Syria says repulses Israeli jets
- Thread starter XaNDeR
- Start date
- Status
radiosilence
jints
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Yes, read the artticle you provided.
Simple. Read the article you provided. It is not a direct quote. It is interpreted information. And certainly not verbatim.
This has no impact at all on what I said. And still not a direct quote. From an unknown source...
radiosilence
jints
This is the article below, where does it say the source is Russian?Yes, read the artticle you provided.
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw070522_1_n.shtml
Still waiting for your evidence.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I have commented on above article. The quality of the source for this is very weak. Also because of how it is presented.This is the article below, where does it say the source is Russian?
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw070522_1_n.shtml
Still waiting for your evidence.
If this is the quality of evidence you need, well, then you can believe anything.
Anyhow, there is no reason to continue this. I'll go have a look at this:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=115398#post115398
It's more fun.
radiosilence
jints
Nice video.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Yes. Interesting indeed.Nice video.
Forgot one thing - just to explain. It need not been in Russian - misinterpretations may lie in differences in references and terminology, which is what I alluded to earlier with the "near space" example. I never said it was Russian originally, but it is "things lost in translation."
radiosilence
jints
I read articles concerning Iran acquiring the S-300 but never thought anything of it until i saw the Janes article.
Unfortunately, I don't think it has anything to do with disinformation--well you left Russia out.
If there's another, "You told us that they have X,Y, and Z! You lied to us, again..."! That wouldn't go across very well, if you know what I mean. Iran has been trying to get their NK, knockoff, the Shihab-3 missile, moved west and as close as possible to Israel, African nations, and all of Europe as possible. It's est. range is around 2,500km and can carry any type of warhead. Iran wants to keep the missile under control of the IRGC as well. Thus, at least one IRGC base in Syria.
As noted above, this isn't a Kaytusha (Hizbollah has more than enough of those. As you said, they're daily shipments down the normal roads).
The reason for taking the Missiles out now as well as hitting a "Facility," is so those two are not put together. It's a small first strike for the purposes of preemption, instead of giving Iran the possibility of that first strike, using WMDs. I don't think anyone doubts that Syria has had Chem/Bio weapons for a long time and while nobody talks much about that, however, introducing a delivery vehicle that can hit the entire ME, Europe, parts of N. America and so on, changes the game. Add the possibility of Nukes, and it's the end game.
Israel hasn't been the only country in the world tracking these things (obviously). When Israel does something in the ME, we all know the usual reaction, especially from neighbors. However, when the typical uproar in the ME and around the world is non-existent, there's a reason. The deafening silence, shows how significant the situation is/was.
The US actually publicly praised the strike instead of, "Israel can defend itself, but must show maximum restraint...", as have some other European countries. The most important thing we've seen/heard, is the reaction, or lack there of, from the other states in the region including Russia.
I'd imagine it's hard to make a case to the int'l community if you get caught red-handed. Syria's predicament. It's like going to the police and telling them somebody stole your drugs.
The one line from CNN (I believe) that caught my attention was the reporter's description of seeing, "a very large hole in the ground"! That made it sound to me as if something underground was hit.
Check out the "al-safir" (I believe that's the spelling) area/base in Syria. I'm just guessing, but my instinct is that the strikes took place right around there. I think www.globalsecurity.org is where I remember seeing several Satillite photos of the area a while back (I'm almost positive it was pre-google earth days). I'll look for a link...
Found it: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/syria/al-safir.htm
Scuds and Fajr 5s are already in Syria/Lebanon in good numbers.
As for your other question about Iran or Syria having the S-300, AFAIK it's like the debate going in this thread.
One release says Iran already has "a couple" batteries deployed and Syria is having them delivered. Then, a release comes out from Russia, denying that they have sold the weapons, yet. But won't comment on further discussions.
Next, Russia "is furious" that the news got out that they "delivered the systems."
Around, and around, in circles.
