SYRIA thread

[Greyblades]

It's looking like the runup to iraq all over again.

[Fragony]

Things are getting needlesly worse

[Sarmatian]

Well, maybe we have reached "it was nice knowing you stage". Total Relism is back, so if anyone is finding religion appealing all of a sudden...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's looking like the runup to iraq all over again.

I do not agree. There will be no coalition of the willing this time (lacking an willing). There really ARE WMDs in use in Syria. The directly involved parties include a NATO "ally." One of the other directly involved parties has a goodly number of nuclear warheads available (a fair number of which are likely to still work).

This is a chance for Trump to lob missiles at a problem, with the usual good camera footage and limited efficacy.

[Sarmatian]

Yes, but in this case, Russia has hinted that the missiles will be targeted, along with launch platforms from which they are fired.

I don't really like this "who's gonna blink first" competition.

Also, coalition of the willing last time included US and UK. The other were willing in name only. Maybe Monaco can be willing again.

[rory_20_uk]

Russia would find it extremely difficult to target missiles - which are of unknown sizes going at unknown speeds heading towards unknown destinations from unknown launch pads most likely in international waters.

Does Russia really care? Most likely the USA will quietly either target things there are no Russians at, or tip them off beforehand. Boom some infrastructure gets demolished... and nothing really changes apart from Donald gets to play real life video games with some big guns and strut around for a day or so.

Worst case scenario, the USA gets really involved. OK, that would annoy Russia - but even the USA's might is not infinite. This would tie up a lot of materiel in a war as of a few days ago Donald was trying to leave. And then would again be having to try and get the hell out of an extremely complex war where there are shifting alliances and priorities.

[Husar]

Maybe Monaco can be willing again.

This really made me laugh, highest GDP per capita in the world, but too cheap to afford its own security beyond patrolling to keep poor people out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco#Security

[Crandar]

Last time many missiles managed to miss, killing a couple of civilians in the process.
That will teach that Gas-Bombing Animal to kill civilians!

Anyway I ain't gonna take the bait. Everyone is playing it tough to satisfy his domestic audience.
At worst, the US will fire some missiles at that poor base in the desert, after having politely warned the Russians to remove themselves. Five Syrian soldiers and an equal member of civilians will get murdered and a Brezhnev-era MIG will loose one wing.

Trump will tweet how much manlier and braver than Obama is, Saudi-paid lobbyists and their Islamist followers will cry incessantly for another missed opportunity to invade Syria and Douma will eventually be liberated from its jihadists.

[Sarmatian]

Russia would find it extremely difficult to target missiles - which are of unknown sizes going at unknown speeds heading towards unknown destinations from unknown launch pads most likely in international waters.

Of course it is hard. Removing a human kidney is hard, but there are experts who do it. Do you really think that Russian army has no anti-missile capabilities?

That doesn't mean they're gonna hit all of them, but they can take down a fair number certainly.

Does Russia really care? Most likely the USA will quietly either target things there are no Russians at, or tip them off beforehand. Boom some infrastructure gets demolished... and nothing really changes apart from Donald gets to play real life video games with some big guns and strut around for a day or so.

I don't know. If it's gonna be a missile or two somewhere in the middle of nowhere, probably not. But it's gonna be hard not to respond if it ends up being a bit more serious.

Worst case scenario, the USA gets really involved. OK, that would annoy Russia - but even the USA's might is not infinite. This would tie up a lot of materiel in a war as of a few days ago Donald was trying to leave. And then would again be having to try and get the hell out of an extremely complex war where there are shifting alliances and priorities.

So, you don't expect Putin to do anything, even if Trump goes in very hard? Not sure I agree with that.

Hopefully won't come to that.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Of course it is hard. Removing a human kidney is hard, but there are experts who do it. Do you really think that Russian army has no anti-missile capabilities?

That doesn't mean they're gonna hit all of them, but they can take down a fair number certainly.



I don't know. If it's gonna be a missile or two somewhere in the middle of nowhere, probably not. But it's gonna be hard not to respond if it ends up being a bit more serious.



So, you don't expect Putin to do anything, even if Trump goes in very hard? Not sure I agree with that.

Hopefully won't come to that.

Russian systems for ballistic missile interception are not quite as accurate as the Patriot system, but pretty darn close and certainly on a par with the Iron Dome. The USA does not, however, usually use ballistic missiles for this kind of strike. Instead, a cruise missile is the typical choice. Success percentages are much lower against cruise missiles because of the terrain following qualities of such missiles.

[Husar]

Yes, they use cruise missiles and there are systems to defend against them.
Sarmatian is probably correct in that they're not fool-proof, but I'd think they can take down a few before they reach their target. Might also depend on the terrain and other factors. These systems even have a name:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system

Depending on the size of the cruise missile, the flight path, terrain, etc., it's also possible that airplanes can intercept them.
Of course one question might just be how much gear capable of doing this does Russia have close to the target in the first place?

