Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Limits of Russia's Air Power Exposed


Claire.

Recommended Posts

Fight for Syria's Aleppo exposes limits of Russian air power.

Russia's politically-sensitive and ultimately fruitless decision to launch bombing missions on Syria from Iranian soil has exposed the limits to its air power, leaving Moscow in need of a new strategy to advance its aims.

People familiar with Russia's military said Moscow opted for the sorties from Iran - and Tehran agreed to allow them - because they were struggling to achieve their aim of crushing rebels in the city of Aleppo. The gamble failed and rebels fighting their ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Aasad, remain ensconced in parts of Aleppo.

Read more: Reuters

:lol:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clair said:

Fight for Syria's Aleppo exposes limits of Russian air power.

Russia's politically-sensitive and ultimately fruitless decision to launch bombing missions on Syria from Iranian soil has exposed the limits to its air power, leaving Moscow in need of a new strategy to advance its aims.

People familiar with Russia's military said Moscow opted for the sorties from Iran - and Tehran agreed to allow them - because they were struggling to achieve their aim of crushing rebels in the city of Aleppo. The gamble failed and rebels fighting their ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Aasad, remain ensconced in parts of Aleppo.

Read more: Reuters

:lol:

Not sure about this article painting an acturate picture of Russian air power when the fact is that the U.S. bombed Islamic State for 5 years without any where near the same result as that achieved by Russia in 1 year. 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

Not sure about this article painting an acturate picture of Russian air power when the fact is that the U.S. bombed Islamic State for 5 years without any where near the same result as that achieved by Russia in 1 year. 

 

It's easy to have more results when instead of requiring precision bombing and no civilian casualties you just level the whole block and have no concern over how many civilians are killed or injured.

But the article is right in exposing a general weakness of Russian air power, and Russia in general, that Russia currently does not have the ability to project power like the USSR could nor do they have the economy to support an extensive air campaign for long far from Russia.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

It's easy to have more results when instead of requiring precision bombing and no civilian casualties you just level the whole block and have no concern over how many civilians are killed or injured.

But the article is right in exposing a general weakness of Russian air power, and Russia in general, that Russia currently does not have the ability to project power like the USSR could nor do they have the economy to support an extensive air campaign for long far from Russia.

I don't think that precision bombing was ever an issue cause if it was after 7000 sorties then surely the U.S. would have wiped out IS. The rules of engagement that held back the U.S. onslaught probably played a bigger part in Russia's success cause they had none.

As for Russia's weakness, they co ordinated and used cruise missiles, fighter planes, short range bombers and long range bombers. They used naval vessels and surface to air complexes with a high degree of intelligence.

How many country's could have done that? Not many in guessing. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

Not sure about this article painting an acturate picture of Russian air power when the fact is that the U.S. bombed Islamic State for 5 years without any where near the same result as that achieved by Russia in 1 year. 

 

Pilots complained (privately) that they nearly always returned to base with the weapons still attached.   The ROE's were so tight they usually couldn't drop their ordnance.  Not much of a true comparison.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

I don't think that precision bombing was ever an issue cause if it was after 7000 sorties then surely the U.S. would have wiped out IS. The rules of engagement that held back the U.S. onslaught probably played a bigger part in Russia's success cause they had none.

As for Russia's weakness, they co ordinated and used cruise missiles, fighter planes, short range bombers and long range bombers. They used naval vessels and surface to air complexes with a high degree of intelligence.

How many country's could have done that? Not many in guessing. 

So far Russia has used about 25 strategic bombers, 20 tactical bombers, 12 attack bombers, 8 fighter aircraft, 14 attack helicopters, 4 utility helicopters, 3 corvettes, 1 frigate, and 1 submarine so they are not really coordinating a massive combined arms assault force.   

Given that they have one of their largest naval bases in Syria along with Syria providing support its not really that impressive.  To top it off operating that relatively small force for about a year is straining Russia's economy and logistical ability.  

As for high degree of intelligence that is a bit debatable.  Russia has been documented bombing schools, hospitals, and civilian targets during their military intervention.  Russia alone has killed between 2000 and 3000 civilians in about 10 months.

