Russia responds by sending S400 SAMs to Syria

Ouch!

Depending on which projectile they use, the radar capability and range is around 150KMs.

This includes Ballistic missile intercept capability. This gives a coverage that ranges over the NATO base in Turkey-and that nuclear capability-to over Israel and their nuclear capability. While they are defensive weapons, by definition, their ability to counter not only aircraft but the deterrent afforded by possessing nukes makes it far more than merely defensive. It makes a pre-emptive move in the ME by Russia a lot stronger from a strategic view, from what I can see.

Putin's 'toe hold' in Syria is now more than a toe hold. It's larger than any U.S. sphere of control via a land base.

He's dug in and doesn't look like he's going away any time soon....or at all.

Obviously, huge ramifications to this move, politically, militarily.

The first question I have is how many batteries and how many missiles are being sent? (Not that it couldn't increase overnight.)

Thoughts?

A bit of an afterthought.

Perhaps we should revisit deploying the ABM system in eastern Europe?....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Perhaps we should revisit deploying the ABM system in eastern Europe?

Perhaps we should just get the hell out of the region and start minding our own business. Haven't we already done enough damage over there? What happens in Syria has nothing to do with our national security.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: nwtrucker

Perhaps we should revisit deploying the ABM system in eastern Europe?

Perhaps we should just get the hell out of the region and start minding our own business. Haven't we already done enough damage over there? What happens in Syria has nothing to do with our national security.

No.

originally posted by: buster2010
Perhaps we should just get the hell out of the region and start minding our own business. Haven't we already done enough damage over there? What happens in Syria has nothing to do with our national security.

Think how low the price of gas would be if we told Saddam do what you want but sell oil at 25 bucks a barrel to us. We can't get the hell out we have so much more to do...lol

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: buster2010
Perhaps we should just get the hell out of the region and start minding our own business. Haven't we already done enough damage over there? What happens in Syria has nothing to do with our national security.

Think how low the price of gas would be if we told Saddam do what you want but sell oil at 25 bucks a barrel to us. We can't get the hell out we have so much more to do...lol

Might have actually worked....before he went into Kuwait. But then again, he turned down his own Island and all the money and broads he'd ever need if he'd abdicate.....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
A bit of an afterthought.

Perhaps we should revisit deploying the ABM system in eastern Europe?....

Europe has no need for US missiles, please keep them!

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Might have actually worked....before he went into Kuwait. But then again, he turned down his own Island and all the money and broads he'd ever need if he'd abdicate.....

I never understood that. He could have gone anywhere and put 100 billion in banks around the world and he and his sick sons could live in total luxury the rest of their lives.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Your post made me think back to the days I would play command & conquer etc on the PC and how I would always strategize for preemptive strikes and so on.

Makes me feel even more like we are all just part of a giant game.

a reply to: nwtrucker

So they don't have 'em on their ships?

www.theguardian.com...

They just didn't want to shoot anybody down, at least until now.

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver

originally posted by: nwtrucker
A bit of an afterthought.

Perhaps we should revisit deploying the ABM system in eastern Europe?....

Europe has no need for US missiles, please keep them!

So speaks the Brit....who have their own ABM system....middle finger....pointed upward....

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: nwtrucker

So they don't have 'em on their ships?

www.theguardian.com...

They just didn't want to shoot anybody down, at least until now.

I'm no expert. Missile cruisers are more offensive, I would think. Cruise missiles and the like. Some defensive missiles, surely, yet the S400 are state of the art ground-based.

a reply to: nwtrucker

No defense weapon whatsoever, that's the legendary (alleged) carrier-killer.

Russia plans to have 28 S-400 regiments by 2020, each comprising two or three battalions with four systems each, mainly in maritime and border areas

wiki

a reply to: nwtrucker

Personal insults so soon in your thread?

And in case you hadn't noticed, I don't live there (Britland) for the last 20 plus years, hate the place and it's politics and it's "archaic charm".

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Putin's 'toe hold' in Syria is now more than a toe hold. It's larger than any U.S. sphere of control via a land base.

Thoughts?

1. He already had SAMs in place for some time. In fact, there have been geolocated pix of S-400s for a week before the shoot down.

2. He already has significant ground troops in Syria. Artillery is acknowledged, but at least a small number of motorized rifle brigades. Der Spiegel has an article in German about this. They are highlighting the trajectory Putin is following: its pretty close to what he did in Ukraine. Deny everything and anything just to obscure the situation and allow the willfully blind to claim what is happening is not.

3. Yeah, we're not going to be able to dig him out without either fighting a direct war or a proxy war. The former will not happen. The former would need for us being willing to risk weapons getting into the IS/Daesh hands that could be a significant problem (*cough*MANPADS*cough*). We have been flooding some factions with TOW missiles and they have been really useful. However...

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: nwtrucker

Personal insults so soon in your thread?

And in case you hadn't noticed, I don't live there (Britland) for the last 20 plus years, hate the place and it's politics and it's "archaic charm".

Then apologies.

Yet, personally, I find it apropos based on your arrogance suggesting "Europe", specifically eastern Europe, doesn't need AMBs.

Do we "need" a military? A police force? A fire extinguisher? Locks on doors?

Let me be clear, the 'need' just went up on multiple levels....

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: nwtrucker

No defense weapon whatsoever, that's the legendary (alleged) carrier-killer.

Russia plans to have 28 S-400 regiments by 2020, each comprising two or three battalions with four systems each, mainly in maritime and border areas

wiki

Double ouch! Then there HAS to be a response. A strong one.

a reply to: anzha

they have been working on the S-500's or so i have thought. if i were Assad i would want the best of the best in terms of RUS hard wear watching the sky's of where i slept.

i would think with Russian troops and equipment being deployed, if i were a prudent commander i would send a few tactical nukes along, let US assets see then signature so no one looses there cool.
maybe part of the reason why were not up in arms over the Turkey shoot down.

a reply to: anzha

We have been flooding some factions with TOW missiles and they have been really useful.

Saudi Arabia has said they sent them 500 of those bad boys.

BBC correspondent Frank Gardner tweeted that a Saudi official confirmed the delivery of 500 TOW antitank missiles to the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

www.businessinsider.com...

a reply to: penroc3

S-500s are still being worked on. You don't send new buggy equipment to to a war zone.

Based on our experiences watching the development of the PAK-FA and their new SLBM, the S-500 will take time and may not be what the Russians advertise.