Russia's anti-aircraft weapons in Syria

a reply to: Zaphod58
With respect, great opinion piece, but without a shred of evidence.
The air defense system is there by request and purchase from/by Syrian government
which technically makes them Syrian.
www.defenseworld.net...

a reply to: all2human

So a guy that worked the Russian defense industry talking about it is an just giving an opinion.

All you have to do is look at all the equipment exported by Russia and you can see it isn't the latest and greatest. Their exported tanks don't have the same armor or guns that the Russian tanks have, SAM systems have different versions of radars and missiles, aircraft have different radars and systems...

The export version of the Pantsir-S1 uses a slightly different version of the radar, that was designed to be exported. It's similar to the Russian version but not quite as good. That's the version Syria is getting.

And yet the one sent to the base the Russians are using is being operated by Russian crews. Not training, operating. The Syrians aren't doing anything with that one, despite your claim it's one of theirs.

a reply to: Zaphod58
look if Russia wants to keep the Syrian government safe from potential international bombardment their going to give them there best.
logic trumps conjecture.
yes a gulf war era defector from the Russian defence industry has an opinion,usually a forced one.
Only western sources claim Russians will be regularly operating the Syrian air defence systems.
And well because they can,Russians can operate their systems on their base under extraterritorial jurisdiction.
en.wikipedia.org...
Need I remind you of the mutual defence agreement between Syria and Russia,www.examiner.com... the elephant in the room.

a reply to: all2human

No, they really don't. Even the export version of the Pantsir-S1 is a good system, but what good does it do them? Just how many air strikes have the rebels launched on Syrian government positions? How many cruise missile strikes have they launched?

If Russia wants to keep them safe, they can do exactly what they did and deploy their own forces and their own operators.

The SA-17 would be a more effective missile to sell them than the Pantsir-S1. The Pantsir has a better radar, even on the export version but it's a short range system compared to the SA-17. The SA-17 can engage targets out to 26 miles and 82,000 feet. The Pantsir-S1 can hit targets out to 12 miles and 49,000 feet.

Where did I say they couldn't? I never said Russia couldn't send or operate the system there, now did I? But if they have the chance to test their system against the most advanced stealth fighter in the world, when it's actively trying to hide from radars, they'd be crazy to not do it. Especially when they know there's no almost no chance of counter actions.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Syria has every right to protect itself as does any sovereign nation
The country is under air bombardment by nations that openly seek the downfall of its government.

a reply to: all2human

Wow, you are so far from what I said it's not even funny. Either you're just putting words in my mouth at this point, or you're reading what you want to.

Show me once that I said anything about them not having the right to defend themselves. There's a huge difference between "they don't need SAM systems to fight the rebels" and "they don't have the right to them".

And for a nation that's under aerial bombardment by nations that want its downfall, they're not defending themselves very hard, and the nations you're talking about aren't hitting them very hard considering not one military target has been destroyed, and the only target they've even shot at was a UAV that lost communications and was flying into an area it wasn't supposed to.

What the aerial campaign isn't doing, ground forces are
interesting how more territory has been taken since the strikes began, than in all of the conflict.
coincidence? I think not
imo there is a coordinated effort to seize and destroy critical Syrian infrastructure(doesn't have to be military) in order to paralyze the government.
www.globalresearch.ca...
wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com...

And yet Syria hasn't objected, has quietly worked with some of the governments involved in the air strikes, and hasn't fired a single shot at anything but a UAV that went out of control and couldn't be recovered.

So a source that is anti Western and a picture of F-18s proves it?

Makes complete sense to allow nations that demand your removal to begin a bombing campaign within your country.
A decision I don't understand, but nor would i if I had a gun to my head.

And yet they're sharing intelligence, coordinating strikes, communicating with each other, and the strikes are staying away from critical infrastructure.

a reply to: DeathSlayer


Russia's anti-aircraft weapons in Syria

I reckon any moron knows that Russia will come under stustained proaganda attack from the US and its slave states. If the sheeple beleive everything the coalition is going to claim about the Russians they really are as stupid as they are palyed for.

last oil fields captured:
www.infowars.com...
no coordination on strikes:
www.washingtonpost.com... 0e-2d2e-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html

a reply to: all2human

They're not coordinating directly. It's all being done through allies in the region. Neither side can admit to working with the other. So the coordination is being handled under the table through others.

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: Zaphod58

Syria has every right to protect itself as does any sovereign nation
The country is under air bombardment by nations that openly seek the downfall of its government.