My guess would be that Russia would "actually" be hesitant to sell any AD, because nothing Iran or Syria has will do much against the USAF, other than making it look like a poor system and hurt potential exports where there aren't potential conflicts.
Peace
Last edited:
Yep, I feel the same way. It becomes difficult to know for sure because of articles like these:
Russia's Pantsyr air defense system delivered to Syria, paid for by Iran
MOSCOW — Russia is delivering an advanced surface-to-air missile system to Syria.
Officials said the state-owned arms export agency, Rosoboronexport, has been exporting the Pantsyr-S1E air defense system to Syria. They said deliveries began in 2007 and would continue over the next year.
Pantsyr-S1E air defense system
The Pantsyr deal was said to have been financed by Iran. Officials said Russia would export 50 Pantsyr systems to Damascus in a nearly $1 billion sale.
"The first part of the delivery to Syria has started," the Moscow-based Nezavissimaya Gazeta daily said on Aug. 17.
Nezavissimaya Gazeta quoted a state-owned military information agency that reported the delivery to Syria. Later, officials acknowledged that the first shipment of an unspecified number of Pantsyr-S1E had arrived in Syria.
In May 2007, the London-based Jane's Defence Weekly placed the number of Pantsyr systems allocated to Iran at 10. Russian sources said up to 14 air defense units would arrive in Iran.
Officials dismissed reports that the Pantsyr would be reexported by Syria to Iran. In 2006, Moscow was confronted by Israeli evidence that anti-tank and other weapons sold to Syria were delivered to Hizbullah and used during the 34-day war.
Produced by KBP, Pantsyr-S1, with an interception range of 12 kilometers, was developed for the United Arab Emirates, said to have ordered 50 such systems. The Pantsyr mobile battery contains 12 missiles as well as 30 mm guns capable of firing 700 rounds per minute.
Geostrategy-Direct, www.geostrategy-direct.com, August 29, 2007
-Iran finances major weapons buy from Russia for Syria
TEL AVIV — Iran effectively owns Syria's military and has paid at least $1.25 billion for a huge Syrian weapons order from Russia.
"Iran has, in effect, taken charge of Syria's military," an Israeli source said. "Iranian advisers work with the Syrian military to decide its requirements and combat doctrine."
Igla portable air defense missile system.
Israeli intelligence sources said Teheran has relayed to Russia $1.25 billion in 2007 for the sale of a range of air defense and anti-tank missile systems to Syria. The sources said the military systems ordered by Damascus were the most advanced developed by Russia.
The sources said Iran agreed to finance Syrian purchases of Russian defense systems in wake of the Israeli war with Hizbullah in mid-2006. During the 34-day war, Hizbullah, supplied by Iran and Syria, fired 4,500 rockets and missiles into Israel, which sparked a flight of about 350,000 civilians.
"The Iranians and Syrians agreed that a missile war should be the model for the next conflict," the source said. "The idea has been to provide Syria with massive firepower capability and establish a defense against Israeli aircraft."
Damascus has ordered the Pantsyr-S1E short-range air defense system, the Igla-S man-portable air defense system, the AT-14 anti-tank missile to bolster Syria's defenses. The Assad regime has also been financed by Iran to purchase the Iskander-E rocket, with a range of 280 kilometers, to fire massive salvos against Israeli civilian and military targets.
The sources said Russia delivered some of the systems to Syria in 2007. They said the bulk of the order would arrive by mid-2008 amid Syrian efforts to acquire such strategic platforms as the S-300 long-range air defense system.
Russia has also been contracted to overhaul the Syrian Air Force's combat fleet. The sources said this has enabled the resumption of the first significant Syrian air combat exercises in nearly a decade.
Geostrategy-Direct, www.geostrategy-direct.com, September 5, 2007
-This kind of stuff gets reported, than drops off the map. Then, it's reported again...
It's sort of like hearing, "The check's in the mail"!?
