Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 09/22/2008 View Sun 09/21/2008 View Sat 09/20/2008 View Fri 09/19/2008 View Thu 09/18/2008 View Wed 09/17/2008 View Tue 09/16/2008
1
2008-09-22 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Russia to equip Iran with 'game changer'?
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2008-09-22 00:00|| || Front Page|| [10330 views ]  Top
 File under: Govt of Iran 

#1 Seems futile if Russia is trying to leverage this card to keep Georgia and Ukraine out of NATO. The way Russia is behaving lately is one step short of terrorism. I'd say bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO because Russia seems to fear it. Make sure NATO has teeth, though.
Posted by gorb 2008-09-22 07:06||   2008-09-22 07:06|| Front Page Top

#2 Georgia is outside Nato's reach, just look at thje map and say me how are you going to supply it or any forces you deploy there.. There is nothing more dangerous that given guarantees you cannot honor. Ukraine on the other side...
Posted by JFM">JFM  2008-09-22 08:58||   2008-09-22 08:58|| Front Page Top

#3 JFM, we're supplying Georgia now, and I thought British and French warships were also there. Am I wrong?
Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife  2008-09-22 09:24||   2008-09-22 09:24|| Front Page Top

#4 #3 we're supplying Georgia now, and I thought British and French warships were also there.
Not militarily, not yet anyway.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 09:47||   2008-09-22 09:47|| Front Page Top

#5 So long as Turkey is still in NATO, Georgia shares a border with NATO. In theory, we have landlines with them, and they can be supplied and supported via that line of communication.

That assumes that *Turkey* is staying with NATO. How's that decade or so of alienating the Turks working out for us, folks?
Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H.  2008-09-22 10:06|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]  2008-09-22 10:06|| Front Page Top

#6 Not militarily, not yet anyway.

True. I saw an article today in the International Herald Tribune (once one of the best newspapers in the world before it became a day-old, skim milk version of the New York Times)about the EU hurrying to put together a 300 person observer unit that is wanted in Georgia before the end of the month.
Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife  2008-09-22 10:21||   2008-09-22 10:21|| Front Page Top

#7 Didn't Russia supply Syria with their latest and best? How did that work against an Israeli raid on their NK nuke facility?
Posted by Richard of Oregon 2008-09-22 10:46||   2008-09-22 10:46|| Front Page Top

#8 Georgia's defense entirely hinges on Turkey. But Turkey is less than reliable. I mean they could have denied Russian vessels through the bosporus for a dozen reasons just as a threat and they never did. I can easily see them playing neutral and screwing NATO.
Posted by rjschwarz 2008-09-22 11:25||   2008-09-22 11:25|| Front Page Top

#9 Didn't Russia supply Syria with their latest and best? How did that work against an Israeli raid on their NK nuke facility?

Russia did not supply Syria with any medium and long-range antiaircraft defenses. Certainly not with S-300 (which is long-range).

BTW, Tu22M3 was shot down over Georgia by Buk medium-range system. (it was a tactical mistake to send it there like that)
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 11:46||   2008-09-22 11:46|| Front Page Top

#10 Turkey's denying passage of the russian vessels (including military vessels) through the Bosporus would be a slap in the face of monumental proportions. Turkey can be a NATO member but the passage through the straits is not a NATO issue, it is an international navigation issue. By not restricting navigation with respect to any particular country, Turkey merely upholds its international obligations and it's behavior should not be considered as a stab in the back vis a vis NATO.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 11:56||   2008-09-22 11:56|| Front Page Top

#11 TW

We can suply Georgia only as long as USSR, err Russia doesn't object.
Posted by JFM">JFM  2008-09-22 12:32||   2008-09-22 12:32|| Front Page Top

#12 You don't actually believe Israel and the US don't have planes, munitions, electronics and decoys well tested against the S-300? The S-300 will be destroyed from 500km away before it any blip even shows up on the radar screen.

BTW, the GBU-39 isn't really a bunker buster. It's designed to penetrate hardened aircraft shelters. Most useful are the 5000 lb GBU-28s that the US has denied Israel. Not that Israel can't strap on an LBG or JDAM kit to an old artillery barrel.

It turns out that the Russians lost eight aircraft (four Su-25s, two Su-24s, one Tu-22 and one Mi-24 helicopter.) The Russian pilots were not prepared to deal with the three batteries of SA-11 anti-aircraft missile systems the Georgians had bought from Ukraine last year.

Way to show the world what a formidable AF Ivan has.

passage through the straits is not a NATO issue, it is an international navigation issue.

