Russia arms Syria with powerful ballistic missiles: U.S. and Russia face off near Syrian border, page 1

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 21 times

Topic started on 8-12-2012 @ 07:16 AM by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

Russia arms Syria with powerful ballistic missiles

Read more at www.wnd.com...

Hours after NATO agreed on Tuesday to send Patriot missiles to Turkey because of the crisis in Syria, Russia delivered its first shipment of Iskander missiles to Syria.

The superior Iskander can travel at hypersonic speed of over 1.3 miles per second (Mach 6-7) and has a range of over 280 miles with pinpoint accuracy of destroying targets with its 1,500-pound warhead, a nightmare for any missile defense system.

According to Mashregh, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard media outlet, Russia had warned Turkey not to escalate the situation, but with Turkey’s request for Patriot missiles, it delivered its first shipment of Iskanders to Syria.

Reporting today, Mashregh said the handover occurred when Russian naval logistic vessels docked at Tartus in Syria.

The Iskandar is a surface-to-surface missile that no missile defense system can trace or destroy, Mashregh said. Russia had earlier threatened that should America put its missile defense system in Poland, it would retaliate by placing its Iskander missiles at Kaliningrad, its Baltic Sea port.

That sure is one fast moving missile!!!

If I remember how to do math... that's 1.3 miles per second X 60 seconds X 60 minutes = 4680 miles per hour

I do have a couple questions...

Can the patriot missile defense system destroy a Iskander missile with a desirable success rate? All I could find is that it has had previous success against Mach 5 scuds(or similar capable design) that were traveling around 3,847 miles per hour.

Although the actual information as to the capabilities and success may be false...

In response to the testimonies and other evidence, the staff of the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security reported, "The Patriot missile system was not the spectacular success in the Persian Gulf War that the American public was led to believe. There is little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq during the Gulf War, and there are some doubts about even these engagements. The public and the United States Congress were misled by definitive statements of success issued by administration and Raytheon representatives during and after the war."[28]

en.wikipedia.org...

Since the Persian Gulf War the missiles used in the Patriot systems have been upgraded. When used in 2003, all I could find is the system having a "very high success rate". The target being Al-Samoud 2 missiles that Russia and Poland helped create.

Whatever that means(very high).... or if it's true...

Looks like... yet again, going head to head with Russian provided technology. I'm starting to see a pattern here...

The main question that I have is...

Will this be the final straw on the camels back in regards to the US preventing Israel and Russian UAV contracts? Which becomes a tricky subject because of IAI's (Israeli defense company) contracts to supply spy aircraft systems to Turkey. If Russia is going to support Syria, I can only imagine that these purchases and trade will never come into fruition.

Or is Israel going to openly support both sides? What would the US do if this happened?

The latest I read... Israel backing away from deal...

The sources attribute the current backpedaling to hesitation about the deal in the Foreign Ministry and the Prime Ministry's Office, which have yet to give their approval. Washington has also requested clarifications about the deal, which is considered particularly sensitive.

www.defence.pk...

Lets not forget that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan not too long ago said the following:

"I say that Israel is a terrorist state, and its acts are terrorist acts." ~ Recep Tayyip Erdogan
www.edmontonjournal.com...

For additional information as to the these contradictory relationships you can check out:

Israel, Israeli Aerospace Industries... Who Backs Who?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I swear... it feels like none of the allegiances really mean anything...

Iran selling to Hamas
Turkey selling to Egypt
Egypt(Morsi) not so much opposing Hamas
Israel selling/supporting to Turkey
Israel selling to Russia
Russia support of Syria
Iran support of Russia

and now it comes down to what happens in regards to the Turkey/Syrian boarder?

Am I the only one that see's something unfolding?

U.S. and Russia face off near Syrian border
www.bignewsnetwork.com...

While Israel's Pillar of Cloud was still in full spate over the Gaza Strip and southern Israel, the United States, Russia, Iran, Israel and Turkey were each respectively putting their next moves in place in a broader radius, debkafile reports.

The most interesting aspect of all of this is exactly where China sits on the issue. Or, it could be said that Israel's IAI announcing a sale of $1.1 billion of defense systems to an Asian country that was never named is more interesting. (more at: Israel, Israeli Aerospace Industries... Who Backs Who?)

Sure I have theories and all that fun stuff, but I'd rather get the opinions of ATS. I don't really care to present mine as all of these countries are practicing all sorts of tactical deceptions and what I've so far presented could in fact not even be the case. Who knows lol.