As for the countries that could do what Russia has done so far in Syria that is tricky to answer.  Strictly speaking only the United States and Russia still currently use strategic bombers with China still developing one.  If allowing for some leeway and looking at effect and not strict copying just about any country with a navy, airforce, and a half decent economy could do what Russia has done so far.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

So far Russia has used about 25 strategic bombers, 20 tactical bombers, 12 attack bombers, 8 fighter aircraft, 14 attack helicopters, 4 utility helicopters, 3 corvettes, 1 frigate, and 1 submarine so they are not really coordinating a massive combined arms assault force.   

Given that they have one of their largest naval bases in Syria along with Syria providing support its not really that impressive.  To top it off operating that relatively small force for about a year is straining Russia's economy and logistical ability.  

As for high degree of intelligence that is a bit debatable.  Russia has been documented bombing schools, hospitals, and civilian targets during their military intervention.  Russia alone has killed between 2000 and 3000 civilians in about 10 months.

As for the countries that could do what Russia has done so far in Syria that is tricky to answer.  Strictly speaking only the United States and Russia still currently use strategic bombers with China still developing one.  If allowing for some leeway and looking at effect and not strict copying just about any country with a navy, airforce, and a half decent economy could do what Russia has done so far.

I don't see your point. Russia is operating outside of its borders. Conducting and co-ordinating a war that is actually getting results. No offence to America but the U.S. is the only real superpower left and it has 300 air assets in the region targeting IS and it hasn't achieved any where near the definitive result that Russia has in the last 5 years. Sure Russia has bombed schools and hospitals that the Americans and their allies haven't to target IS fighters and killed many civilians but lets not forget that that pales in comparison to all the ***** footing around from the West and their friends keeping this war going with their inaction. Which has led to over 300000 lives lost. As callous as it sounds i think a bit of collateral damage in order to hasten an end to this conflict is acceptable.

Another point worth making is that Russia has achieved this while operating next door to a NATO ally. Co-ordinating Syrian airspace and keeping NATO fighters away from its own. An impressive feat. No other country barring America and China could do so alone. I can't imagine the UK or France going it alone in Syria. Turkey which has the second largest army in NATO and shares a land border obviously couldn't and had to resort to fighting Assad via a proxy. 

Even the Americans have refused to be drawn into this conflict are now working with the only other player capable of ending this war.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, and then said:

Pilots complained (privately) that they nearly always returned to base with the weapons still attached.   The ROE's were so tight they usually couldn't drop their ordnance.  Not much of a true comparison.

Yeah the rules of engagement for American pilots were very restrictive. Negating American airpower to the point that it was little more than a public relations junket. One has to question why. were the RoE that restrictive in A'stan and Iraq? i don't think so. So why were they in Syria? And how could an inferior Russian force achieve so much in so short a period...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

Yeah the rules of engagement for American pilots were very restrictive. Negating American airpower to the point that it was little more than a public relations junket. One has to question why. were the RoE that restrictive in A'stan and Iraq? i don't think so. So why were they in Syria? And how could an inferior Russian force achieve so much in so short a period...

If we are talking about achievements against ISIS, most achieving force are Kurds. Heck, even Turks are pi$$ing their pants seeing how much land Kurds freed from ISIS scumbags...

BTW, do you remember when Russkies proclaimed "Mission accomplished"? T'was in march...

Edited by bmk1245
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syria is only a tool for Russian Ukrainian adventures, look how the USA and Russia are always locked in continuous talks over Syria. The USA/West cannot do anything without involving Russia. - . their currently negotiating a ceasefire. It was a clever move by the Russians Invade Ukraine, annex Crimea and then grab yourself a great big whacking stick. that's comes in the form of Syria. - I'd love to be a fly on the wall in these Syrian talks how many times have the West proposed something and Russia as said yes we agree "but what about them Ukrainian sanctions again" - Russia doing what it does best.

