Russian warships strike targets in Syria

[webfact]

Russian warships strike targets in Syria



PARIS: -- Amateur video has been released which reportedly shows Russia’s escalating military role in Syria.

In what appeared to be the first major coordinated attack since Moscow entered the fray, the Syrian army aided by Russian airstrikes, attacked insurgent targets in Hama province and nearby Idlib.

A volley of missiles was launched from Russian warships over 1,000km away in the Caspian Sea. The Kremlin defence ministry confirmed 26 rockets were fired, and had struck targets associated with Islamic State militants.

It marked the first known use in combat of Russian sea-based cruise missiles at this range.

President Putin has continues to call for cooperation with the US, Turkey and Arab States on Syria, however, Washington has refused to cooperate calling Moscow’s strategy ‘tragically flawed’.


-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2015-10-08

[Gene1960]

Bold move. I did not realize thar Russia has such a capability. Obviously, Iran allowed them to fly over their territory.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bassman]

Better believe Russia is a military powerhouse, remember they have been building ICBM's for fifty years.

Decent article on last nights ops here http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-russian-airstrikes-20151007-story.html

[johna]

well done Russia

[FangFerang]

That helicopter in the pictures is a Russian gunship,a highly advanced piece of hardware. It has a wide variety of options and capabilities. It's one of their top shelf toys called the Миль Ми-24, and is used by over twenty countries worldwide (however, the very best add on options stay in Russia).

[h90]

Bold move. I did not realize thar Russia has such a capability. Obviously, Iran allowed them to fly over their territory.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Iraq also allow it, as they delivered airplanes when USA could not

[h90]

Bold move. I did not realize thar Russia has such a capability. Obviously, Iran allowed them to fly over their territory.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

their weapons were always good and Putin repaired the military since he came into power. Including a lot of not announced large scale drills.

[Barin]

President Putin has continues to call for cooperation with the US, Turkey and Arab States on Syria, however, Washington has refused to cooperate calling Moscow’s strategy ‘tragically flawed’.

Don't you think that this is a lame excuse?

[Barin]

Bold move. I did not realize thar Russia has such a capability. Obviously, Iran allowed them to fly over their territory.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

More details are here:

[silent]

President Putin has continues to call for cooperation with the US, Turkey and Arab States on Syria, however, Washington has refused to cooperate calling Moscow’s strategy ‘tragically flawed’.

Don't you think that this is a lame excuse?

Not really. Obama and the others all want a well timed flawless massacre to reduce potential loss of heads in their own countries now, but it's a different agenda in Moscow.

[manarak]

President Putin has continues to call for cooperation with the US, Turkey and Arab States on Syria, however, Washington has refused to cooperate calling Moscow’s strategy ‘tragically flawed’.

Don't you think that this is a lame excuse?

I don't know if it's lame or not or even an excuse at all, but it is clear that Assad has fallen foul of the USA, and the latter want to remove him from power. To achieve this, the USA back non-IS but still islamist rebel militias. Sounds familiar to me with what happened in Afghanistan.

If Assad is driven out, who will replace him?

Does anyone really hold his breath over who will win subsequent "democratic polls" ?

Sorry USA, but I think Assad is a factor of stability in the region and Russia has the better strategy.

[Barin]

President Putin has continues to call for cooperation with the US, Turkey and Arab States on Syria, however, Washington has refused to cooperate calling Moscow’s strategy ‘tragically flawed’.

Don't you think that this is a lame excuse?

I don't know if it's lame or not or even an excuse at all, but it is clear that Assad has fallen foul of the USA, and the latter want to remove him from power.

To achieve this, the USA back non-IS but still islamist rebel militias. Sounds familiar to me with what happened in Afghanistan.

If Assad is driven out, who will replace him?

Does anyone really hold his breath over who will win subsequent "democratic polls" ?

Sorry USA, but I think Assad is a factor of stability in the region and Russia has the better strategy.

Yes, absolutely.

This is a very good point. Agreed 100%.

[Barin]

Amateur video has been released which reportedly shows Russia’s escalating military role in Syria

Watch this video now: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/video/russian-warships-strike-targets-syria-143137717.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCdkvnPCTIU

Edited October 8, 2015 by Barin

[ABCer]

There are many reasons why NATO members scream havoc at Russia's attacks.

