Israel launches heavy Syria strikes after F-16 crashes

[stevenl]

59 minutes ago, Naam said:

i might not agree with Morch's argumentation but hitting back like this is not his style.

I was not hitting at Morch, merely pointing out that some posters here refer any anti Israel comments straight away as anti-semitic.

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I was not hitting at Morch, merely pointing out that some posters here refer any anti Israel comments straight away as anti-semitic.

Although I do think that there are double standards .

Say if the Israelis had their army on Irans borders and the Israeli army had joined forces with one of the warring factions there and Israel had the possible intentions of making Iran obsolete and the Israelis flew a drone over Iran and the Iranians shot the Israeli drone down and then attacked the Israeli launch site  .

   You can absolutely sure that posters on TV would have a different opinion to their opinion on the current situation  

[dexterm]

30 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Although I do think that there are double standards .

Say if the Israelis had their army on Irans borders and the Israeli army had joined forces with one of the warring factions there and Israel had the possible intentions of making Iran obsolete and the Israelis flew a drone over Iran and the Iranians shot the Israeli drone down and then attacked the Israeli launch site  .

   You can absolutely sure that posters on TV would have a different opinion to their opinion on the current situation  

>>and the Israeli army had joined forces with one of the warring factions there
...they have! Don't want to drift off topic. So do your own research to find out which faction Israel is supporting as a proxy right on Iran's borders.

 

I think the west and especially the USA are being softened up to accept a major confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah and Iran. 

Israel will most likely win, but at what cost to the 1000s of civilian lives lost on both sides. Missiles can reach Tel Aviv now.

 

Why does it always have to be the big stick overreaction and belligerence from Israel? Sure it has helped it survive for 70 years (don't call it much of a life though..more like paranoid existence), but sooner or later someone may have a bigger stick. Permanent peace in agreed upon borders is a much better option.

 

If they want to be accepted in the neighborhood, why don't they try a spot of detente and peace making...and start with the very large elephant in the room which is the root cause of much of the confllict in the Middle East?

[sanemax]

17 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>and the Israeli army had joined forces with one of the warring factions there
...they have! Don't want to drift off topic. So do your own research to find out which faction Israel is supporting as a proxy right on Iran's borders.

 

 

What do you suggest that I put into my search function ?

Where are Israeli soldiers stationed on Irans borders ?

[boomerangutang]

Mess with Israeli Defense Forces - at your peril.

[Morch]

 

@Thorgal

 

You can repeat "supposed" (with regard to the Iranian UAV) to your heart's content. It doesn't change reality. And as for your "expert" legal opinion - wrong. There is no international provision which allows a country to violate another country's airspace at will, regardless of the payload carried or the mission executed. All the more so when the UAV in question did so with regard to two countries (Jordan and Israel). That you term the incursion "innocent" is not supported by fact or logic. "Innocent" how? Just flying around for fun? And no, there is no legal obligation to provide advance warning for military targets. When it comes to legal advice, don't quit your day job.

 

As for your intentionally muddled version of events - lets try again. The Iranian UAV is intercepted, Israel launches an air strike on the control element and other Iranian targets in Syria. On the return from that mission, one of the Israeli aircraft was hit by a Syrian SAM. Israel then carried out a second air strike, mostly aimed at Syrian air defenses. The initial Israeli response to the Iranian UAV incursion was more limited than you allege. Lumping later events does not change facts.

 

With regard to the standard insinuation ("strangely well known") - nothing strange about that, unless you pretend to be unfamiliar with the concept of intelligence gathering. Apparently it is "innocent" for the Iranians to spy on Israel, but not so the other way around. All air forces worth their salt have standing operations files with appropriate mission profiles, in that sense, most aerial attacks are premeditated - but that's a far cry from the nonsense you push.

 

Had things been reversed, you would no doubt denounce Israel for flying a UAV in Syrian air space,  and condone whatever reaction Syria or Iran would have taken.

 

The Iranian UAV flight path was monitored and tracked. It was intentionally intercepted when it crossed over. the border and it did not make it all that deep into Israel (do make up your mind on this one....). The Israeli aircraft shot down, yes - considering the last time this happened was some 30 odd years ago, and taking into account numerous Israeli sorties (which were previously whined about), not too bad a record.