Just thought I'd post another thread, updating my previous one in regards to IAI and friends. As well, to see if anybody had any information, theories, or was able to point out any misleading info. It's always nice to gain an extra pair of eyes...

meow meow

edit on 8-12-2012 by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS because: clarification

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 07:27 AM by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

Is WND.com full of it? Reliable source?

As concerns mount that Syrian President Bashar Assad could unleash chemical weapons against his opponents, the Kremlin appears to be recalibrating its support for a desperate ally.

Russia three times has wielded its veto power in the U.N. Security Council to shield Assad from international condemnation for brutality against Syrians fighting for his ouster, a 21-month-old siege that by some accounts has taken 40,000 lives and displaced 2.5 million.

Russian President Vladimir Putin signaled the first step back from ardent defense of Assad after a meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan this week. Putin and Erdogan left their Istanbul meeting still occupying opposite positions on the need for Turkey to defend itself from stray Syrian rocket fire with NATO-supplied Patriot missiles, according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. But they also agreed to pursue “some new, fresh ideas” in hope of resolving the intractable conflict, Peskov said.

In Syrian war's end game, Moscow maneuvers away from Assad
www.latimes.com...

,,,, yeah, disinformation at it's finest?

If so...

What would be the initiative behind creating such an article? Website traffic? If so... that's pretty pathetic.

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 07:31 AM by lonewolf19792000

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

The Iskandar is a surface-to-surface missile that no missile defense system can trace or destroy, Mashregh said.

If it has a heat based propulsion system it can be tracked and destroyed, that's why we have heat seekers. Invisible to radar is one thing, but not invisible to heat tracking devices.

Mashregh is spouting propaganda.

edit on 8-12-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 07:59 AM by Wrabbit2000

Putin has been saying for over a year... DO NOT DO THIS. We WILL NOT ALLOW THIS. Moscow has been so clear, writing it in Crayon would have been a step DOWN in communication. Yet, Obama has laughed him off and people online think it's hilarious.

Wow.... I guess I'm in a small small group that recall the Soviet Empire for what it was in all it's horrible glory. No biggy and a historic thing.......except that the man currently running the Russian Federation was a rising star in the Soviet Union as a Colonel in the K.G.B.. We're looking at the embodiment of what Reagan termed 'The Evil Empire'. I know thats silly words to many today who literally weren't alive when Putin was serving the Soviet Central Committee. That doesn't change what formed his outlooks in life and mindset in general.

Putin spent his entire life to that point dedicated to our defeat and outright destruction....just as his counterparts on our side spent their lives dedicated to HIS.... Now he remains as the hold out to a past that ought to stay there.

So much for that though.. We're back in a near conflict status with the old Soviet. This ought to be fun...... People have been convinced the Russian Federation is a 3rd world nation or some such nonsense. Well, I hope Obama isn't ignorant enough to push too hard. He's outclassed in every way that matters here.

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 08:13 AM by Alternative4u

I am delighted to read that at last Russia has stood up to America & Britain, I feel that this should have happened years ago, as NATO badly needs bringing down to size, a nude on Turkey from Russia and another on Washington would make the world a lot safer, well done Russia, good on yer, let em have an Xmas gift from all Christians, our Prisons are too full of Muslims already so not sure why NATO wants to protect any of them.

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 08:20 AM by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

If this is the correct one:

The description given on wiki suggests that it's a fairly well developed weapon. With electro-optical guidance for self-homing, ability to make evasive maneuvers, and can pull up to 20-30 G's.

Not suggesting that it can't be tracked, or destroyed... but there are some difficulties in doing so and I can only imagine that it will take multiple attempts to take one down, to which there is a very small time-window due to it's speed. I
en.wikipedia.org...

Each missile in the launch carrier vehicle can be independently targeted in a matter of seconds. The mobility of the Iskander launch platform makes a launch difficult to prevent.[4]

Targets can be located not only by satellite and aircraft but also by a conventional intelligence center, or by a soldier who directs artillery fire. Targets can also be located from aerial photos scanned into the computer. The missiles can be re-targeted during flight in the case of engaging mobile targets.[4] Another unique feature of Iskander-M (not Iskander-E) is the optically guided warhead, which can also be controlled by encrypted radio transmission, including such from AWACS or UAV. The electro-optical guidance system provides a self-homing capability. The missile's on-board computer receives images of the target, then locks onto the target with its sight and descends towards it at supersonic speed.

In flight, the missile follows a quasi-ballistic path, performing evasive maneuvers in the terminal phase of flight and releasing decoys in order to penetrate missile defense systems. The missile never leaves the atmosphere as it follows a relatively flat trajectory.