I cannot wait to read the book/ memoir by the current Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. we might have to wait a few years or more but it'll make a hell of read, like all such books do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cant remove an entrenched enemy with Air Power. You need a combined Air Campaign followed up closely by well trained ground troops.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

If we are talking about achievements against ISIS, most achieving force are Kurds. Heck, even Turks are pi$$ing their pants seeing how much land Kurds freed from ISIS scumbags...

BTW, do you remember when Russkies proclaimed "Mission accomplished"? T'was in march...

You missed the point. It was Russian air power that created the conditions that allowed not just the Kurds BUT also Assad's forces to swing the war back into the governments corner. Even though Russia has and is cooperating with the Kurds... the Kurds are primarily U.S. allies. Its the Americans that have been suppling and training the Kurds. Kobane comes to mind as it was U.S, air power that broke the IS siege. They did so against the wishes of their NATO allies Turkey. So you're right the American deserve alot more credit for turning the tide in Syria.  

And what is your point about Putin's ' mission accomplished' statement? Russia by that time clearly broke IS and he said that if there was a need he would send back the bulk of his forces back into Syria. 

Edited by Leto_loves_melange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

I don't see your point. Russia is operating outside of its borders. Conducting and co-ordinating a war that is actually getting results. No offence to America but the U.S. is the only real superpower left and it has 300 air assets in the region targeting IS and it hasn't achieved any where near the definitive result that Russia has in the last 5 years. Sure Russia has bombed schools and hospitals that the Americans and their allies haven't to target IS fighters and killed many civilians but lets not forget that that pales in comparison to all the ***** footing around from the West and their friends keeping this war going with their inaction. Which has led to over 300000 lives lost. As callous as it sounds i think a bit of collateral damage in order to hasten an end to this conflict is acceptable.

Another point worth making is that Russia has achieved this while operating next door to a NATO ally. Co-ordinating Syrian airspace and keeping NATO fighters away from its own. An impressive feat. No other country barring America and China could do so alone. I can't imagine the UK or France going it alone in Syria. Turkey which has the second largest army in NATO and shares a land border obviously couldn't and had to resort to fighting Assad via a proxy. 

Even the Americans have refused to be drawn into this conflict are now working with the only other player capable of ending this war.   

Russia is acting outside of its borders, but from their largest naval base in a friendly country.  Even with a large naval base and the full support and aid from Syria, Russia isn't able to really mount any more of a military presence then what any second rate military power could do given the same circumstances, along with getting similar results one would expect from a second rate military power.

As for the results Russia has go, that is a bit mixed at best.  So far Russia has killed 2,605 ISIS members, 2,524 other militants from various rebel forces, and about 3,189 civilians so almost 40% of the people Russia has killed in their bombing campaign has been civilians all within a 10 month period roughly.

In the roughly 2 years that America has been involved in Syria, since Russia is only in Syria I'm going to ignore American intervention in Iraq for now, America has killed 5,251 ISIS members, 147 militants from various rebel forces, and 606 civilians.  If you add in American led intervention in Iraq then you need to add about 12,100 ISIS members killed and about 1000 civilians killed also in about 2 years of active intervention.

To put the Syrian numbers in perspective so far about 290,800 people have died during the Syrian civil war.  Of that about 104,000 have been pro government forces, about 100,000 anti government forces including ISIS, Al Nursa, moderate rebels, and Kurdish forces, and about 85,000 civilian casualties.

Initially it doesn't look too bad for Russia till you look at when these casualties have occurred, most of the civilian casualties occurred before the United States or Russia has been involved in Syria.  Since Russia's involvement they have been responsible for almost 25% of the civilian casualties alone.

As for results it seems clear that in about the 2 years that America has done military intervention overall it has greatly out performed what Russia has done.

Operating next to Turkey doesn't really have any effect what so ever on what Russia is doing, they are acting solely in friendly territory with the full support of the local government.  As for Russa co-ordinating Syrian airspace and keeping NATO jets away from their own as you put it, they aren't doing a very good job.  A little over a week ago the Russians apparently had no idea Syrian planes, which they are supposed to be coordinating, had violated airspace over Syria that both Russia and the Syrian government agreed to not fly planes over.  If you meant instead that Russian planes are dictating airspace to NATO planes that is simply not true since both Russia and Syria have agreed to keep their planes out of certain air spaces controlled by NATO over Syria and in June had their bombers chased off by American jets from bombing NSA forces.