 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

No, the supposed Iranian UAV was shot down.

This was apparently enough to retaliate with 8 Israeli F-16’s into Syria and to bomb 12 targets.

The Syrian Air defense didn’t like that and fired an old surface-to-air missile which brought down one of 8 Israeli F-16’s.

Quote from link:

“In response to the sighting of the drone crossing into Israeli-occupied territory, the Israeli air force, including 8 planes, struck the base which the Israeli military said operated the unmanned aircraft.

The attack prompted a response from the Syrian Air Defense system, which after firing on the Israeli jets, shot down an Israeli F-16 fighter jet over northern Israel, as it was returning from a bombing raid.

The jet came down near kibbutz Harduf, east of Haifa, and the two pilots operating the plane ejected and were injured, one of them critically.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_2018_Israel–Syria_incident



Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

From the same link:

 

Quote

Sirens were heard in the early morning in northern Israel and flights at Tel Aviv’s international airport were briefly halted. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held security consultations following the incident, and Israel conducted several attacks against the Syrian Aerial Defense System and targets which Israel alleges are Iranian targets in Syria in response to the downing of the F-16.

 

As said, there were two waves of aerial attacks.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

I was not hitting at Morch, merely pointing out that some posters here refer any anti Israel comments straight away as anti-semitic.

 

Pull the other one. It was clearly posted in the context of the exchange I had with @Grouse. Unless mistaken, you are the only one who brought this up, which would make quite a lame straw man argument. About as to the point as your earlier "contribution" to the discussion.

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

So none of this has anything to do with Iranian provocations whatsoever? All of Israel's neighbors and farther regional players are simply waiting with outreached hands waiting to make peace? What a load.

 

And as usual, no urgent faux pleas for other involved countries or parties to do their part for deescalation or promoting peace. No calls for others to try a "spot of detente" etc. This incident was started by an Iranian action, which you seek to minimize, ignore or deny. Spin it however you like - won't change facts.

 

[pkspeaker]

19 hours ago, sanemax said:

Yes, the Israeli  jet entered Syrian airspace to destroy the drone launching vehicle and after the Israeli f 16 got shot down, other Israeli F16s went back into Syria to destroy where those missiles came from

That likly did not happen, this was an S-200 missile, most likely one of these 'modified' Iranian tech ones:

 

Earlier one of these apparently clipped an F-35 but it wasn't damaged enough to crash.. There is not much 'from' to destroy when one of these are used.  The strikes israel conducted in retaliation for the F-16 downing were likly missile strikes so that more maned israeli jets would not get downed with a captured pilot crisis..

 

Syria is no also packing the much more dangerous S-300 SAM system, and the Russian area is covered by the S-400.. Israel has lost air superiority over Syria which is something they had earlier in the civil war.

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

That likly did not happen, this was an S-200 missile, most likely one of these 'modified' Iranian tech ones:

 

Earlier one of these apparently clipped an F-35 but it wasn't damaged enough to crash.. There is not much 'from' to destroy when one of these are used.  The strikes israel conducted in retaliation for the F-16 downing were likly missile strikes so that more maned israeli jets would not get downed with a captured pilot crisis..

 

Syria is no also packing the much more dangerous S-300 SAM system, and the Russian area is covered by the S-400.. Israel has lost air superiority over Syria which is something they had earlier in the civil war.

 

I don't think that there were clear details released as to which missile hit the Israeli aircraft. According to Israeli officials, it was hit when flying at high altitude and there were multiple missile launched. There were debris of various kinds of SAM missiles found in Israel, Jordan and Syria following the incident.

 

Not sure what was meant by "likely did not happen" - there were definitely Israeli aerial strikes carried in response to the F-16's being shot down. That armament used in these strikes may have been long ranged is quite probable, rather routine for such missions.

 

The operational status of Syria's more advanced air defense systems is not fully clear. Considering some of these these were delivered a few years ago, and apparently not hindering Israeli airstrikes much - doubt that Israel's air superiority was lost. Especially not when adding the damage done to Syria's air defenses as a result of the current attacks. Casting it as a Syrian victory is more of a PR thing, really.

