Israel launches heavy Syria strikes after F-16 crashes

[pkspeaker]

Well I think your wrong because the old missiles that hit the F-16 and damaged the F-35 are too accurate to be one of those piece of shit ones that had been lying around since the 70's and the new israeli aircraft are supposed to be able to jam the radars of the old crap, it must be a re-modifyed one like that one in the Iranian video and those are what are coming in since the war started .

 

.. (simple1) NOWAY the S-400 is operated by Syrians, it operated by Russians and is located at their base near Latakia-so it and the Russian airforce have a large area up there in the NW of the country where the airspace is off limits to everyone, so anything up there in that entire region is safe from israeli strikes, meanwhile the Syrian operated S-300's (most likly) make the area around Damascus especially dangerous, like Hanoi. 

Edited February 13, 2018 by pkspeaker

[Morch]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

@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.

 

As far as I am aware the S-400 system is operated by the Russians. There were no instances in which it was used against Israeli aircraft, even though the Russians must be aware of Israeli aircraft sorties (regardless of the coordination mechanism in place).

 

The second part of your post is not directly related to the first. The Russian operated system did not come under attack as it is stationed elsewhere (Tartus). As with any new, advanced system introduced to the scene - takes a while for countermeasures and tactics to be developed and applied. While there's no argument that it is a very sophisticated system, and that currently it does have the potential to limit Israel's air superiority - it is not undefeatable as such. I think the issue is more to do with who's flag it carries.

 

With regard to the Syrian S-300 - again, a very capable system, and certainly a threat. But in the same way, not one which cannot be addressed. One factor involved would be saving relevant counter-capabilities for a time of true need, rather than squandering them on routine or trivial missions. No sense in exposing such beforehand. A while back it was reported that Israeli pilots trained vs. another version of the S-300 (the system sold to Syria) when conducting joint exercises with Greece.

 

The main point with regard to Russia involvement (or lack of direct involvement) is that it does not seem to be after a direct confrontation with Israel - not because Russia is scared, but because there's little to gain. They do apply certain red lines (in varying degrees of strictness), they may or may not provide information to Syria (again, according to their specific interests).

[Morch]

32 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

Well I think your wrong because the old missiles that hit the F-16 and damaged the F-35 are too accurate to be one of those piece of shit ones that had been lying around since the 70's and the new israeli aircraft are supposed to be able to jam the radars of the old crap, it must be a re-modifyed one like that one in the Iranian video and those are what are coming in since the war started .

 

.. (simple1) NOWAY the S-400 is operated by Syrians, it operated by Russians and is located at their base near Latakia-so it and the Russian airforce have a large area up there in the NW of the country where the airspace is off limits to everyone, so anything up there in that entire region is safe from israeli strikes, meanwhile the Syrian operated S-300's (most likly) make the area around Damascus especially dangerous, like Hanoi. 

 

I'm not clear as to which part you think I'm wrong about. For starters, the Israeli F-35 being hit by a Syria missile is the Syrian version, which as said - not very reliable. The IAF said it was bird thing, which is more plausible. As for advanced stealth aircraft being taken down by dated missiles, though - there was that f-117 shot down by a Serb SA-3 back in 1999. 

 

Air defenses are modified, there was no assertion they weren't. But that doesn't have anything to do with claiming that there are many more air defense systems in Syria now, compared to the situation prior to the civil war.

 

And you really ought to open a map before posting. The Russian operated S-400 system covers most of the Syrian air space, in not all of it. Including Damascus. And Lebanon, and northern Israel, while at it. If an S-300 system was stationed in Damascus, it could theoretically cover southern Syria, Lebanon and northern Israel.

[pkspeaker]

Yea but if an israeli jet is flying near the golan, and an S-400 missile is fired at it from tartus.. i think your talking about max air space .. but in reality these SAM missiles are fired much closer to where the target is flying.. like an israeli jet would hit damascus and a missile is fired at it from the damascus area..

[Morch]

7 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

Yea but if an israeli jet is flying near the golan, and an S-400 missile is fired at it from tartus.. i think your talking about max air space .. but in reality these SAM missiles are fired much closer to where the target is flying.. like an israeli jet would hit damascus and a missile is fired at it from the damascus area..

 

I will repeat the suggestion of having a look at the map, and checking effective ranges of various systems and distances involved. This goes for both air-defense systems and standoff weapons.  

[Scott]

Troll post removed.   Continue and face a suspension.  

 

[sendintheclowns]

coincidentally, I had a drone buzzing over head my property this am. Curious to know, do I have any rights to privacy - such as reporting to the MIB or shooting it down with my air rifle.?