FutureTank
Banned Member
С-300
Just so we are clear what the argument is all about, the C-300 systems are fairly large. I would say that it is almost impossible to miss their delivery to Syria, or Iran. It is also almost impossible to miss them in a strike mission before they are operational.
The reports that Iran acquired two C-300 'complexes' are just speculations by people who don't know what they are talking about. The MINIMUM C-300 requirements for Iran are at least eight complexes, that is batteries, for deployment around Tehran and Isfahan. Currently the role is filled by the old C-200 batteries of which there are at least twelve around Tehran alone if I am not mistaken.
The 49 Panzyr systems would deploy in batteries of four to a battery of C-300s, so does it suggest that Syria is going to receive 12 batteries of C-300?! I highly doubt it.
Panzyr is also a low-to-medium altitude point defense system which has only just managed to achieve operational status after a decade of development. In essence it is a low cost, truck mounted version of the Tunguska SPAA. It is entirely possible that Iran may be supplied with the Panzyr systems since they can purchase similar, if less capable systems from the Chinese if they must.
In fact Iranians probably have the capability of combining some sort of SAM mounts with some sort of light AA cannon mounts on any number of heavy trucks to do fill the same cheap rear areas SPAA role capability if they try.
Of course the beauty of Panzyr's interfacing of command and targeting systems with the C-300 would not be there, but at least they can cover threats to about 15,000ft...maybe.
Clearly Israeli incursion did not encounter the Panzyr systems because these are not intended for the sort of work that would have required risking the lives of Israeli pilots just to prove that they can 'tap' Syrians on the shoulder.
If there was indeed an attempt to deliver C-300s, which I very much doubt, Russia would have been making a LOT of noise because destruction of such deliveries before handover would have meant destruction of Russian goods on Syrian territory, so it wasn't that.
It seems to me that the suggestion that Israelis were preventing the delivery of more missiles intended for Hizbullah was probably a correct one, and it is likely that the missiles came from either Iran, or North Korea, or both.
Cheers
Greg
Just so we are clear what the argument is all about, the C-300 systems are fairly large. I would say that it is almost impossible to miss their delivery to Syria, or Iran. It is also almost impossible to miss them in a strike mission before they are operational.
The reports that Iran acquired two C-300 'complexes' are just speculations by people who don't know what they are talking about. The MINIMUM C-300 requirements for Iran are at least eight complexes, that is batteries, for deployment around Tehran and Isfahan. Currently the role is filled by the old C-200 batteries of which there are at least twelve around Tehran alone if I am not mistaken.
The 49 Panzyr systems would deploy in batteries of four to a battery of C-300s, so does it suggest that Syria is going to receive 12 batteries of C-300?! I highly doubt it.
Panzyr is also a low-to-medium altitude point defense system which has only just managed to achieve operational status after a decade of development. In essence it is a low cost, truck mounted version of the Tunguska SPAA. It is entirely possible that Iran may be supplied with the Panzyr systems since they can purchase similar, if less capable systems from the Chinese if they must.
In fact Iranians probably have the capability of combining some sort of SAM mounts with some sort of light AA cannon mounts on any number of heavy trucks to do fill the same cheap rear areas SPAA role capability if they try.
Of course the beauty of Panzyr's interfacing of command and targeting systems with the C-300 would not be there, but at least they can cover threats to about 15,000ft...maybe.
Clearly Israeli incursion did not encounter the Panzyr systems because these are not intended for the sort of work that would have required risking the lives of Israeli pilots just to prove that they can 'tap' Syrians on the shoulder.
If there was indeed an attempt to deliver C-300s, which I very much doubt, Russia would have been making a LOT of noise because destruction of such deliveries before handover would have meant destruction of Russian goods on Syrian territory, so it wasn't that.
It seems to me that the suggestion that Israelis were preventing the delivery of more missiles intended for Hizbullah was probably a correct one, and it is likely that the missiles came from either Iran, or North Korea, or both.