Both the UK and France could both easily do what Russia has done so far alone in large part to them both having a superior navy and better force projection then Russia currently has.  Basically those two could do what Russia has done with Syria being friendly or not, Russia couldn't of done what they have done without Syria being friendly and having a large naval base present, simply Russia can not project power far from themselves without support and aid from a local government/s for any meaningful amount of time.

As for Turkey fighting Assad by proxy, it's not because they couldn't handle Assad alone which they easily could especially after the civil war started, but that it better serves their interest to fight Assad by proxy instead of outright.  An outright fight against Assad would of caused a war between Turkey and Russia and since Turkey would of been the aggressor it would of been difficult if not impossible to bring the rest of NATO in.  Between just Russia and Turkey, Russia would probably win that war but at great cost.  So it only makes sense to use a proxy force instead of more overt means.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Russia is acting outside of its borders, but from their largest naval base in a friendly country.  Even with a large naval base and the full support and aid from Syria, Russia isn't able to really mount any more of a military presence then what any second rate military power could do given the same circumstances, along with getting similar results one would expect from a second rate military power.

As for the results Russia has go, that is a bit mixed at best.  So far Russia has killed 2,605 ISIS members, 2,524 other militants from various rebel forces, and about 3,189 civilians so almost 40% of the people Russia has killed in their bombing campaign has been civilians all within a 10 month period roughly.

In the roughly 2 years that America has been involved in Syria, since Russia is only in Syria I'm going to ignore American intervention in Iraq for now, America has killed 5,251 ISIS members, 147 militants from various rebel forces, and 606 civilians.  If you add in American led intervention in Iraq then you need to add about 12,100 ISIS members killed and about 1000 civilians killed also in about 2 years of active intervention.

To put the Syrian numbers in perspective so far about 290,800 people have died during the Syrian civil war.  Of that about 104,000 have been pro government forces, about 100,000 anti government forces including ISIS, Al Nursa, moderate rebels, and Kurdish forces, and about 85,000 civilian casualties.

Initially it doesn't look too bad for Russia till you look at when these casualties have occurred, most of the civilian casualties occurred before the United States or Russia has been involved in Syria.  Since Russia's involvement they have been responsible for almost 25% of the civilian casualties alone.

As for results it seems clear that in about the 2 years that America has done military intervention overall it has greatly out performed what Russia has done.

Operating next to Turkey doesn't really have any effect what so ever on what Russia is doing, they are acting solely in friendly territory with the full support of the local government.  As for Russa co-ordinating Syrian airspace and keeping NATO jets away from their own as you put it, they aren't doing a very good job.  A little over a week ago the Russians apparently had no idea Syrian planes, which they are supposed to be coordinating, had violated airspace over Syria that both Russia and the Syrian government agreed to not fly planes over.  If you meant instead that Russian planes are dictating airspace to NATO planes that is simply not true since both Russia and Syria have agreed to keep their planes out of certain air spaces controlled by NATO over Syria and in June had their bombers chased off by American jets from bombing NSA forces.

Both the UK and France could both easily do what Russia has done so far alone in large part to them both having a superior navy and better force projection then Russia currently has.  Basically those two could do what Russia has done with Syria being friendly or not, Russia couldn't of done what they have done without Syria being friendly and having a large naval base present, simply Russia can not project power far from themselves without support and aid from a local government/s for any meaningful amount of time.

As for Turkey fighting Assad by proxy, it's not because they couldn't handle Assad alone which they easily could especially after the civil war started, but that it better serves their interest to fight Assad by proxy instead of outright.  An outright fight against Assad would of caused a war between Turkey and Russia and since Turkey would of been the aggressor it would of been difficult if not impossible to bring the rest of NATO in.  Between just Russia and Turkey, Russia would probably win that war but at great cost.  So it only makes sense to use a proxy force instead of more overt means.