Then Russia had no basis for complaint when NATO vessels traversed the Bosphorus. Just shows that Ivan has no class.
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 12:38||   2008-09-22 12:38|| Front Page Top

#13 Then Russia had no basis for complaint when NATO vessels traversed the Bosphorus. Just shows that Ivan has no class.

Russian did not object to the passage of the NATO weapons throught the straits per se. Russia objected to the build up of eight NATO ships in the Black See area for no apparent reason other then to meddle there? And what's the outcome of their visit. Nothing in particular.

It would have been better if the aid the U.S. was delivering to Georgia arrived on civilian ships.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 13:32||   2008-09-22 13:32|| Front Page Top

#14 You don't actually believe Israel and the US don't have planes, munitions, electronics and decoys well tested against the S-300? The S-300 will be destroyed from 500km away before it any blip even shows up on the radar screen.

1) The S-300 is not a panacea. It is simply a cost increaser. As for jamming and other coutermeasures: North Korea, Vietnam etc. How many U.S aircraft were lost there due to SAM activity?

2) Right now S-300 is the most effective system in the world (well, aside from S-400 which is not exported, and is a new system) If you want to argue that, that's silly, just read the general consensus on Janes Defense or Aviation Week or any other such themed websites/magazines.

3) A point target in the desert with known coordinates and easy reachability by the enemy aircraft can be destroyed no matter what systems protect it. Change any term in the preceeding sentence and situation gets more complicated.

4) Bulding nuke reactors in the desert, like Syria does, is stupid b/c Israel will always be able to destroy them.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 13:43||   2008-09-22 13:43|| Front Page Top

#15 General_Comment, there are no civilian ships in the world that have either the shipping capacity or the capabilities (hospital, massive water purification facilities) that the American aircraft carriers do, as far as I understand. No doubt one or two experts will weigh in here.
Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife  2008-09-22 13:45||   2008-09-22 13:45|| Front Page Top

#16 It turns out that the Russians lost eight aircraft (four Su-25s, two Su-24s, one Tu-22 and one Mi-24 helicopter.) The Russian pilots were not prepared to deal with the three batteries of SA-11 anti-aircraft missile systems the Georgians had bought from Ukraine last year.

Way to show the world what a formidable AF Ivan has.

It just shows that: (i) they were in a hurry, (ii) Georgians fairly competently deployed the Ukranian-updated, agian Soviet-designed systems, and (iii) those losses are frontline aviation (Su-25), those are aways at a higher risk of shot-downs.

If you want to compare airforces, take a look at the recent Red Flag excersizes where Indians with Su-30MK (with TVC) kicked ass of anything that was thrown their way - and that includes all updated F-15's.

As for the need to update, yes there is a need to update. I wrote about that the other day.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 13:52||   2008-09-22 13:52|| Front Page Top

#17 TW, FYU, aircraft carriers are not allowed passage thought the Bosporus, and no american aircraft carrier did so this time around.

Supplies were brought by an amphibious landing ship (don't have the time to look up which one and the exact type)
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 13:55||   2008-09-22 13:55|| Front Page Top

#18 It was at least guided-missile destroyer USS McFaul, there may have been others.

Guided-missile destroyer is definitely an interesting choice for delivering humantarian aid.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 14:04||   2008-09-22 14:04|| Front Page Top

#19 S-300 is pretty good but I think

1. to work it has to be staffed by people who know what they are doing; if they don't know what they are doing they are likely to hit their own assets

2. it has to be maintained

3. the people with operational control must have pre-clearance to fire; if they have to call the office of the chief mullah for firing permission, the system loses

Posted by mhw 2008-09-22 14:13||   2008-09-22 14:13|| Front Page Top

#20 Agreed.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 14:25||   2008-09-22 14:25|| Front Page Top

#21 India-defense.com: Exercise Red Flags: Indian Air Force Su 30 MKI Fighters Operated with Handicaps
"When we were targeted by SAMs, we were shot down," Choudry said. "And there was no [data] picture in the cockpit to help our situational awareness so the work load on the [aircrews] was very high."

That's quite a feat kicking your own ass. And that's against antiquated/emulated Soviet SAMs, not the vastly more electronically sophisticated western SAMs. Still, the Indian SU-30s have some Western/Israeli avionics. The Indians junked as much of the Soviet crap as possible.