Cheers
Greg
Juicy details of Israeli raid..WoW..
Israelis ‘blew apart Syrian nuclear cache
Too big an article to post in full. IAF planes dumbed ammo.....right on NoKo Nuclear materials. No wonder the Syrians didn't make too much noise.
Israelis ‘blew apart Syrian nuclear cache
Too big an article to post in full. IAF planes dumbed ammo.....right on NoKo Nuclear materials. No wonder the Syrians didn't make too much noise.
News leaking out of Israeli strike on Syrias nuke capability
Details are gradually being leaked about the events of september 6.
One report from the Jerusalem Post:
While the picture is still not completely clear, and has certainly not been confirmed by official Israeli or Syrian authorities, the story that is emerging in the foreign press is the stuff of legends.
Fighter jets, coming under air defense missiles, infiltrate an enemy country and bomb a nuclear facility that is being "lit up" for them by an elite commando unit operating behind enemy lines
It doesnt surprise me really, it was just a matter of time.
Details are gradually being leaked about the events of september 6.
One report from the Jerusalem Post:
While the picture is still not completely clear, and has certainly not been confirmed by official Israeli or Syrian authorities, the story that is emerging in the foreign press is the stuff of legends.
Fighter jets, coming under air defense missiles, infiltrate an enemy country and bomb a nuclear facility that is being "lit up" for them by an elite commando unit operating behind enemy lines
It doesnt surprise me really, it was just a matter of time.
My understanding is that the basis for the Hughes' article in Jane's (derived from the un-named sources) also included photographic evidence of positively-identified S-300 components in country. As to why Russian may have supplied these weapons, the suggestion has been that there were a carrot to push Tehran in to accepting Moscow's proposal that uranium for their nuclear project be refined in Russia. If this is true it appears to have failed.
All sources that I have seen talk of two S-300 'somethings', though I have seen different opinions of exactly to what this two refers.
All sources that I have seen talk of two S-300 'somethings', though I have seen different opinions of exactly to what this two refers.
What do you mean? Israel provided one (1) legit account of what went down--and it's here.
Israel has kept a pretty tight lid on everything (believe u me, this is something that doesn't happen often, as someone always wants credit for a mission gone right!), but they decided to spill the beans here! I'm just playing. A lot of what is put together is correct (though a good amount of time has passed to do homework).
One thing that is reinforced is that, Israel didn't just "do this alone" and then have some quick explaining to do. The point about IFF codes is a good one in that, Israel was given the, "okay." Meaning, Israel had to do some explaining ahead of time and/or there was no explaining to do as "more than one country" was watching things and knew exactly what was going on.
Also, right around the same time (maybe a day latter), Israel pulled off an even more impressive "raid" in Gaza. They managed to "abduct" two higher-ups of Hamas. Not easy to do in a "small neighborhood" where everybody knows everybody. If the account of how the air strike was done sounds "straight out of the movies," check out the Hamas abductions i.e. "the story" anyway. It was supposed to be done because of the Israeli Prisoner (Shalit spl?) being held in Gaza for a long time.
Kind ofThis paper is well known to publish neocon wet dreams...
fftopic (IMO) Whether a person is a self-professed "neocon," or has the same published beside his name, is not indicative of the only type of person who dreams; but it is good to know the thoughts running through their heads are "good" thoughts. ON BEING ASKED FOR A WAR POEM
An Irishman
THINK it better that in times like these
A poet's mouth be silent, for in truth
We have no gift to set a statesman right;
He has had enough of meddling who can please
A young girl in the indolence of her youth,
Or an old man upon a winter's night.
Even some of us Americans dabble in the words of the second best wordsmith in the English language (1. Eminem, 2. Yeats)
:cheersBeing on other side of pond, I confess I have little knowledge about News media in UK (their capability for reporting genuine news or otherwise).Sorry Kamms this article is absolute rubbish...
This paper is well known to publish neocon wet dreams...
- Status