It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian AD junk ? Seems so.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   

September 28, 2007:
Information coming out of Iran indicates that the military there is very dismayed at how ineffective new Russian anti-aircraft systems were during the Israeli September 6th air strike on a Syrian weapons development facility near the Iraqi border. Syria and Iran have both bought billions of dollars worth of the latest Russian anti-aircraft missile systems. Apparently the Israelis were able to blind these systems electronically. Syria isn't saying anything, nor are the Israelis, but Iranian officers are complaining openly that they have been had by the Russians. The Iranians bought Russian equipment based on assurances that the gear would detect and shoot down Israeli warplanes.
Over the Summer Russia delivered the first dozen or so (of 50) Pantsir-S1 anti-aircraft systems to Syria. It is believed that some of these systems are going to Iran, if only because Iran is apparently paying for them. Russia made the sale to Syria, despite $13.4 billion still owned for past purchases. Russia forgave most (73 percent) of the old debt, and is taking some of the balance in goods. In return, Syria is able to buy $400 million worth of anti-aircraft systems, mainly the self-propelled Pantsir-S1. This is a mobile system, each vehicle carries radar, two 30mm cannon and twelve Tunguska missiles. The missiles have a twenty kilometer range, the radar a 30 kilometer range. The missile can hit targets at up to 26,000 feet. The 30mm cannon is effective up to 10,000 feet. The vehicle carrying all this weighs 20 tons and has a crew of three.

By selling to Syria, even via the use of an enormous discount, Russia gets another foreign customer for their new anti-aircraft systems. Previously, fifty of these systems had been sold to the United Arab Emirates. Each foreign sales make it easier to sell these systems to other foreign customers. But the poor performance in Syria makes it much more difficult to sell any Russian air defense systems (which have a spotty track record in any event.)

As a practical matter, Syria is too poor to ever pay back the forgiven debt, so forgiving the debt recognizes that reality. However, because Syria has been a client state of Iran for decades, the assertions that Iran put up the money, and will get many of the systems, carry a lot of weight. Iran would most likely use these systems to protect high value targets, like nuclear weapons research facilities. However, if anyone should get photos of these systems in Iran, there would be quite an uproar.

The Iranians fear an Israeli air strike against their nuclear weapons development facilities. It was thought the new Russian missiles and radars would persuade the Israelis to stay away. But now the raid on Syria looks like a dress rehearsal for one a little further east. Since Iranian leaders have openly called for the destruction of Israel, one can't deny the Israelis a little self-defense. Thus the cries and whispers in Iranian military headquarters. A lot of this is leaking on to Farsi language email and message boards. There is much angst and unhappiness.

www.strategypage.com...


So it seems, Russian air defence systems don't come close to this imgainary legend some people like to think. It looks like the Russians have been suckering the Middle East. After all Russia only want s to mak money, they couldn't give two #es about anything else in the MIddle East.




posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Nice post OP. The very lack of any information coming from either sides seems to speak volumes on their inabilities to foil an operation deep in Syria territory.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
While I enjoy the perspective of Russian vulnerability, it should be asked:

Is is the failure of the Russians, or the ingenuity of the Israeli's which caused such a great success/failure?
One could argue the Israeli's simply found a new and innovative way to 'cloak' their aircraft, rather than any lack of efficiency on the Russian's end.

Or it's more 'monkey model' nonsense.

Regardless, I'm glad for this article if for nothing else than to watch StellarX through countless terrible sources at us, and explain away how the Russians are still superior!



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
As an aside that website is so desperately anti russian is scary - no it really is , everything seems to have an anti russian slant -that and it sells toys!


it would be nice to see something from a more reputeable souce on this one



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Well it seems, that either the Russians systems aren't that good or they are seliing the Arabs junk. The Russians claim to be able to shot down anything and everything, if the Israeli's can so easily render their systems useless then obviously there claims are just that. Also you can be sure that if it was Israeli technological wizardry then the means will be making their way into american hands as well. I wonder if the Ianians will tone down their talk, as they know that their Russian equipment can't protect them.

It's kinda funny the few posters here who lord Russian equipemtn over everytthing else, which has never been battle tested. The one time it is, it fails miserably.

As for Stellarx he regurgitates the same stuff over and over, he contributes nothing new.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Well it seems, that either the Russians systems aren't that good or they are seliing the Arabs junk. The Russians claim to be able to shot down anything and everything, if the Israeli's can so easily render their systems useless then obviously there claims are just that. Also you can be sure that if it was Israeli technological wizardry then the means will be making their way into american hands as well. I wonder if the Ianians will tone down their talk, as they know that their Russian equipment can't protect them.

It's kinda funny the few posters here who lord Russian equipemtn over everytthing else, which has never been battle tested. The one time it is, it fails miserably.

As for Stellarx he regurgitates the same stuff over and over, he contributes nothing new.


One question: Were those Pantsir systems in active duty???