The most effective Russian weapon in Georgia was the Bush administration. They pressured Georgia to give up their large stock of Soviet manpads. Even the lowly SA-7 could have dealt with the primitive Russian air support. For Gods sake, strafing runs with unguided rockets? That's 1944 F4U Corsair tactics.
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 14:31||   2008-09-22 14:31|| Front Page Top

#22 General Command...
what about the nuke powered subs we slipped in the black sea?
They can do something....
Posted by 3dc 2008-09-22 14:35||   2008-09-22 14:35|| Front Page Top

#23 The S-300 will be dead meat. While the missiles have good kinematic performance, the electronics are old and well characterized. Syria deployed the newer SA-15 (Tor-M1) yet their entire early warning and SAM systems never saw the Israels coming.
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 14:43||   2008-09-22 14:43|| Front Page Top

#24 Ed, this is incomplete (and you know it)
first of all it pertains to Surface to air engagements (so right there it is not what I was talking about). Second it is not the report of air-to-air combat excersizes. Third, Indian pilot were "handicaped" on purpose, for the purposes of that particular excersize.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 14:49||   2008-09-22 14:49|| Front Page Top

#25 Below is a complete quote from the article, Ed.
Shame on you for such an overt misrepresentation.

"But the Indian Air Force (IAF) is fighting with its hands tied.

Why? To protect the secrets of their top-of-the-line Russian-designed Su-30MKI fighters (pictured), according to Dave Fulghum over at Ares. "To observers' dismay, and no doubt to that of the U.S. intelligence community, the IAF flew with a number of handicaps."
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 14:51||   2008-09-22 14:51|| Front Page Top

#26 A doubt that american nuke subs ever were in the Black Sea. I suspect the reason for this, but b/f that . . . care to provide a reference for your assertion?
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 14:54||   2008-09-22 14:54|| Front Page Top

#27 Quoting further:


"The self-imposed radar restrictions prevented U.S. snoops from "mapping" the high-tech radar. But other restrictions were dictated by the Indians' U.S. hosts, Fulghum writes in his excellent piece. The Indians were barred from using data-links, chaff and flares. "When we were targeted by SAMs, we were shot down," Choudry said. "And there was no [data] picture in the cockpit to help our situational awareness so the work load on the [aircrews] was very high."

So, they were not using the radars for secrecy reasons, thus the difficulties experiences.
Search for air-to-air combat with Indian Su 30's in the Red Flag, there are tons of articles on that one.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 14:58||   2008-09-22 14:58|| Front Page Top

#28 The Indians said they limited radar modes. Radar modes have nothing to do with SAM defense. It's more of a situational awareness thing, like radar warning receivers, missile plume detectors, threat location displays. Non of them radiate, so the Indians could have used them to their hearts content, if they had them.

Read it again: "When we were targeted by SAMs, we were shot down," Choudry said. "And there was no [data] picture in the cockpit to help our situational awareness so the work load on the [aircrews] was very high."

BTW, those mentioned equipment would also be used determined the location of threat aircraft. No situational awareness = stranded baby seal.
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 14:58||   2008-09-22 14:58|| Front Page Top

#29 BTW, you do know the purpose of Red Flag? It is a training exercise tailored to challenge and increase the proficiency of participants. It is not a "Let's throw the US Air Force at them" thing. That means over the course of the exercise, increasing threat levels are presented, some are won, some are lost by design.
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 15:06||   2008-09-22 15:06|| Front Page Top

#30 Ed, I just doubt very much that Su-30 has no adequate missile/threat warning receivers.

For one thing, their business culture. I know Indians, they would not have bought Su-30 for the life of them, had they not thought it's the best thing since sliced bread. They definitely do not buy stuff that does not work. When there where problems with IL-38 maritime patrol airctaft, they gave russian the hard time.

And they have Western equipment in their army, and airforce. And they constantly conduct tenders. When they feel, Western equipment is better they get that.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 15:07||   2008-09-22 15:07|| Front Page Top

#31 Ed, U.S. Airforce is not in the charity business.
Red Flag, just like other exercizes is to train, teach, evaluate the adversary, and conduct dissimilar combat training, and command-and-control. Basically, it is "Top Gun" with foreign participants.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 15:10||   2008-09-22 15:10|| Front Page Top

#32 Then explain "And there was no [data] picture in the cockpit". So data links were off. But unless they brought their AWACS, it wouldn't have done the Indians much good since I don't believe their equipment is compatible with Link-16. Where was the radar warning receiver display so the SU-30's could avoid even antiquated SAMs?
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 15:14||   2008-09-22 15:14|| Front Page Top

#33 Also, with respect to electronics, Russia is no longer isolated like it was during the Cold War.
It cooperates with France and India, for example on the hardware and software aspects (and just like U.S. buys parts from Taiwan :)): so it does not have to do everything itself.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 15:17||   2008-09-22 15:17|| Front Page Top