 

The Russian air defense system in place is another matter. But again, it's been in place for a while now, and was neither used to thwart Israeli airstrikes, nor warn Syria from such attacks. This may either reflect a Russian stance limiting their direct involvement to immediate interests (whether by ignoring Israel's actions or coordinating with it). Alternatively, it may indicate that the system is not quite as omnipotent as advertised.

 

[pkspeaker]

What likely did not happen was the notion that after the F-16 was downed; Israel went back and 'attacked Syria's air defenses'  The air defenses are those mobile missiles and better ones.. I doubt they were able to find that type of target so easily and quickly when they went back

 

A few years ago Israel was launching massive bombing directly on Syria's capital like this:

 

Then, Iranian techs announced that they had activated Syria's S-300 missiles; claiming that the Russian's had delivered them to Syria with bugs in the electronics that disabled them from firing on Israeli aircraft.  Since then the Israeli's stopped flying their attack aircraft directly over Syria, instead they would enter Lebanese air-space and fire missiles from there, or fire missiles directly from their territory.. This type of attack carries much less punch because the warhead on the missile is much smaller.. not possible to do any bunker busting with those little cruise missiles..

Edited February 12, 2018 by pkspeaker

[Morch]

 

@pkspeaker

 

 

Not sure I'm getting your point. Many aerial attacks nowadays are carried out from quite a distance, nothing new there. Given means and their range, it makes more sense to avoid going directly overhead unless necessary. Don't know that there was anything said about the Israeli retaliation being carried out in such a manner (flying directly over Syria any more than necessary).

 

According to reports both Israeli and others, there were quite a few Syrian air-defense targets hit, some even citing types and locations. The "went back" reference may be a source of some confusion, as the strikes were not carried out by the same aircraft participating on the first attack. It is certain that Israel's ongoing surveillance of Syrian air-defenses was maintained - being able to find such targets is what they are meant to do, don't think that's much of an issues.

 

As for "punch", not really applicable, even if the comment was 100% correct. Unlikely that attacking these air defense involved anything which called for much bunker busting.

 

[pkspeaker]

what were the air defenses hit?  all i read were that the israeli's said they went back and hit air defenses but the syrian's were saying the strikes did little damage.

[Morch]

51 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

what were the air defenses hit?  all i read were that the israeli's said they went back and hit air defenses but the syrian's were saying the strikes did little damage.

 

When it comes to credibility on such matters, Syrian media and officials are not reliable (they routinely claim to have succeeded intercepting Israeli aircraft or denying damage done). And as much as some would be loath to accept it, IAF reports are usually much more credible (Israeli politicians may be another matter).

 

Most of the more detailed reports available rely on Israeli statements. From what I could figure, 3-4 SAM batteries were destroyed, with types mentioned mostly referring to S-200 (aka SA-5), 9K317E "Buk-M2E" (aka SA-17), and a single reference to an S-75 (aka SA-2) target. There are other reports alleging greater level of damage done, but less clear or less reliable.

 

Should be noted that on the second aerial attack, the Syria air-defense was surely alert - and yet no further success intercepting attacking aircraft. Similarly, no direct aid from Russia.

 

 

[pkspeaker]

neither is reliable and the israelis over the years have exaggerated as well .. even if it's true SA-200, 17 etc. are from the 1960's, the ones they hit could be junk.. they havn't been manufactured for a long time. or what if there are decoys, old ones that don't work anymore dressed up as one that still flies?  Was the one that took out the F-16 an old one, made operational my cannibalizing parts off dead ones or is it one of those Iranian ones that have been recently modified? Did the israeli's really hastily over fly Syrian airspace so soon after loosing an F-16 to attack these SAM missiles they quickly located or did they fire missiles at them.. SAM systems are collapsible, did they strike the missile or the radars?   it's impossible to know what the real story is.. but anyways they did not claim to destroy an S-300 which is by far the most dangerous ones.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

neither is reliable and the israelis over the years have exaggerated as well .. even if it's true SA-200, 17 etc. are from the 1960's, the ones they hit could be junk.. they havn't been manufactured for a long time. or what if there are decoys, old ones that don't work anymore dressed up as one that still flies?  Was the one that took out the F-16 an old one, made operational my cannibalizing parts off dead ones or is it one of those Iranian ones that have been recently modified? Did the israeli's really hastily over fly Syrian airspace so soon after loosing an F-16 to attack these SAM missiles they quickly located or did they fire missiles at them.. SAM systems are collapsible, did they strike the missile or the radars?   it's impossible to know what the real story is.. but anyways they did not claim to destroy an S-300 which is by far the most dangerous ones.

