No Pari you are wrong on the range issue. The S-400 can use several types of missiles and the furthest range is 400km though I am told it does have trouble with low altitude targets - particularly over the Lebanese hills possibly as kato suggests.

[Parihaka]

No Pari you are wrong on the range issue. The S-400 can use several types of missiles and the furthest range is 400km though I am told it does have trouble with low altitude targets - particularly over the Lebanese hills possibly as kato suggests.

Well no I'm not wrong, against cruise missiles it has an effective range of 40km. Because they fly low. Against ICBM's, F22's and whatever incredibly expensive toys the US or whoever wish to fly at high altitudes, they have a far greater range.
If you wish to take out American cruise missiles then I'd expect them to deploy the cheap and simple Tunguska.

[citanon]

Well if there are deficiencies in their systems it matters. If they chose not to use them - or perhaps agreed in advance not to use them - it has other obvious implications. If as Pari says the number of flights on targets in Syria is substantially decreased, no runways were hit, hardly any perceptible damage done, then the implication is that the whole thing was pantomime, and the subsequent Muscovite 'anger' a feigned facade. Forget that the whole Trump administration is under investigation for collusion to pervert the election; watch some fireworks.

No Pari you are wrong on the range issue. The S-400 can use several types of missiles and the furthest range is 400km though I am told it does have trouble with low altitude targets - particularly over the Lebanese hills possibly as kato suggests.

Besides the points raised about the practical usage of these systems, I still fail to see why Putin would spend hard earned Russian money defending Assad's crappy air field and decrepit planes.

The Russians were clearly told which targets would be struck and given time to get their personnel out of harm's way. They even got most of the Syrians out. They had time to re-park a lot of the planes. Why would they risk embarrassing their super duper wonder SAM system to shoot million dollar missiles at Tomahawks they have a low chance of intercepting?

Even accepting Russian numbers for the capabilities of the system, the chances of a system at Latakia being able to track and intercept cruise missiles flying nap of the earth ingress routes from 50 mi or more away are not great. If they expended all their missiles defending Shayrat, where does that leave Latakia?