#34 It's not being reflected in the quality of Russian military equipment.
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 15:23||   2008-09-22 15:23|| Front Page Top

#35 You are reading each sentence in disjunctive. Read the whole thing to properly ascertain the message conveyed. What was the message of the article? It was "We did well." Not, "Oh, man our planes were crap, better give them back to Russia." Also, just find more artcles on the subject, not just this one. Indians have an operational squadron of Su-30MK and they are very pleased with their performance. They are spending billions on Su-30's and other russian hardware, keeping the industry alive. And so are other Asian countires.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 15:24||   2008-09-22 15:24|| Front Page Top

#36 " It's not being reflected in the quality of Russian military equipment."

A: It is not being reflected in the quality of outdated equipment which fought (and won) in Georgia. And as I said, yes it needs updating.

It is being reflected in the quality of the Russian equipment being bought. For e.g., Russia just won a tender for portable anti-tank guided missiles Konkurs (burns thru M1A2 like a hot knife thru butter), to Turkey (NATO member to whom any sale would be apriory very hard beign political and all), against, among other's Rayethon.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 15:31||   2008-09-22 15:31|| Front Page Top

#37 No. YOU are reading things the general never said. "Regardless, Choudry insisted Red Flag was a good experience for his pilots."

Good experience, not "Red Flag excersizes where Indians with Su-30MK (with TVC) kicked ass of anything that was thrown their way - and that includes all updated F-15's."
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 15:33||   2008-09-22 15:33|| Front Page Top

#38 Konkurs? Welcome to 1970, Comrade. A downmarket TOW I.

Care to show me all those burned out M1s? The after action reports by the Israelis last year had very few Merkava total losses. Nothing like Russian tanks.
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 15:43||   2008-09-22 15:43|| Front Page Top

#39  Here is another article, that shows that beign "shot down" was part of that particular excersize.

BY : The Telegraph.

Flying near-blind in the US, the Indian Air Force’s frontline Sukhoi 30Mki fighters have been “shot” down in missions at the Red Flag wargames, the toughest combat aircraft exercise that the US hosts for its allies.

The Russian-made Sukhoi 30Mkis have been asked to fly in the exercise only after switching off a sophisticated radar and without recourse to a key shield against surface-to-air missiles, a senior air force officer said. The exercise in which the IAF is participating for the first time entered its most complex phase today.

“Shooting down” or getting “shot down” must necessarily take place in a wargame. In 2003, US Air Force’s (USAF) F-15 Tomcat aircraft participating in an exercise out of Gwalior in India were similarly “shot down”.

Despite being hamstrung at the Red Flag games, the IAF contingent was getting invaluable training as part of a “Blue force” tasked to defend its territory against an aggressor “Red force” in the Nevada desert. The range over which the exercise is taking place has mock-ups of several targets that are mostly military establishments, air force spokesman Wing Commander Mahesh Upasani, who is with the contingent, told The Telegraph from the Nellis air force base.

The IAF is participating with eight Su-30s, two IL-78s (mid-air refuellers), an IL-76 (heavy lift transporters) and 247 men led by Group Captain D. Chaudhary. Frontline aircraft from the air forces of South Korea and France and, of course, the US are engaged both with the IAF and against it in the drills.

“Captain Marcus ‘Spike’ Wilson of the USAF Aggressors in his appreciation of the IAF has said the IAF is a world-class air force with great aircraft and great leadership,” said Upasani.

The IAF Sukhois have been asked not to show the full capacity of their BARS II radar so that their signatures may not be recorded.
Top"


This is exactly, what rails me the most, superficial and incomplete reading, inability to search and obtain the full picture.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 15:44||   2008-09-22 15:44|| Front Page Top

#40 Wow, that's a lot of words to say "Got shot down a lot.".
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 15:50||   2008-09-22 15:50|| Front Page Top

#41 "Konkurs? Welcome to 1970, Comrade. A downmarket TOW I."