Thanks for the figures you have provided on the Syrian civil war. But you have conveniently left out that Russia has achieved more result in a shorter span of time than what the U.S. has. Russia just didn't decide, outta the blue to kill civilians, like you insinuate. They have aggressively gone after IS members attacking them while they hide in mosques, hospitals, markets and schools. They have turned whatever support the civilian population had for IS around and given them no where to go. Its a scorched earth policy. One that the Americans couldn't afford. Still the fact is that the longer IS is around the more atrocities occur. I wonder if you have any statistics on Islamic State cruelty? Or the fact that by America giving a chit what the propaganda merchants write and publish its only prolonging the war and suffering. 

Now are you seriously gonna tell me that France and the UK could and would have gone in Syria alone with so many hostile forces. Gone up against the possible wrath of Turkey if it attacked IS or Al Nursa? Maybe taken on Iran if it attacked its forces or those of its proxies. Or maybe both? I don't think so. And its for this very reason why no one else decided to enter Syria. Turkey if it had entered would have triggered a wider war with Iran and Russia and quite possibly America if it tried to attack the Kurds. 

Turkey during the siege of Kobane allowed Islamic State fighters to out flank the Kurdish defenders by travelling through Turkish territory. Thats where the Americans drew the line and proceeded to bomb IS. Do you still think that France or the UK could have put the Turks and Iranians on ice in order to push their agenda?  

Edited by Leto_loves_melange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

Thanks for the figures you have provided on the Syrian civil war. But you have conveniently left out that Russia has achieved more result in a shorter span of time than what the U.S. has. Russia just didn't decide, outta the blue to kill civilians, like you insinuate. They have aggressively gone after IS members attacking them while they hide in mosques, hospitals, markets and schools. They have turned whatever support the civilian population had for IS around and given them no where to go. Its a scorched earth policy. One that the Americans couldn't afford. Still the fact is that the longer IS is around the more atrocities occur. I wonder if you have any statistics on Islamic State cruelty? Or the fact that by America giving a chit what the propaganda merchants write and publish its only prolonging the war and suffering. 

Now are you seriously gonna tell me that France and the UK could and would have gone in Syria alone with so many hostile forces. Gone up against the possible wrath of Turkey if it attacked IS or Al Nursa? Maybe taken on Iran if it attacked its forces or those of its proxies. Or maybe both? I don't think so. And its for this very reason why no one else decided to enter Syria. Turkey if it had entered would have triggered a wider war with Iran and Russia and quite possibly America if it tried to attack the Kurds. 

Turkey during the siege of Kobane allowed Islamic State fighters to out flank the Kurdish defenders by travelling through Turkish territory. Thats where the Americans drew the line and proceeded to bomb IS. Do you still think that France or the UK could have put the Turks and Iranians on ice in order to push their agenda?  

I mentioned in a previous post that Russia has been using military intervention for roughly the past 10 months and saw no need to repeat information.  As for Russia achieving more results in a shorter amount of time, from the numbers that just isn't true.  Russia is killing about 510 anti government forces a month, about 255 ISIS killed a month and about 255 anti government forces that include everything from Al Nursa to NSA.  While America is targeting ISIS alone for the most part and averaging about 710 ISIS members killed a month. 

As for the amount of civilians killed in Syria by ISIS, the numbers seem to be around 2,000 to 3,000 civilians killed.  For how brutal ISIS, and they do need to be stopped, Russia and especially the Syrian government have killed far more civilians then ISIS.  Reported numbers seem to indicate that Assad is responsible for about 85% of the total civilian casualties so far.

Of course Russia didn't just decide to start killing civilians but such high civilian casualties highlights the limitations and weaknesses of Russian air power.  There are so many civilian casualties not because they are so aggressively going after ISIS and other rebels but because Russia is forced to use dumb bombs and cluster munition instead of precision weaponry.  Since Russia can't use precision weaponry in high numbers instead of just taking out a house they have to level an entire block to make sure they killed their target which is causing the drastically higher civilian casualties.  The USSR lagged behind NATO in production and quality of precision bombs and missiles and Russia being just a shadow of the USSR in terms of ability has greatly increased that divide.  Russia simply does not have the production nor logistical ability to use precision weapons on a large scale for a long period of time.