Even mortar and artillery shells can be targeted by some modern systems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counte...ry,_and_Mortar

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes, they use cruise missiles and there are systems to defend against them.
Sarmatian is probably correct in that they're not fool-proof, but I'd think they can take down a few before they reach their target. Might also depend on the terrain and other factors. These systems even have a name:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system

Depending on the size of the cruise missile, the flight path, terrain, etc., it's also possible that airplanes can intercept them.
Of course one question might just be how much gear capable of doing this does Russia have close to the target in the first place?

Even mortar and artillery shells can be targeted by some modern systems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counte...ry,_and_Mortar

Actually, the longer and higher the ballistic arc, the easier the targeting (at least until you get up to near-orbital speeds). True even of small targets like a mortar round. Lower and more obstacles in the way is much tougher to target.

Though, of course, NOT impossible. Cruise missile have been shot down before and would be in such a strike. I was noting that the 90% interception rates achieved (in some cases) by multiple GTA systems against ballistic missiles was not a realistic percentage expectation.

[Sarmatian]

I don't think it matters much whether it's 1% or 99%. The point is that Russia and USA are shooting at each other. And, if that happens, all bets are off.

[rory_20_uk]

Of course it is hard. Removing a human kidney is hard, but there are experts who do it. Do you really think that Russian army has no anti-missile capabilities?

That doesn't mean they're gonna hit all of them, but they can take down a fair number certainly.

So, you don't expect Putin to do anything, even if Trump goes in very hard? Not sure I agree with that.

To use the removal of an organ analogy, you have a known patient, the operation is at a known time and at a known location. I am sure there are weapons that are capable, but does Russia have them in Syria, in the number required at the sites that are to be targeted (the CIA et al might have some knowledge about their placement and therefore choose alternate sites) - and do they even want to let the USA and allies conduct a live-firing exercise against their tech? That would be invaluable data.

I would expect Putin to do something in a way that benefits him the most. And sometimes the thing that provides most benefit is to not respond at all - to look like the responsible statesman and stir the pot that is this further evidence of how he's in cahoots with the White House. I don't expect him to start firing missiles at American bases, for example. What would Russia gain from that?

Even attacking the Kurds might be counter-productive since some are now joining Assad to fight against the Turks.

[Fragony]

Doubt anything will happen

[Husar]

Actually, the longer and higher the ballistic arc, the easier the targeting (at least until you get up to near-orbital speeds). True even of small targets like a mortar round. Lower and more obstacles in the way is much tougher to target.

Though, of course, NOT impossible. Cruise missile have been shot down before and would be in such a strike. I was noting that the 90% interception rates achieved (in some cases) by multiple GTA systems against ballistic missiles was not a realistic percentage expectation.

While Sarmatian is correct about the actual big thing being the overall situation of two nuclear superpower shooting at eachother, I do like to talk about details in this case....

I'm pretty sure that the radars or other sensors play a very important role in this. One of the most important factors is the time it takes from the detection of an object until it can be effectively engaged. Some ballistic missiles reduce this time by coming in at very high speeds as you say, but that's not the case with cruise missiles and mortar rounds.

In the case of cruise missiles, they tend to fly relatively low above the ground to avoid early radar detection, but the terrain is obviously a factor in how well that works. In the middle of a valley, you're more likely to end up toasted than when you're in the middle of a flat desert where the radar isn't blocked by hills.

When it comes to mortars, I think the overall flight time of a round is relatively short and the rounds are also very small compared to airplanes or large missiles.
First of all your search radar needs a sufficient resolution to "see" the round in the first place and then it might be one of those radars turning around. So in the worst case, the radar takes a few seconds to see the round for the first time. Then the gun or missile launcher needs a few seconds to aim at the round and in between the tracking radar has to track the round, the exact trajectory needs to be calculated, there might be humans involved making decisions and so on.

In a Bundeswehr ad about the new MANTIS system they say the crew has about 20 seconds to engage a missile, on some other page the average flight time of a mortar round is given as 20 or 30 seconds depending on the round used.

Artillery rounds probably fly a bit faster, aren't much larger, but are launched at a longer range as well (radar range/resolution limits may apply here), so I'd think they're not much easier to engage. Not to forget that your gun or missile needs the mechanical precision to hit the projectile, even if exploding rounds can help there.

Considering you're unlikely to spot the round the moment it leaves the barrel, that gives you maybe 15 seconds or so to engage it. I'm sure AI and other modern computer systems may fully automate some of that already or in the near future, but it's probably still harder than engaging a missile that behaves very similar to a low-flying aircraft and people are probably hesitant to remove human decisions for fear of friendly fire. The engagement of low-flying aircraft is in the realm of better developed techniques since AA guns could already do that in the 80s and it was already done manually (though probably with terrible accuracy) before that.