The Russian Iskander-M cruises at hypersonic speed of 2100–2600 m/s (Mach 6–7) at a height of 50 km. The Iskander-M weighs 4615 kg, carries a warhead of 710–800 kg, has a range of 400–480 km, and achieves a CEP (Circular error probable) of 5–7 meters. During flight it can maneuver at different altitudes and trajectories and can pull up to 20 to 30 G to evade anti-ballistic missiles. For example, in one of the trajectory modes it can dive at the target at 90 degrees at the rate of 700–800 m/s performing anti-ABM maneuvers.[3][5]

edit on 8-12-2012 by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS because: clarification

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 08:32 AM by lonewolf19792000

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

Ah, all that computer circuitry used in a weapon, seems like a perfect waste of the gold used in it. We should really engage in skimishes with Russia just to see how much we need to upgrade our own technology. With all these defense budget cuts the past several years we need to see how our tech compares against another superpower.

edit on 8-12-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 09:33 AM by xplorer

There is Another thread [ In News Forum ] with Same Topic : www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 09:39 AM by nightbringr

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

Ah, all that computer circuitry used in a weapon, seems like a perfect waste of the gold used in it. We should really engage in skimishes with Russia just to see how much we need to upgrade our own technology. With all these defense budget cuts the past several years we need to see how our tech compares against another superpower.
edit on 8-12-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

We should engage the Russians in skirmishes?

I don't know about you, but i have a family and want to live. I suppose your one of those who believe the US so advanced, the Russians or Chinese could never land so much as one nuke on western shores, am i right?

edit on 8-12-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 09:50 AM by ausername

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

Diplomatically the Russians are distancing themselves from the Assad regime, BUT the Russians have a naval base in Syria, and they are aggressively opposed to NATO and especially "missile defenses" in the region.

IF they are supplying these missiles to the Syrians that could be why, also what better way to test their missiles against NATO defenses?

If Syria attacks Turkey or Israel with these missiles and chemical warheads are used, then you can expect that Syria will no longer exist, and most of it will be uninhabitable for a long time.

Giving these missiles (if true) to the Assad regime makes as much sense as giving explosives to a severely depressed, extremely suicidal, psychotic person.

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 10:06 AM by stirling

I have to assume that some degree of proficiency must be gained by Assads forces, in launching and guiding these weapons.....
There is a small widow of opportunity here for Syria to be attacked by several "interested parties"
The iraelis will be very upset with such a move by russia and may just attack the Syrians to try to destroy this new menace, as well as deal with the chemical threats......Turkey,and the US as well as Nato will be mighty pissed off as well....this may be a deal breaker for Assads gang.........Russia just painted a big fat bullseye on Assads ass

edit on 8-12-2012 by stirling because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 10:46 AM by maloy

Alright lets set this straight - this news is fake. The source is doubtful, and since everyone is carefully watching Syria and their movements, if this was true it would be all over main stream media.

Russia would also have absolutely no reason to give ballistic missiles to Syria, for a number of reasons. For one thing, Syria can't afford them, and Syria has much more urgent need for other armament that is cheaper and easier to deliver unnoticed. Also, missiles like these would not improve the chances of Assad staying in power, which is what Russia wants. If anything have ballistic missiles would increase the chances of foreign intervention, and make Assad's situation worse.

Additionally, Iskander is a relatively new weapons system, and one whose details and design parameters Russia wants to keep secret. They are still in limited production and have not been exported or placed on the market for this reason. Giving one to Syria creates a high potential for it falling to the enemy's hands. It is also not exactly a compact system, and getting one into Syria is no easy task. The Iskander is mobile but it makes for an easy target without proper air-cover and advanced anti-air defense, neither of which Syria has. Also it is disputed whether the Iskander missiles were ever adapted to carry chemical weapons. From what is known Russia only fields them with conventional or nuclear warheads.

I think this news can be buried. Questionable source, no proof, no sense.

edit on 8-12-2012 by maloy because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 10:54 AM by ausername

Originally posted by maloy

Russia would also have absolutely no reason to give ballistic missiles to Syria, for a number of reasons. For one thing, Syria can't afford them, and Syria has much more urgent need for other armament that is cheaper and easier to deliver unnoticed. Also, missiles like these would not improve the chances of Assad staying in power, which is what Russia wants. If anything have ballistic missiles would increase the chances of foreign intervention, and make Assad's situation worse.

Russia has a naval base in Syria, and they do not want that falling under NATO control, regardless of what happens to the Assad regime. So, yes they do have a motive and reason to do this.

Any post Assad Syria cannot be under western and NATO control, the Russians will not let that happen. This could be more of a message in that regard than anything else, if it is in fact true.

