Syrian threat: SAMs gallore

Originally posted by StellarX

I never asked that so please stop pretending that i did.

you we're disputing the effective ness of the system if it had a sucha short range.

Yes but the Sprint had MASSIVE acceleration to get to that distance and height which the Sa-5 did not thus making firing solutions harder for a slower missile intercepting at longer distance/lower altitudes. I never talked about the maximum range or maximum altitude for interception.

Why don't you show me how effective the SA5 would've been at the ABm role

SARH is something you would use because of jamming and general guidance at long ranges which is not required for ABM point defense.

Thanks your stement is now much clearer to me.





[edit on 1-8-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 1-8-2006 by urmomma158]

Originally posted by StellarX

They bombed Serbia to let the population know just what strife Milosevic had got them into.

Milosevic did not ask NATO to start bombing civilians and if it was not for the Western backed terrorist movements ( called liberation movements on Western TV) he never would have started doing the 'ethnic cleansing' ( in this case another name for actually shooting back at terrorist) he got involved in before the NATO campaign really started killing people.

LOL, I had to read this twice. You might as well claim the earth is flat while you're at it. So you're saying that NATO forced Milosevic to start killing civilians. I know you indulge your fantasies quite often, but that is just ridiculous.

Just bombing Kosovo wouldn't have had nearly the same effect on the Serb people. Nothing beats a physical reminder.

Which according to official US doctrine means the US is a terrorist state who ( by their own definition) uses terror to affect the political and policy changes they require. Not surprising the US is currently the only state that has ever been 'convicted' ( not the best term) by the UN as a terrorist state. The scale of US terrorism becomes quite apparent when one sees what the UN normally lets states get away with.

H,, once again your bias is shown very bluntly. It was NATO who was involved not just the US. I believ ethe French, Germans, Canadians and all other NATO countries were unnanimous in their decision

I was actually referring to their earlier experiences which they apparently LEARNT from ( unlike the Syrians but) the same kinds of lesson the Serbs apparently took the heart.

The Serbs downed a handful of planes and were powerless to stop NATO attacking at will. Your claims that they had an effective SAM defence are completely without merit. NATO may have avoided certain places, not because they were scared about teh Serb SAM capability, but because the propaganda value of possibly losing a pilot wasn't worth it. IF teh initial campaign didn't work and Kosovo had to be cleared, Serb SAM operators would hvae the shortest life expectancy of any job in the world.
The fact is that teh NATO was highly effective and qachieved its aim of not only freeing kosovo but removing Milosevic from power for practically no loss. You can attempt ( as suaul ) to spin things in a different direction but the facts speak for themsleves..

You know chaps, it's possible to have an argument and neither party be right.

Political BS aside, the Serbia-NATO case study is pretty relevant in Syria's case. Having said that, perhaps if we stepped back and looked at it objectively we'd realise that the true lessons of the Balkans conflict are possibly quite different to what's being argued here.

Originally posted by planeman
You know chaps, it's possible to have an argument and neither party be right.

Political BS aside, the Serbia-NATO case study is pretty relevant in Syria's case. Having said that, perhaps if we stepped back and looked at it objectively we'd realise that the true lessons of the Balkans conflict are possibly quite different to what's being argued here.

PLease expand on this, I believe I know what you're talking about.

Regarding the Serbia-Nato conflict, I've been coming across reports of more downings of aircraft than officially reported. Yet I found something fishy. Nato denied most losses, except those of UAV's, 30 in total, the exact amount that Serb forces reported. Coincidence?

Other thing I found fishy is that some kills were confirmed by GRU, unlike for example Iraq, which nobody else confirmed their "kills".
Why would Russian Intel would confirm kills, even announce it on newspapers? Truth or propaganda? Russia was also stationed in the zone, in a "peacekeeping" mission, and had radar and air coverage of the zone, so they could in theory, be telling the truth.

Also I dug up that Nato also acknowledged the downing of a Harrier, as well as a couple of Apaches.

Official NATO reports and statements made by various NATO officials indicate that about 10 NATO planes made emergency landings. Two F-117As sustained extensive damage (the F-117A 86-0837 was damaged on April 21 during landing; and another F-117A lost a part of its tail section due to a nearby SA-3 SAM explosion).

This is why this is relevant to Syria, since Syria employs the SA-3 as well, and a nearby explosion to a F-117 is not anything.

lastly, my findings on what Russian Intelligence had to say on what Nato denied:

1. Russian GRU (Main Intelligence Directorate - military intel. service) confirmed that four USAF F-16s were shot down by SAMs and AAAs.
   
2. At least one German "Tornado IDS" ground attack aircraft was lost. This loss was confirmed by Russian military intelligence and Serbs said that they have found the aircraft's crash site.
   
3. According to the statement by the Chief of General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, by 02-04-99 NATO alliance lost at least 60 aircraft and cruise missile.
   
4. Several days ago Russian Minister of Defense said that the number of destroyed Tomahawks was 60.
   

I only posted the findings that were supported by Russian Intelligence since serbs reported up to 121 downings, which I found unlikely.
So what do you think people?

Originally posted by urmomma158
you we're disputing the effective ness of the system if it had a sucha short range.