A: Not the one you are thinking about.
Apr. 10, 2008Print | E-mail | Home Turkey to Buy Russia’s Antitank Missiles
Federal-run Rosoboronexport has won the tender to supply antitank missiles to Turkey. Along with Russia’s arms exporter, Israel’s Rafael and U.S. Raytheon were fighting for delivering 80 antitank systems and 800 missiles. The contract budget hasn’t been disclosed so far.
What’s more, the plans are to supply Russia’s Kornet E antitank missiles to Jordan this year. The respective agreement was signed far back in 2006 and Jordan’s King Abdullah II confirmed his country’s desire to get the facilities within a year when visiting Moscow in February.
Syria is another big buyer of the antitank missiles of Russia, including Kornet E, Metis M, RPG 29 Vampire. But the military action that Israel staged against Hezbollah guerillas in summer of 2006 revealed that the militants were armed exactly by Russia’s antitank missiles supplied by Damasks. By using the systems of Russia, they shot 46 tanks and some 15 armored vehicles of Israel during 34 days of the combat operation, clouding the relations of Moscow and Tel-Aviv.
Turkey is the NATO member and exactly the United States is the traditional arms supplier for it.
Rosoboronexport is Russia’s sole state-run intermediary for the export/import of product, technology and services of military and double-purpose nature.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 15:55||   2008-09-22 15:55|| Front Page Top

#42 Whatever, Ed. The point is I was right and you were wrong, make all the jokes you want . . . .
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 15:57||   2008-09-22 15:57|| Front Page Top

#43 Konkurs is a wire guided antitank missile. TOW I is a more powerful wire guided AT missile that was in service in 1970. Disabled M1s have been shot multiple times with TOWs and 120mm DU penetrators which still did not penetrate the front aspect armor.

Assessing the performance of Merkava Tanks
The IDF employed several hundred tanks [a mix of Merkeva 2,3, and 4] in combat. According to official reports, about ten percent were hit by various threats. Less than half of the hits penetrated. In overall assessment, the potential risk to crewmen would have been much higher, if the tank would be of a conventional design. A colonel commanding an armored brigade, which bore the brunt of battle, mentioned in an interview that during the war that hundreds of antitank missiles were fired on his unit and in total only 18 tanks were seriously damaged. Of those, missiles actually penetrated only five or six vehicles and according to statistics, only two tanks were totally destroyed, however, both by super-heavy IED charges.

Piss poor. Compare that to thousands of T-55s to T-72s with their turrents blown 100 meters away.

If I buy a Konkurs, do I get a free polyester suit and Afro wig?
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 16:08||   2008-09-22 16:08|| Front Page Top

#44 My dear delusional comrade,
You haven't proven a point. In fact you have been proven to be wrong on both the SU-30 and Konkurs accounts. Admit it, the SU-30 got "shot down" a lot in Nevada and the Konkurs is not up to the missile standards that American senior citizens used back in their youth. Confession is good for your soul.
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 16:14||   2008-09-22 16:14|| Front Page Top

#45 Search for Kornet, not Koncurs (which was a 70's weapon) Also, all of these T-55/70's you are citing, whoever used TOW on them? Which war, ed? U.S. was shooting those in the desert at night in Iraq mostly from Apaches, F18's and sometimes M1A's.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 16:15||   2008-09-22 16:15|| Front Page Top

#46 "shaped-charge HEAT tandem warhead, with armour penetration of about 1200 mm of RHA behind ERA. Thermobaric anti-personnel/anti-material warhead is also available."

Ed, are you disputing that this is going to burn thru M1A2?
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 16:21||   2008-09-22 16:21|| Front Page Top

#47 TOWs, Hellfires, AT4, RPG, 120mm, 30mm. It doesn't matter. It's a design issue of Russian tanks. Penetrate them, even with autocannon, and the ammo and fuel will preferentially explode. That's a consequence of the Russian low regard for life, even of other Russians.
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 16:25||   2008-09-22 16:25|| Front Page Top

#48 Ed, don't change the topic of discussion from Su-30's and modern laser-guided antitank missiles to tanks. Whatever those tanks were, they were good for their time. That time has passed. An automatic autoloader was a revolutionary design, which kept the weight down, crew to a minimum, and high rate of fire. U.S. really cought up with T-70, T-80, T-90 designs when it introduced M1A. M1A2 is probably superior to T-90 now.

And just recall for a second that during WWII, american Sherman was a piece of shit, which thier drivers called "lighters." Far inferior to T-34.

Now, the times of tanks have generally passed. Russia will intoduce a new design tentatively named T-95 shortly. It probably will be a touret-less design with a 150 mm smothbore main gun. I don't think they should field large numbers though.

Getting back to the antitank missiles: Just for the fun of it, I suggest you sit in M1A2 and I will shoot Koncurs at you, and see how you're going to feel (and fight) after that!
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 16:38||   2008-09-22 16:38|| Front Page Top

#49 Read "Assessing the performance of Merkava Tanks". Piss poor penetration performance. That's even considering old Merkeva 2 and 3s and the incredible flanking shot opportunities available on mountianous terrain.