Inthis video you can see the MANTIS system engage a missile, at 4:48 one can see that they spray quite a bit.
Of course in reality it might as well be a luxury just having to intercept one incoming projectile/missile at once, could be 20...

The best course of action is usually not to (try to) kill people in the first place, but that does not appear to be everyone's favorite.

[Fragony]

The Thalys-system om Dutch frigates can shoot down any rocket, but if a lot are shot at the same time and most are duds probably not

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I doubt that any US strike will target known locations for Russian personnel. I doubt the Russians would shoot at our missiles, though they would probably coach/let the Syrians do so (as did that group of separatists in Ukraine who waxed those poor Dutch). Plausible deniability etc.

Putin wants the USA as a vague threat/obstacle to keep up the Russian 'need' for his strong leadership. I do not think he wants an actual firefight. Cui bono?

[Fragony]

These poor Dutch were only half of the casualties, and I do not think the seperatists did it

[Seamus Fermanagh]

These poor Dutch were only half of the casualties, and I do not think the seperatists did it

I always thought that the separatists did it in the sense that one of them gave the order and another pushed the button.

I just thought they were equipped, supplied, trained, supported, and coached by the Russians -- who did nothing to convince them NOT to shoot at an airliner either. Other than that, the Russians weren't culpable at all.

[rory_20_uk]

I always thought that the separatists did it in the sense that one of them gave the order and another pushed the button.

I just thought they were equipped, supplied, trained, supported, and coached by the Russians -- who did nothing to convince them NOT to shoot at an airliner either. Other than that, the Russians weren't culpable at all.

I'm sure that MI6 and the CIA (I name these two since I don't have the right acronyms to hand for all the other countries who could equally be accused) have done exactly the same the world over. That doesn't make it right, but it makes it a pretty standard wrong to do.

[Pannonian]

I doubt that any US strike will target known locations for Russian personnel. I doubt the Russians would shoot at our missiles, though they would probably coach/let the Syrians do so (as did that group of separatists in Ukraine who waxed those poor Dutch). Plausible deniability etc.

Putin wants the USA as a vague threat/obstacle to keep up the Russian 'need' for his strong leadership. I do not think he wants an actual firefight. Cui bono?

https://www.billboard.com/files/styl...board-1548.jpg

[Seamus Fermanagh]

https://www.billboard.com/files/styl...board-1548.jpg

lol

[Fragony]

I always thought that the separatists did it in the sense that one of them gave the order and another pushed the button.

I just thought they were equipped, supplied, trained, supported, and coached by the Russians -- who did nothing to convince them NOT to shoot at an airliner either. Other than that, the Russians weren't culpable at all.

It was shot from behind, Ukraine pronanly did it, they have the same systems. Not intentionaly, just a horrible mistake

[Gilrandir]

It was shot from behind, Ukraine pronanly did it, they have the same systems. Not intentionaly, just a horrible mistake

It seems you aren't aware of the investigation undertaken by Bellingcat and later corroborated by the official commission. They traced all the way Buk came from Kursk (Russia) and back there and even enumerated the staff of Russian regular army servicemen that operated Buk.

https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-v...ntation-joint/
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17....wning-of-mh17/

[Fragony]

Cockpit has exit damage, no way it could have come from upfront, I don blame Ukraine if they did it because it wasn;t intentional, I do blame our minister of foreign affairs who quikly took a fake-job in Brussels, that plane should not have been there, all other countries knew the dangers but that boy was too busy shining (even tried to use it at first with an open solicitation for a job at the UN, fake tears). With the association-treaty, and the (diplomatic) hostility against Russia that would certainly been have capitalised itś kinda hard to think otherwise.

[Gilrandir]

Cockpit has exit damage, no way it could have come from upfront,

The source, please.

[Fragony]

https://www.google.com/search?q=m17+...AD12-3C7Vi4QM:

That is exit damage. The investigation-report comes from Kiev, of whoś all radars 'had maintanance'. In a war.

[Gilrandir]

https://www.google.com/search?q=m17+...AD12-3C7Vi4QM:

That is exit damage. The investigation-report comes from Kiev, of whoś all radars 'had maintanance'. In a war.

You are an expert on modern missiles and damage they cause and in the veracity of random photos one can find in the internet?

But even if we, for a second, believe (in spite of JIT report and other investigations) that it is exit damage, how does it prove that Ukraine is to blame? If there was exit damage then it would clearly indicate that something blew up INSIDE the cockpit - which would mean that there was explosive on the plane. And why would Ukrainians shoot at flying objects when separatists never (before the accident or after) had any air forces?

[Sarmatian]

It doesn't matter who did. Yes, theoretically, both sides could have done it to blame it on the other side. That carries huge risks, though, and I'm not convinced either would accept those risks, simple as that.

There was nothing to gain, militarily or politically, from shooting the plane down.

So, the most reasonable conclusion is that it was a mistake, probably by the pro-Russian forces.

Don't see how it is relevant for this discussion, though.