As for turning public opinion ISIS never had popular support from the larger population to begin with and Russia's bombing had no effect on that.  If anything Russia's mass killing of civilians is turning more of the general population against Assad.

You are vastly under estimating the military force of both the UK and France.  Both have large navies, both being one of the few countries to have aircraft carriers, both have large modern airforce, and well trained and equipped armies.  

Turkey never would of attacked either of those countries.  While Turkey has a larger ground force then either France or UK they are still behind them in naval and air power.  Also most of their army is using far more dated equipment then the UK or France.  Beyond just military reasons there are political and economic reasons Turkey wouldn't hit back against France or the UK.  Turkey would complain more and possibly give them a hard time but wouldn't attack.

As for Iran they are not a threat at all.  Iran has almost no ability to project power other then using its proxy Hezbollah which even then can't really reach beyond the local region.  For Iran to actively intervene they would need to move forces through Iraq, which would cause massive problems as they would have to deal with hostile Sunni and Arab factions harassing their supply lines.  Even then Iran has no blue water navy, they barely have a costal navy, their airforce is largely nonexistent, and their army isn't as well trained or equipped as UK or France.  Any confrontation Iran would attempt far from their country would end with them being massacred.

In short both the UK and France could of put Turkey on ice and Iran isn't even a real threat to begin with.

Turkey attacking could of caused a larger war with Russia without America backing them, but America would never go to war with Turkey for attacking the Kurds, at most America would just withdrawal military support from Turkey's assault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add a bit of info 'bout Russians not using cluster munition (as they claimed numerous times), RT (Russia Today) made blooper by showing exactly the opposite (0:45 timestamp):

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

I mentioned in a previous post that Russia has been using military intervention for roughly the past 10 months and saw no need to repeat information.  As for Russia achieving more results in a shorter amount of time, from the numbers that just isn't true.  Russia is killing about 510 anti government forces a month, about 255 ISIS killed a month and about 255 anti government forces that include everything from Al Nursa to NSA.  While America is targeting ISIS alone for the most part and averaging about 710 ISIS members killed a month. 

As for the amount of civilians killed in Syria by ISIS, the numbers seem to be around 2,000 to 3,000 civilians killed.  For how brutal ISIS, and they do need to be stopped, Russia and especially the Syrian government have killed far more civilians then ISIS.  Reported numbers seem to indicate that Assad is responsible for about 85% of the total civilian casualties so far.

Of course Russia didn't just decide to start killing civilians but such high civilian casualties highlights the limitations and weaknesses of Russian air power.  There are so many civilian casualties not because they are so aggressively going after ISIS and other rebels but because Russia is forced to use dumb bombs and cluster munition instead of precision weaponry.  Since Russia can't use precision weaponry in high numbers instead of just taking out a house they have to level an entire block to make sure they killed their target which is causing the drastically higher civilian casualties.  The USSR lagged behind NATO in production and quality of precision bombs and missiles and Russia being just a shadow of the USSR in terms of ability has greatly increased that divide.  Russia simply does not have the production nor logistical ability to use precision weapons on a large scale for a long period of time.

I can't understand how you can continue to say that Russian military involvement hasn't been a game changer in Syria. Especially since before Russia involved itself these last 8 months IS was the dominate military power in Syria . Assad's regime was on its last legs before the Russians got involved. Since the Russian bombing campaign IS has lost 30% of all its territory. IS oil trade has been destroyed and its tax base decimated. Something that the U.S. Just couldn't/wouldn't do. Someone has to take credit for that and that's Russia.

...and its not just air power that Russia has thrown into Syria, but boots on the ground. Something again that the U.S. and Turkey have been reluctant to do. Iran has ground troops also and Shia gunmen. In short a coalition against IS and the proxies fighting on behalf of foreign countries. Again some thing that the Turks haven't done and the Americans only with advisors directing Kurdish forces. 