Only few hits penetrated the frontal arc, where the tank has the heaviest armor. Realizing this, Hezbollah aimed their missiles to the sides, and rear, when possible.

Hebzallah used Kornet in last year's war. Let's repeat, "Only few hits penetrated the frontal arc" of Merkeva 2,3,4. The M1 is considered to much more heavy armored in the frontal arc than the Merkeva 4. The turret is considered to have an armor rating of 1,320-1,620 RHA, much greater than the capability of the Kornet. That's without ERA.

So no. But I'm sure the Turks will put it good use against Russian tanks. Blow the turret 100 meters away.
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 16:42||   2008-09-22 16:42|| Front Page Top

#50 Ed, don't change the topic of discussion from Su-30's and modern laser-guided antitank missiles to tanks.

Your are the one who went from SU-30 to Konkurs to Kornet. How the hell can you discuss antitanks weapons without mentioning tanks? Jeeze, it's like arguing with a Frenchman. No self awareness or how deep a hole you have dug.
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 16:46||   2008-09-22 16:46|| Front Page Top

#51 "Russian low regard for life, even of other Russians.

I know this argument. I can see it having some truth to it for the Stalinist times. But not so much now. Look at the Zvesda 0/0 ejection seat - state-of-the-art safest ejection seat in the world: that's care for the pilots (and confidence booster) for you.

Also, having low or high regard for life, has nothing to do with the ability to produce a kick-ass missiles which are obviously directed at the opponent (not self) and do not involve coveniences for comfort creatures.

But again, the "regard" is improving.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 16:52||   2008-09-22 16:52|| Front Page Top

#52 B/c the point on Su-30 has been already won by me.
I moved to antitank weapons.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 16:56||   2008-09-22 16:56|| Front Page Top

#53 Low regard for Russian life.

kick-ass missiles

What have we just been discussing? The Konkurs and Kornet suck compared to both contemporary peer missiles and potential adversaries.

How did this discussion start? The S-300 has been characterized and defeat strategies in place. That's not "kick-ass".
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 17:01||   2008-09-22 17:01|| Front Page Top

#54 "When we [SU-30MKI] were targeted by SAMs, we were shot down," Choudry said. "And there was no [data] picture in the cockpit to help our situational awareness so the work load on the [aircrews] was very high."

You are shot down in flames.
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 17:02||   2008-09-22 17:02|| Front Page Top

#55 Ed, don't change the topic of discussion from Su-30's and modern laser-guided antitank missiles to tanks.
And
I moved to antitank weapons.

Do you have a victim of short term memory, fetal alcohol syndrome or Alzheimers?
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 17:05||   2008-09-22 17:05|| Front Page Top

#56 Are you a victim ...
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 17:06||   2008-09-22 17:06|| Front Page Top

#57  What have we just been discussing? The Konkurs and Kornet suck compared to both contemporary peer missiles and potential adversaries.

How did this discussion start? The S-300 has been characterized and defeat strategies in place. That's not "kick-ass".

Oh, this is totally silly, Ed, a missile is a missile, yeah, I mean S-300 is a defensive missile system, but it is a missile, and russia has excellent track record and technology behind the whole range of missiles from SAM's to ATGMS to AA etc. You are being hyper-technical. By "kick-ass," I mean a missile regadless of its particular use, which flies and hits its target, whatever that tagret may be: an aircraft, a tank, or a bunker.

And what you have (ok this is unfair) are two Space Shuttles down and 14 people just in them dead. How is that for regard for human life. And how is that for missile technology. I bet if U.S. were to launch its nukes, half of them won't even clear the boost phase. And half of them won't even explode (see for refs problems U.S. had in the 60's and 70's with reliability of its warheads, wiki)

P.S. to be continued at a later time . . . .


Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 17:10||   2008-09-22 17:10|| Front Page Top

#58 I definitely do not have Alzheimer's: I know that.

I got to go.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 17:11||   2008-09-22 17:11|| Front Page Top

#59 You may still respond to my post # 57, I will read it later.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 17:13||   2008-09-22 17:13|| Front Page Top

#60 How is the S-300 good if they are blinded, spoofed or destroyed outside radar range. Sure rocks are dangerous weapons, but not to those with bows and arrows.

I already showed you where Konkurs and Kornet were not even penetrating old Merkevas, let alone have the penetration power against Abrams. Other than that, I'm sure they are fine weapons against T-72s and T-80s.
Posted by ed 2008-09-22 17:15||   2008-09-22 17:15|| Front Page Top

#61 #58 I definitely do not have Alzheimer's: I know that.