 

Well, hardly expecting objectivity on these topics, and the auto-wide-brush-rejections are routine, but no - generally speaking the IAF statements (differentiated from Israeli politicians) are rather reliable. At the very least, they are nowhere near the sort of fiction Syria official sources often dabble in.

 

The S-200 is indeed a dated system, but still operational and the ones in Syria recently went through maintenance and upgrade cycle by the Russians. The SA-17 is not "from the 1960's", but entered service in the late 70's, early 80'. The version operated by Syria is a newer model, which was developed during the late 80's or early 90's. I think it is still in production, by the way. As with many military hardware, systems in service are usually much upgraded relative to the original. For example, the Israeli F-16I shot down is very different from the original, which became operational in the 70's. Notably, the reasoning offered in the post above is not applied in this instance.

 

The rest of your post is mostly pure speculation, and betrays some lack of knowledge with regard to the issue at hand. Israeli surveillance is rather pro, especially with regard to immediate neighbors, and it had years of practice - I don't think it would be so easy to fool using obvious methods as described. As far as I am aware, there was no information released with regard to the specific Syrian missile which hit the Israeli aircraft. SAM systems (well, not all) are "collapsible" - but still takes time, and there are other means to track them other than radar emissions.

 

Once more, I don't know that there was a direct reference to the second wave of Israeli airstrikes flying "over Syria". If there was no specific need to do so, and the goals could be achieved by attacking from afar, it would make sense doing it that way. Not sure what you're trying to imply, or what you imagine the difference is.

[Sir Dude]

If Israel wants to bomb the forces of the mullahs of Iran and Hezbollah...fine with me. 

[Jingthing]

44 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

If Israel wants to bomb the forces of the mullahs of Iran and Hezbollah...fine with me. 

Yeah, sure, but a major escalation can't be a good thing. 

[Sir Dude]

Maybe they need to have-it-out...so-to-speak and settle some stuff. As long as it doesn't go nuclear. Problem is that they are both nutjobs on each side, so..hmmm. 

[stevenl]

8 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

If Israel wants to bomb the forces of the mullahs of Iran and Hezbollah...fine with me. 

Now let's turn off this around, and let Iran bomb the forces of Israel.

[Ahab]

The F-16 "crashed" because it was probably shot down by a Syrian anti-aircraft missile. 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Now let's turn off this around, and let Iran bomb the forces of Israel.

Let's not. 

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Let's not. 

Agreed, let's not.

 

Your reply indicates how stupid Sir Dude's post was, but there were no objections.

[pkspeaker]

Morch.. Israeli surveillance might be 'pro' but are SAM missiles are already a target.. during the 1st war with Iraq with coalition planes from 30 countries all flying over Iraq at the same time, they still could not find much larger SCUD missiles that the Iraqi's were firing at Israel and the gulf states, despite a concerted effort using satellites and surveillance aircraft with air superiority, the Iraqis were still able to hide them, pull them out, and fire them off.. so I remain skeptical that in this case the Israeli's were able to find quality targets so quickly, and managed to do so much damage in such a short period of time.. about 30 minutes and the counter-strike was done.. and did they fly maned aircraft right back into that hornets nest or did they fire missiles from a safe distance?

 

but at any rate it's pretty obvious that the chaos in Syria has made Syria's air space much more dangerous.. it used to be easier for Israel to fly planes over Syrian airspace, now it's more like flying over Hanoi in the 60's.. I think the Israelis were expecting the opposite to happen and that's why they(and the US) support jihadists in Syria-because they think a weakened Syria would have a bunch of terrorists running around but it would 'safer' because it's conventional military capability would be destroyed.. Instead they get a bunch of terrorists running around and a greatly improved air defense.. why? 