It was in basic ENGLISH and what i expressly said was that with such a short MINIMUM RANGE the SA-5 would be much less effective. A minimum range is the range at which a weapon system can effectively be used; you do not use a grenade in close quarters unless you have cover...

Why don't you show me how effective the SA5 would've been at the ABm role

I already did in earlier posts which source material you already chose to try use against what i suggest here. I suggest you just go back and reread all those posts ( and the source material ) and not ask me to repeat information you should already have.

Thanks your stement is now much clearer to me.

I just wish you did not have such a hard time doing that....

Happy we are making progress thought.

Stellar

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, I had to read this twice. You might as well claim the earth is flat while you're at it.

The earth is not flat yet NATO did wage a war of aggression in this case.

So you're saying that NATO forced Milosevic to start killing civilians.

No i said that the massive majority of the killing Milosevic's forces did indulge in happened AFTER the terrorist NATO air campaign started.

I know you indulge your fantasies quite often, but that is just ridiculous.

It may sound ridiculous but it's rather sadly very much true and self evident with some investigation.

H,, once again your bias is shown very bluntly. It was NATO who was involved not just the US. I believ ethe French, Germans, Canadians and all other NATO countries were unnanimous in their decision

Unanimous indeed. Actually the 'terrorist' conviction came long before this incident and was just provided to give you the background you clearly lack.

The Serbs downed a handful of planes and were powerless to stop NATO attacking at will.

Actually they were mostly powerless to stop NATO from attacking fixed infrastructure ( schools/hospitals/dams/bridges/power stations) that one is not , according to the Geneva conventions, supposed to attack anyways. Either way they could not protect those and their ground forces so they opted for strategic survival instead of trying to save infrastructure from the terror by air.

Your claims that they had an effective SAM defence are completely without merit.

They had an effective SAM defense as their ground forces ( where their SAM's were deployed) suffered very little damage from the NATO air campaign.

NATO may have avoided certain places, not because they were scared about teh Serb SAM capability, but because the propaganda value of possibly losing a pilot wasn't worth it.

They completely failed to interdict the Serb forces which they were accusing of 'genocide' so either the did not try ( letting genocide happen) , or they did not have to try ( no genocide to stop ) or they tried to interdict the ground forces and just failed. You are free to take your pick , or provide alternate scenario's, but that's basically the gist of it. The way NATO avoided it's planes being lost was by avoiding roads thus making interdiction quite hard. I guess if you can't lose you can afford to just not take any risks.

IF teh initial campaign didn't work and Kosovo had to be cleared, Serb SAM operators would hvae the shortest life expectancy of any job in the world.

Well your free to speculate but it's apparent that the US tried very hard to kill them and still failed.

The fact is that teh NATO was highly effective and qachieved its aim of not only freeing kosovo but removing Milosevic from power for practically no loss.

They did not remove Milosevic from power ( he basically gave up as his corporate allies were losing money/infrastructure to NATO strikes) as much as terrorize the civilian population of Serbia.

You can attempt ( as suaul ) to spin things in a different direction but the facts speak for themsleves..

Facts speak for themselves as you would know if you actually knew anything related to the history of this campaign. Keep it up and i will rub your face/pride in your hopeless ignorance as trying to be civil with you is a cause well beyond lost.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
It was in basic ENGLISH and what i expressly said was that with such a short MINIMUM RANGE the SA-5 would be much less effective. A minimum range is the range at which a weapon system can effectively be used; you do not use a grenade in close quarters unless you have cover...

Ok fully understood

I already did in earlier posts which source material you already chose to try use against what i suggest here. I suggest you just go back and reread all those posts ( and the source material ) and not ask me to repeat information you should already have.

I did and all you proved was that it was an ABM and the strange thing is some of the sources contradict each other in it's effectiveness. How effective was the SA 5 in isolation without the SA 10???

Almost overnight NIKE-X gave the U.S. a 20 year lead in ABM technology. Neither the Moscow ABM system nor the SA-5 SAM/ABM with first generation battle management radars could cope with MIRVS. After the mid-1960s the Soviet lag in microelectronics began to widen and became the single most important technical weakness in the FSU's gigantic military forces. The Soviets proved much more adept at compensating for this weakness in strategic offensive than in strategic defensive forces.

www.fas.org...


With the new LPAR's they would've been more effective but while the hen houses we're there they wouldn't've been ass effective.

[edit on 2-8-2006 by urmomma158]

Planeman, we need to make a list of members in the ATS Google-Earth Military Analyst group and maybe split and divide the task of analysing a country in the world spotlight, like Iran or N. Korea.

Originally posted by Night
Planeman, we need to make a list of members in the ATS Google-Earth Military Analyst group and maybe split and divide the task of analysing a country in the world spotlight, like Iran or N. Korea.

Cool. At the moment I seem to bit of a loan wolf... um, jack russel. My current focus is on comparing Russian deployment practices in Chechenya with US/Alied ones in Iraq, and collating a "Iraqi combat aircraft that survived GW1 & 2" list.

Um, over things underway include comparing Iraqi, Iranian and North Korean WMD site defenses - pretty simular actually.