Actually, it's really not that bad. I'm constantly meeting new people.
Posted by Besoeker 2008-09-22 17:24||   2008-09-22 17:24|| Front Page Top

#62 Hey Guys --- neither one of you are winning at this point -- it's about time to shut it down -- save Fred some money with the bandwidth you both are burning -- this is an argument not to ever be won -- well, maybe with an all out war -- and then we would find a winner.

A watching Mod....
Posted by Sherry">Sherry  2008-09-22 17:40||   2008-09-22 17:40|| Front Page Top

#63 General_Comment, don't fool yourself. While stopping all traffic from one specific nation might border on act of war, a "terrorist threat" indicating one was carrying something could easily be used to stop them traversing until they had been inspected. Temporary harassment yes, but closing the Bosporus would be the result.

If Georgia fell to the Russians I can imagine a Georgian patriot sinking a large oil tanker full of cement in the bosporus might cause navigation problems for some time. I dont' think they have them but if the Bosporus has Locks and other things they could be damaged cutting the entire black sea off, albeit temporarily. It's not a good place to fight a war.
Posted by rjschwarz 2008-09-22 18:34||   2008-09-22 18:34|| Front Page Top

#64 One last point though, that really goes to the hart of the matter, and elegantly wins the argument. It turns out that Su-30MKI ("I" stands for India) were carrying Indian indigenous electronic countermeasures suit (see bolow), which means that whatever happened - please talk to Indians and their equipment, not the russian designers.

"Electronic countermeasures
An integrated ECM system turns on the warning units that provide signals about incoming enemy missiles, a new generation radio recon set, active jamming facilities and radar and heat decoys. It also includes an electronic intelligence unit, a chaff and flare dispenser and a RWR system.

The RWR system is an indigenously developed system by DRDO, called Tarang, (Wave in Sanskrit). It has direction finding capability and is known to have a programmable threat library. The RWR is derived from work done on an earlier system for India's MiG-23BNs known as the Tranquil, which is now superseded by the more advanced Tarang series.
Elta EL/M-8222 a self-protection jammer developed by Israel Aircraft Industries is the MKI's standard EW pod, which the Israeli Air Force uses on its F-15s. The ELTA El/M-8222 Self Protection Pod is a power-managed jammer, air-cooled system with an ESM receiver integrated into the pod. The pod contains an antenna on the forward and aft ends, which receive the hostile RF signal and after processing deliver the appropriate response."
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 18:35||   2008-09-22 18:35|| Front Page Top

#65  If Georgia fell to the Russians I can imagine a Georgian patriot sinking a large oil tanker full of cement in the bosporus might cause navigation problems for some time. I dont' think they have them but if the Bosporus has Locks and other things they could be damaged cutting the entire black sea off, albeit temporarily. It's not a good place to fight a war.

A: Fighting a war in a "locked" Black Sea area would benefit the Russians through, b/c (i) their fleet is still there, fully supported from the air from numerous airfields, (ii) their subs are their to attack anyone who does not belong (but airforce will primarily do that anyway), (iii) the airspace is totally controlled by Su-27, Su-30, and Mig-29, (iv) coastal defenses are there, (v) ability to set up mine fields at will is there, (vi) signal intelligence is there (ground based and space based). So, the hypothetical Georgian patriot would be foolish to sink a hypothetical cement tanker (which G. does not have).
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 18:45||   2008-09-22 18:45|| Front Page Top

#66 General_Comment you are way way way in over yer head with ed.

You are relitively new to Rantburg eh?

Give it a break.
Posted by Red Dawg">Red Dawg  2008-09-22 19:16||   2008-09-22 19:16|| Front Page Top

#67 Red, he's a troll. Takes one side and exaggerates and ignores or quibbles the contrary. Rather like Aris.
Posted by OldSpook 2008-09-22 21:29||   2008-09-22 21:29|| Front Page Top

#68 I thought he sounded like a salesman at Ivan's House of Weaponry, myself.
Posted by eLarson 2008-09-22 22:25||   2008-09-22 22:25|| Front Page Top

#69 "General_Comment you are way way way in over yer head with ed."

I told y'all he it was a General Nuisance, Red.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut  2008-09-22 22:35|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]  2008-09-22 22:35|| Front Page Top

#70 General_Comment. My comments were not anti-Russian but saying what a nightmare logistically any combat in Georgia would be for the US and NATO even if Turkey were to play ball. The Georgian tanker gambit would be unhelpful in saving their own country but in spoiling things for Russian commerce in and out of the Back Sea.
Posted by rjschwarz 2008-09-22 22:38||   2008-09-22 22:38|| Front Page Top

#71 TOPIX/WORLD NEWS > US TO BASE 5000 TROOPS, BUILD NAVAL BASES IN GEORGIA!?