Because before the war the Assad government wanted to appease the people with a better economy; other countries did not bomb Syria (except for maybe 1 strike on a suspected nuclear facility) so why waste money on an expensive air defense system when they can't win a war vs their neighbors even if they had it.. it was not a priority.  Once this war was launched against the regime and the rebels were received weapons from that country's enemies, the Iranians and Russian's moved in to secure their ally and all the money is spent on the war, no point in trying to offer the people a better life now they just want the war to end.. and then the Assad regime is winning the war anyways.. 

 

is it just poor policy making or does Israeli and the US just intentionally create chaos so that their huge military budget has a right to exist?

[Morch]

 

 

 

@pkspeaker

 

You are comparing apples and oranges, and in different markets, at that. SCUD launchers were harder to find because less vehicles/control elements involved, less emissions, and the land mass in question on an much larger scale. That, and the means in service today being much more advance, plus obvious lessons learned.

 

You can remain skeptical, but what happened wasn't really out of the ordinary. The level of intelligence and surveillance available for Israel with regard to Syria (and especially nearer areas of) is superior to what the Coalition had in Iraq. And the time frame is pretty routine considering distances. Not sure why you keep harping on the issue of whether airstrikes were carried out  flying into Syria or launched from afar. 

 

The rest of your post is quite out there, quite in line with past conspiracy-theory-like nonsense posts.

 

Saying that the "chaos in Syria" made Syria's airspace more dangerous is roundabout reasoning. Syria wished to upgrade it's air-defense capabilities since the blow it took in 1982. The S-300 deal, for example, was in the works long before the civil war erupted. It would have been signed and delivered one way or the other. You saying it was not a priority simply does not relate to reality and facts.

 

Considering an ongoing complaint raised on this topic refers to numerous Israeli attacks on targets in Syria, I don't really see that there is a major difference compared to years past. That you try making use of standoff armaments into a faux issue doesn't change that. Syria upgrades systems, Israel changes tactics in response and so on and so forth. Nothing new there.

 

Israel did not actively support jihadists in Syria, and counter to your claims, there were actually concerns raised that such forces could come to control advanced weaponry. I think that a fairer take on Israel's position (inasmuch as there's a coherent one) on this was favoring a weakened Assad regime, but not utter collapse and chaos.

 

This topic is about a conflagration between Israel, Syria and Iran.

 

 

[Rimmer]

A troll post has been removed

[pkspeaker]

The S-300 deal was inked after Israel launch air raids in side Syria prior to the civil war erupting, the Russians initially held - off on selling it to them but changed their minds after that air-strike.  It appears the S-300 is being held deep inside Syria making that zone around Damascus even more dangerous; But since the war started Iran or Russia or both have flooded the place with a bunch of older missiles..it's those AND the S-300 together that are the current air defenses.. either way.. WAY more of them as a result of chaos in Syria than there would have been.

[simple1]

@Morch

 

Can you clarify if the more sophisticated Russian S400 systems are operated by Russian forces, not Syrians? If the S400 systems in Syria are operated by Russians is there any precedent the Russians have deployed S400s against  Israeli aircraft? The Israelis/ US would be continually developing anti missile technology so one assumes counter measures have been deployed e.g. in the second round of attacks all Israeli aircraft returned to base.

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

The S-300 deal was inked after Israel launch air raids in side Syria prior to the civil war erupting, the Russians initially held - off on selling it to them but changed their minds after that air-strike.  It appears the S-300 is being held deep inside Syria making that zone around Damascus even more dangerous; But since the war started Iran or Russia or both have flooded the place with a bunch of older missiles..it's those AND the S-300 together that are the current air defenses.. either way.. WAY more of them as a result of chaos in Syria than there would have been.

 

Saying "prior to the civil war" is pretty much the point - the deal was in the works before the civil war, and not a result of it. Without a clear indication of which specific airstrike you refer to, hard to address what you're alleging.

 

The S-300 stationed "deep inside Syria", and yet making the "zone around Damascus" more dangerous? Suggest consulting the map and realizing Damascus is pretty near the border.Also consider that "deep inside Syria" would increase the risk of systems being taken by rebels. I don't think that Russia and Iran "flooded the place with a bunch of older missiles" - Syria had a large arsenal of these as it were. There aren't more of them compared to what there used to be, that's simply incorrect.