Then they need to be mindful of Russia. they have a tendency to stab allies in the back. STalin was going to attack hitler himself he said but hitler did it first. Thats the mindset of Putin and most military in russia.
I can see i tnow...Assad pisses off Putin and then assad tries to use the weapons he got from his russian pals and gets decimated due to it not being as good as the official versions and not knock off export versions.
The ALWAYS give out the weaker versions so they can EXPLOIT them later.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Come on Zap! You should know by now, US bad, Russia good. Russian super weapons will wipe out the US with ease.
Sarcasm meter pegged.

I wonder how many of these clowns realize that the Russians and the old Soviet Union have been keeping the Middle East in turmoil since the 1950's.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Russia has surface to air missiles deployed to Syria? ISIS does not have an air force or any aircraft so what are these missiles for? They are primarily used in shooting down aircraft.

IS have the US/NATO air force as support, so it quite Clear why Russia want their stuff their.

The US are useing IS as a Proxy to get to Assad. And the US have said that they will attack anyone who bombs theri Proxy army. Wake up....

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Zaphod58

Come on Zap! You should know by now, US bad, Russia good. Russian super weapons will wipe out the US with ease.
Sarcasm meter pegged.

I wonder how many of these clowns realize that the Russians and the old Soviet Union have been keeping the Middle East in turmoil since the 1950's.

There are reports of the KGB helping out the PLO and arafatt to set up the whole palestinian people snow job.

a reply to: yuppa

There's more than reports. When we hit Lebanon in 1983, we were not allowed to attack anti-aircraft sites in the Bekaa Valley because some of them were manned by Soviet "advisors".

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

London: Russia's military build-up in Syria includes surface-to-air missiles as well as combat aircraft with air-to-air capability, deployments that raise "serious questions" about Moscow's role in the region, US Secretary of State John Kerry says. Russian officials have said that the purpose of the build-up at a base near Latakia, Syria, is to combat Islamic State. The deployment of air defence systems and fighter aircraft weapons that can be used against a conventionally armed foe but have little utility against extremist fighters has spurred concerns that Moscow's goal is to establish a military outpost in the Middle East. It has also added to the Pentagon's worries about the risk of an inadvertent confrontation between Russia's military and the US-led coalition that is carrying out air strikes in Syria against Islamic State.

While Mr Kerry did not provide details, a US official, who requested anonymity, said a Russian SA-22 air defence system was in place in Latakia. The US observed elements of the system at the base in the last week and now the launcher and the missiles were there, too, the official said.
The US official added that the four Su-27 aircraft Russia flew to the base were armed with air-to-air missiles.

"What's the air-to-air threat there for them?" asked the official, who called the development "troubling". However, other US officials suggested the deployment might simply reflect the Russian military's standard defensive precautions as it established an air hub in a foreign country.
The prefabricated building that Russia has erected at the base can house 2000 military advisers and personnel. Ferrying weapons and equipment to the base has involved more than 20 flights by Russian Condor transport planes: almost all have flown to Syria by passing over Iran and Iraq.
Syria – and the migrant crisis it has spawned – has been a focus of Mr Kerry's trip to Europe.

After a meeting on Saturday with British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, Mr Kerry said it was vital to pursue a diplomatic solution to the crisis but Moscow was not putting enough pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to make him negotiate seriously. Both Mr Hammond and Mr Kerry emphasised that Mr Assad could not remain in power if there was to be a durable solution to the conflict, but they said the timing of his departure during a political transition in Syria would be a matter of negotiation. "It doesn't have to be on day one or month one," Mr Kerry said. "There is a process by which all the parties have to come together and reach an understanding of how this can best be achieved. "I just know that the people of Syria have already spoken with their feet," he said. "They're leaving Syria." Despite his concerns about Russia's military build-up in Syria, Mr Kerry said the Obama administration welcomed a role for Russian forces if it was focused on combating Islamic State and not on propping up Mr Assad. "IS is plotting attacks today against the West," Mr Kerry said. "So to the degree that Russia wants to focus its efforts against IS, we welcome that."

LINK

So Russia has surface to air missiles deployed to Syria? ISIS does not have an air force or any aircraft so what are these missiles for? They are primarily used in shooting down aircraft.

Last week Putin stated he would not take any responsibility for any incidents between the U.S armed forces flying various missions in Syria. These next few weeks in Syria will be very interesting. I foresee a U.S. airplane or two being shot down and what will Obama do? All talk and no walk. Obama is the weakest U.S. president we have had during any time of war.

Personally I don't understand why the U.S. is even involved in the Middle East? Anyone who has EVER believed the lie..... that due to the U.S. presence in the Middle East this has made the U.S. safer has bought into this lie. The same with the terrorist threat.... what threat? One, two radicals making a small move against the U.S.?

Please don't tell me that terrorist flew those planes into the World Trade Center..... no one is buying that either except those who took the red pill.

Syrian rebels will "accidentally" shoot down an airliner with captured equipment.. yikes.