Also from TOPIX > THINKING THE UNTHINKABLE. Russia [ + Georgia]is at a DECISIVE TURNING POINT in its Post-Cold War, perhaps even antiquitious, History as a consequence of the GWOT + ESPEC THE RUSSO-GOERGIAN WAR.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-09-22 22:56||   2008-09-22 22:56|| Front Page Top

#72 Old Spook, and Barb: you have nothing to bring to this discussion, other than your unsupported assertions. And Barb, you are just meddling. What the hell do you know about military technology anyway (and this BTW has nothing to do with being a woman, Barb, am just not seeing you posting on such topics)?

Next, why do you have to defend Ed, he ran out of arguments himself? Next, unless he was there at the Red Flag, he has no personal knowledge. Next, when you say I am "way over" my head, you don't know that.

Finally, ed may be an F-15 driver, a U.S. Joint Chief of Staff, or the God Almighty himself, it does not matter - he lost the argument about Su-30 because: (i) it is widely acknowleged that this aircraft is the finest 4++ generation figher by experts of Aviation Week and Janes Defense (even if ed is an expert, which I doubt, he is just one and definitely in the minority view), (ii) the Su-30 engaged in the SAM simulation were flying with their radars off, (iii) Red Flag is structured in the way that the attendants are engaged in the exersizes of increased complexity, (iv) ed just took one article, misread it, and ignored the other article I cited. He also ignored the materials about similar excersizes conducted in India, and here in the U.S.: Red Flag 2005, 2006, and 2007.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 23:21||   2008-09-22 23:21|| Front Page Top

#73 rjschwarz, I understand and I do not disagree with you: just pointed out likely outcome of the scenario you have given.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 23:23||   2008-09-22 23:23|| Front Page Top

#74 And the only thing which ed appears to be right about on its face, is the fact that yes, the estimated thikness of the M1A2 frontal turret armor is equivalent to 1,600 mm, which is thicker than 1,200 mm burn thru for the Kornet. Both data are available on wiki. Which would tend to support his position that it won't burn thru.

However, I would tend think that they design these things with the idea that it burns thru the tanks of potential adversary, and the data for M1A2 were surely known to the designers.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 23:31||   2008-09-22 23:31|| Front Page Top

#75 "Hebzallah used Kornet in last year's war. Let's repeat, "Only few hits penetrated the frontal arc"

A: It is damn obvious that even according to this admission, if few did penetrate the frontal arc (where the armor is by far the thickest) then given a side shot or a shot from above, there would have been practically all that could have penetrated the armor of Merkavas.

Now what that article did not say was: how many Kornets were actually used in the conflict?
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 23:40||   2008-09-22 23:40|| Front Page Top

#76 " How is the S-300 good if they are blinded, spoofed or destroyed outside radar range. Sure rocks are dangerous weapons, but not to those with bows and arrows.

A: Than what's the problem, why is U.S. objecting to the sale of some "rocks" to Syria, Iran etc. so much? Defensive weapons and harmless to U.S. or Israel, armed with "bows and arrows," right? Just pointing obvious inconsistencies.
Posted by General_Comment 2008-09-22 23:49||   2008-09-22 23:49|| Front Page Top

#77 eLarson: I thought he sounded like a salesman at Ivan's House of Weaponry, myself.

ROTFLMAO!!

Thanks OLDSPOOK

Thanks Barbara Skolaut, I waz late to the WATCH THE TROLL* Parte LOL!!
[*General_IVAN_Comment]
Posted by Red Dawg">Red Dawg  2008-09-22 23:54||   2008-09-22 23:54|| Front Page Top

23:55 Halliburton - Asymmetrical Reply Division
23:54 Red Dawg
23:49 General_Comment
23:43 USN,Ret.
23:40 General_Comment
23:35 Cornsilk Blondie
23:31 Red Dawg
23:31 General_Comment
23:29 Betty Grating2215
23:26 Betty Grating2215
23:23 General_Comment
23:21 General_Comment
23:16 rammer
23:15 Red Dawg
23:13 Red Dawg
23:00 Zhang Fei
22:56 JosephMendiola
22:44 Spaish Flomble3461
22:41 rjschwarz
22:38 rjschwarz
22:36 Milton Fandango
22:36 rjschwarz
22:35 Barbara Skolaut
22:33 Pappy









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com