Iff yes, then it is a giant embarrasment.

Iff not then there is nothing going on except some idiotical decissions made in Syria.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I have two possible explanations for the poor performance.

- Either training in Syria was not up to par in order to operate the air defense systems;

- Russia, as it always did during the USSR days, sold "watered-down," inferior export versions of their equipment, and justifying it with the old adage, "More for Less."



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 01:28 AM
link   
First off, yea, Russia MAY be pulling some lame export bs. While they seem to be improving, considering the crap they sent to people in the Cold War, I wouldn't put it beyond them.

Second, I like to try and not be too offensive, but the middle east isn't really all that famous for having top-of-the-line training facilities.

Third, Syria hadn't even had them for a month. Getting a complex aa system integrated into your forces in that time span is almost impossible. The AA systems likely weren't even active.

Last, one of the systems main purposes is as a lower-range support for other aa systems with higher capacity (eg s-400); defending a large area by itself is not it's best usage.



There's too many possible explainations that point to things other than system incompetance for me to go Russian-equipment-bashing quite yet.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   
more russia bashing as usual ,

pantsyir system point defence system not some longe range system

This is how Syrian air-defence looks like.

Red circles marks SA-2 system RANGE (there are 24 sites of SA-2)
Blue circles marks SA-3 system RANGE - there are 26 system sites
Biggest circles marks of course SA-5 system (5 active sites)
Purple circles marks SA-16 system (12 active sites)




Most of them are outdated system of 60's and 70's familiar in the west and easily disturbed by ECM. Further SA-5 has none low level intercept ability.

observe the above diagram :

As you can see most of the Israel intrusion hapen betwen Halalaba and Al Lathqiyah with weakest defences and in the eastern part of the Syria with basicly no airdefence coverage.





Besides Syrian Pantsyr-S1E uses both electro-optical and IC guidance due so its work can not be disturbed like some Israel newspapers sugested



also syrain sources have stated that israel fighter were forced to abort and the story of attack on nuke facility is fake acc. to syrian sources , as syria has no nuke program

there has no confirmation of nuke facility by russian or syrain sources ,and this could be a false flag operation in front to garner support from west to make USA attack syria , like the false WMD stories spread by israel and usa in 2003 for invading iraq ,

by invading syria , iran could be isolated and threatened more easily by USA or israel






[edit on 2-10-2007 by asala]

[edit on 2-10-2007 by asala]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by mad scientist
 


Do you have any real proof that the attack on Syria even occurred ?

Show us some links, please.

And why do you blindly trust an information which looks more like speculation of some sort ? Having no facts on how, where, and when this special operation might have been performed I guess it's far too early to make any conclusions.
Seems that the intention for making this thread is your another desire to satisfy your own nature with the information about Russian supposedly good-for-nothing tech.
I've just checked the website you proposed as a source for this thread and I must say it doesn't seem a trustworthy one.



Since Iranian leaders have openly called for the destruction of Israel, one can't deny the Israelis a little self-defense.


The Iranian leaders have never said such a thing. It's just your government
wants you to think so and it surprises me how people in America can eat disinformation so well.

[edit on 1-10-2007 by Leevi]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi
reply to post by mad scientist
 


Do you have any real proof that the attack on Syria even occurred ?

Show us some links, please.



Hmm lets see, teh story broke because the Syrians had repelled Israeli aircraft from their airspace. The Israeli's said a weekn later they had attackd a suspected nukes site. The Syrians were quiet. Seems both sides agrre something happened involving Israeli warplanes over their airpsace. Search ATS there ahs been enough written about it here, with links. Don't be so lazy.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi
reply to post by mad scientist
 


Do you have any real proof that the attack on Syria even occurred ?

Show us some links, please.


There we go :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can be damn sure if it was important enough for the Israeli's to hit, Syria would've used there best Russian technology to defend it, which as we all know failed miserably.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mad scientist
 


What failed miserably ? Where and when ? The destination of an air strike is not specified, neither do we know what area was bombed, what facilities were there nor do we know whether it was protected by any Russian technology or not.

What are you trying to say here ? I fail to understand what you are basing your conclusions on.. Be more specific. The bits of information coming from the both sides are too vague and inconsistent to say anything certain about the whole story, let alone making anything special out of it as you do here.





[edit on 2-10-2007 by Leevi]



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
While I enjoy the perspective of Russian vulnerability, it should be asked:

Is is the failure of the Russians, or the ingenuity of the Israeli's which caused such a great success/failure?


I will go with Israeli ingenuity and a complete lack of similar resource deployments on this Syrian side.



One could argue the Israeli's simply found a new and innovative way to 'cloak' their aircraft, rather than any lack of efficiency on the Russian's end.


Or one can argue that messing with the IAF is always a bad idea unless you can bring massively overwhelming and well trained forces to the map...


Or it's more 'monkey model' nonsense.