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 10:58 AM by Zaphod58

reply to post by ausername

There isn't a single source except a "former CIA operative" for WND that says the missiles are there. Every other source says that they were considering it, or they were possibly going to, after Russia received their complement, which was delayed for several years due to production backlogs. WND has had some questionable information in the past, this falls in that category.

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 11:07 AM by maloy

Originally posted by ausername
Russia has a naval base in Syria, and they do not want that falling under NATO control, regardless of what happens to the Assad regime. So, yes they do have a motive and reason to do this.

Explain how giving ballistic missiles to Assad would increase the chances of him remaining in power and Russia continuing to use that base? I know why Russia is vested in Assad, but the last thing that would help him now is high-precision theater ballistic missiles. There is a long list of other armaments that would help Assad far more given the situation he is facing - all of them far cheaper and far easier to deliver as well.

Iskander is not the type of weapon you use against lightly-armed and scattered rebels. It also does not pose too much of a threat to Israel or Turkey if armed with a conventional rather than a nuclear warhead. What will Assad, and Russia for that matter achive with such a strike?

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 11:09 AM by Pervius

Now that the Syrians and Russians are cornered into a small hole it's been very easy to use the Directed Energy systems against them. That's why they've broken out the chemical weapons, they know we're cooking them and they're dead either way.

The interesting thing to watch will be North Korea and the Pacific. They KNOW they will be next and KNOW if they intend to go out fighting....now's the time.

The technology being yielded has allowed that small force to defeat Russia in Syria.....they know their time is short. They'll be bowing to Zion soon along with the rest of the world.

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 11:11 AM by Zaphod58

reply to post by maloy

Not to mention that if they were to hit a US warship (especially a carrier), instead of any kind of limited/non-response, the US would launch bombers, and hammer Syria over it. They would make sure Assad left power quickly, and there wasn't much of a Syrian military left. That would cause the region to blow up, when I thought the idea was a limited response if any response at all.

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 11:20 AM by maloy

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Not to mention that if they were to hit a US warship (especially a carrier)

Iskander was not intended for such role at all. It is meant to use against land targets, and given that it strikes from the air on a downwards trajectory it will only damage the ship's deck and not sink it. Anti-ship missiles are made to come in along the water (skimming) on a parallel trajectory and stike the side of the hull as low as possible (closer to the keel and water line). Russia has far better and far smaller missiles (easier to conceal) for the task of attacking carriers.

Like I said, Iskander has a very specific and very limited role as a precision theater ballistic missile. Whoever came up with the BS in this article chose the wrong weapon without knowing much about it, which makes the story far less believable. They might have as well claimed that Russia gave Assad fly-swatters to turn the tide of the Civil War.

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 11:21 AM by ausername

Originally posted by maloy

Originally posted by ausername
Russia has a naval base in Syria, and they do not want that falling under NATO control, regardless of what happens to the Assad regime. So, yes they do have a motive and reason to do this.

Explain how giving ballistic missiles to Assad would increase the chances of him remaining in power and Russia continuing to use that base?

Russia is distancing themselves from the Assad regime, they seem to be accepting the fact that regime change is inevitable in Syria... I don't believe the Russians are interested in saving the Assad regime as much as they are about what happens after this "civil war" ends.

IF the Russians are arming the Syrians with high-tech weaponry it could be intended to keep NATO (particularly Turkey) out of it.

reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 11:21 AM by Son of Will

Originally posted by maloy

Originally posted by ausername
Russia has a naval base in Syria, and they do not want that falling under NATO control, regardless of what happens to the Assad regime. So, yes they do have a motive and reason to do this.

Explain how giving ballistic missiles to Assad would increase the chances of him remaining in power and Russia continuing to use that base? I know why Russia is vested in Assad, but the last thing that would help him now is high-precision theater ballistic missiles. There is a long list of other armaments that would help Assad far more given the situation he is facing - all of them far cheaper and far easier to deliver as well.

Iskander is not the type of weapon you use against lightly-armed and scattered rebels. It also does not pose too much of a threat to Israel or Turkey if armed with a conventional rather than a nuclear warhead. What will Assad, and Russia for that matter achive with such a strike?

Because military posturing is the most direct way to send a signal or influence a situation, short of an actual engagement. If this report is true, which is apparently still up in the air, it would be a message to the West that Russia is willing to defend Syria, at least as far as supplying them with weapons. That's how these relations often play out where diplomacy is rather hazy - politicians send subtle messages that have to be interpreted by other powers.

Generally speaking, in politics, less said the better. Harder to tie people to obligations, harder to incriminate people, etc.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^