You mentioned somehow that Russian kit isn't up to Western standards and you are right but saying that it's responsible for all the civilian deaths is exaggerating. 

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/did-russia-really-build-smarter-smart-bomb-15484

an interesting article that spells out the nature of Russian tech and dispels the myths about Russian weapons.

Russia is using dumb bombs but the smart component is attached to the aircraft. Their bombs go exactly where they want them to go. I will not argue the size of Russia's weapons research and production but saying that cause it isn't greater or more advanced than America's then it's useless is plainly wrong. In any case it's certainly greater than France and the U.K. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

As for Iran they are not a threat at all.  Iran has almost no ability to project power other then using its proxy Hezbollah which even then can't really reach beyond the local region.  For Iran to actively intervene they would need to move forces through Iraq, which would cause massive problems as they would have to deal with hostile Sunni and Arab factions harassing their supply lines.  Even then Iran has no blue water navy, they barely have a costal navy, their airforce is largely nonexistent, and their army isn't as well trained or equipped as UK or France.  Any confrontation Iran would attempt far from their country would end with them being massacred.

In short both the UK and France could of put Turkey on ice and Iran isn't even a real threat to begin with.

Turkey attacking could of caused a larger war with Russia without America backing them, but America would never go to war with Turkey for attacking the Kurds, at most America would just withdrawal military support from Turkey's assault.

Someone should tell the Saudis that Iran cannot project power in Yemen and the Israelis that their is no Iranian presence in Lebanon or the Ameicans that Iraq is free of Iranian involvement.

France and the U.K. Need to work within NATO to achieve anything outside their borders and especially in the Middle East. Not playing down the excellent militaries that France and the U.K. have but without a safe country to launch any operations and logistic lines, or weapons not reliant on a third party In Syria the Turks would have eaten those two country's for breakfast. They just don't have political and military strength to make Turkey or Iran back down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

[...] IS oil trade has been destroyed and its tax base decimated. Something that the U.S. Just couldn't/wouldn't do. Someone has to take credit for that and that's Russia.

[...]

Heh, did you forgot when Russkies were outraged when US/French bombed ISIS oil facilities? Outrage was understandable, cause Assad was buying oil from ISIS monitored wells. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Heh, did you forgot when Russkies were outraged when US/French bombed ISIS oil facilities? Outrage was understandable, cause Assad was buying oil from ISIS monitored wells. 

Oh... you mean the IS oil trucks that were bombed by the French and IS in retaliation for the Paris terror attacks? 

https://www.rt.com/usa/322330-isis-oil-trucks-destroyed/

...have a read. I especially liked the part about the U.S. Dropping leaflets warning the drivers of the oil trucks that their vehicles were about to be bombed. Very considerate and humane (cough cough).

Please show me were the Russians were upset? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

Oh... you mean the IS oil trucks that were bombed by the French and IS in retaliation for the Paris terror attacks? 

https://www.rt.com/usa/322330-isis-oil-trucks-destroyed/

...have a read. I especially liked the part about the U.S. Dropping leaflets warning the drivers of the oil trucks that their vehicles were about to be bombed. Very considerate and humane (cough cough).

Please show me were the Russians were upset? :)

Here yea go, link in Russian. Punch it into google translator, and you'll get bit more than RT vomits. Pay attention to Rogachev words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2016 at 4:47 PM, Leto_loves_melange said:

Not sure about this article painting an acturate picture of Russian air power when the fact is that the U.S. bombed Islamic State for 5 years without any where near the same result as that achieved by Russia in 1 year. 

 

you assume that us goal was to destroy  entire isis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1 September 2016 at 7:20 AM, bmk1245 said:

Here yea go, link in Russian. Punch it into google translator, and you'll get bit more than RT vomits. Pay attention to Rogachev words.

Link in Russian is a cop out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, aztek said:

you assume that us goal was to destroy  entire isis. 

Well you have a point. If they wanted IS gone then they could have very easily done so with their 300 odd air assets. Still Russia used only 40 odd fixed aircraft to do the same job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.