Since i never tried to be a apologist for the shortcomings of Russian fighting systems i don't think we need to go to such lengths without far more information. As i previous poster said no military in the world can integrate a new fighting system into it's armed forces inside a month.


Regardless, I'm glad for this article if for nothing else than to watch StellarX through countless terrible sources at us,


What terrible sources! Is that why you never bothered to really address or make counter claims based on your own? Funny how my sources can be so bad that it does not warrant a reply while i spend countless hours to counter the stupid claims that is so often contained in the media establishment version of reality.


and explain away how the Russians are still superior!


In my opinion superior to the Americans on most days ( The IAF regularly trashes the USAF/USN or anything the US armed forces bothers to deploy) but lets not get all carried away and suggest that anyone can or should take on the Israeli's.


Stellar



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Two brief points:

I have enormous respect for the Israeli's -- My neighbor is ex-Mossad, and he regularly tells me about a country I've only visited once, and could not imagine living in for too much of my time.
They are dedicated, experienced fighters, and all-though I do not think their military is capable of anything near what the United States is, they are only held back back geographical limits, and a fraction of our population.

Stellar, saying to anyone you debate with, that we fail in any kind of way because we do not care to debate hundreds, if not thousands of line per reply is a bit absurd.
Something to be said for more trouble than its worth -- And its a system of argument that, so far on ATS, I've only found you use.
So, while 'we', the collective group might poke fun at one-another, I don't think either of us really has the ability to finally decide who is right, and what is wrong.
Not saying you're ignorant, or a fool, just poking some fun, and getting a light-hearted jab in.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
Two brief points:

I have enormous respect for the Israeli's -- My neighbor is ex-Mossad, and he regularly tells me about a country I've only visited once, and could not imagine living in for too much of my time.


Right...


[They are dedicated, experienced fighters, and all-though I do not think their military is capable of anything near what the United States is, they are only held back back geographical limits, and a fraction of our population.


Thanks for agreeing with observation.



Stellar, saying to anyone you debate with, that we fail in any kind of way because we do not care to debate hundreds, if not thousands of line per reply is a bit absurd.


Possibly absurd but quite accurate too.
There have been people who cared to actually debate and while they aren't normally on realities side it can be done! I have never insisted that ALL my points be addressed and it is VERY obvious from posting that i only respond to whatever issues the other person wishes to continue discussing. I do NOT spitefully , and justifiably, repeat all the mistakes others have made and do not type a few paragraphs filled with my opinions and speculations in reply to what i find objectionable.

Why people like you get so very upset when i address your specific statements with specific counterclaims or opinions i have no idea but i suspect your not used to actually debating anything or having your views questioned.


Something to be said for more trouble than its worth -- And its a system of argument that, so far on ATS, I've only found you use.


Once, long ago, when i started posting here a admin asked me to never use quote tags on more than four lines at once and basically that's what i do unless i wish to address the specific claims made in a given paragraph.

You might have noticed that i do not address a thread with a few paragraphs filled with opinions and instead focus my attention on addressing the specific claims made by specific people so as to make sure that i am engaging them. I don't see how addressing the thread in such non specific ways really contributes and i am certainly not here to bore ALL the readers with my views. If you find my posts objectionable don't read them and if you don't want to illicit a response from me just stick to facts.



So, while 'we', the collective group might poke fun at one-another, I don't think either of us really has the ability to finally decide who is right, and what is wrong.


I do believe i have the mental faculties ( i can read and i can reason) to arrive at conclusions and make judgments and if you do not feel suitable equipped or experienced you should probably focus on that instead of posting your opinions on a public forum. There is MUCH to be said for simply sitting down and reading a few hundred non fiction books until you feel prepared to state and a defend your views.


Not saying you're ignorant, or a fool, just poking some fun, and getting a light-hearted jab in.


You can say that but since you have given me little reason to doubt the data i am currently employing i will simply go on until you or someone else does.

Thanks for trying to keep this very serious discussion 'light-hearted' and 'poking some fun' while your at it.

I am sure it's widely appreciated.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Ah, Stellar, always one for insulting another person when they try and make you out to not be a twit.

Good job!

It's a shame you don't live in the real world, it's quite comfy.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   
HA! Russian technology fails again! Last great thing they made was AK47 and T-80. New russian jet fighter though, is formidable, you guys should look into it.

Found it! Check this out everyone,
www.englishrussia.com...
F22 might be screwed in terms of maneuverability, but personally I think raptor can just take it out of the sky without being seen, no fancy tricks needed.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 01:52 AM
link   
I like Manson_322's post..
Good post.

There are too many variables to just put this down as simple Russian equip junk..

We need to examine everything bit by bit.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Iblis
 


I do beleieve that 99.9999999999999% of soldiers/sailors and airmen who have served at least 1 tour in an SF unit , generally do not talk about it - there are exceptions but they can be counted on 1 hand. therefore i pesonally would say your neighbour is full of bull.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join