One (only one) of them might be there are so many nationals both boys and girls who are now members of ISIS.

The Brits, Americans and their likes probably want them back for re-education.

Russians do not. Frankly speaking I will not miss any of those 'innocent souls'

This reason could also be a basis for Russian strategy being 'tragically flawed'. I can live with a tragedy like this.

[Chicog]

Good news for the US, that must be the first time they've actually seen these missiles in action.

I'm sure they are right now poring over all the intel gathered on their capabilities.

Then someone will have the bright idea of getting a blueprint out of a drawer.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Chicog

[craigt3365]

There are many reasons why NATO members scream havoc at Russia's attacks.

One (only one) of them might be there are so many nationals both boys and girls who are now members of ISIS.

The Brits, Americans and their likes probably want them back for re-education.

Russians do not. Frankly speaking I will not miss any of those 'innocent souls'

This reason could also be a basis for Russian strategy being 'tragically flawed'. I can live with a tragedy like this.

Where are these foreign fighters coming from? A lot from Russia:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11770816/Iraq-and-Syria-How-many-foreign-fighters-are-fighting-for-Isil.html

Almost 2,000 from Russia....

[StasD]

Good news for the US, that must be the first time they've actually seen these missiles in action.

I'm sure they are right now poring over all the intel gathered on their capabilities.

Then someone will have the bright idea of getting a blueprint out of a drawer.

all the info of that missle has been placed in Wiki since 2012

[ABCer]

There are many reasons why NATO members scream havoc at Russia's attacks.

One (only one) of them might be there are so many nationals both boys and girls who are now members of ISIS.

The Brits, Americans and their likes probably want them back for re-education.

Russians do not. Frankly speaking I will not miss any of those 'innocent souls'

This reason could also be a basis for Russian strategy being 'tragically flawed'. I can live with a tragedy like this.

Where are these foreign fighters coming from? A lot from Russia:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11770816/Iraq-and-Syria-How-many-foreign-fighters-are-fighting-for-Isil.html

Almost 2,000 from Russia....

True. Very true. The difference though is in the fact that Russians don't plan re-education, long term imprisonment or worry about collateral damages. In fact Russia would like them all dead first.

The only but very essential difference.

And this is without getting into finer details as to how many of the 'russian fighters' being the ones who also fought and lost to Russians in Russia.

Remember: "oils ain't oils" just as "russians ain't russians".

Edited October 8, 2015 by ABCer

[uksomchai]

I think that Putin's plan to send in his Fierce Chechen Muslim fighters is a brilliant move. If the US or UK sent in troops they would be seen as crusaders whereas this will be Muslim on Muslim which holds on great PR score for the Muslims at all. I also expect a lot of the so called Jihadists to go running back to mummy like the little girls they really are once these soldiers move in and start destroying ISIS

[manarak]

I think that Putin's plan to send in his Fierce Chechen Muslim fighters is a brilliant move. If the US or UK sent in troops they would be seen as crusaders whereas this will be Muslim on Muslim which holds on great PR score for the Muslims at all. I also expect a lot of the so called Jihadists to go running back to mummy like the little girls they really are once these soldiers move in and start destroying ISIS

If Russia sends in ground troops, the West will be pissed off to the extreme, because it means Russia will make the "Pax Rossiska" or whatever it is called.

They will first destroy all infrastructure that remains and then Russian (not American) companies will come in and rebuild everything in exchange of long term debt from Syria. That's the good old, proven method for making money out of the situation, but Obama and Europeans didn't have the balls.

[slipperylobster]

Bold move. I did not realize thar Russia has such a capability. Obviously, Iran allowed them to fly over their territory.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Guess you were born after the "cold war".

Russia now (and as part of the failed "Soviet Union"...had long range missile capability since I was knee high to a grasshopper.....

[Gene1960]

Bold move. I did not realize thar Russia has such a capability. Obviously, Iran allowed them to fly over their territory.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Guess you were born after the "cold war".

Russia now (and as part of the failed "Soviet Union"...had long range missile capability since I was knee high to a grasshopper.....

I was born in 1960 I still remember the fear.

I was surprised that they fired the missiles into Syria from the Caspian Sea and I remember reading an article about Russian cruise missiles and how inaccurate they were. Now I had to educate myself about the Russian tech, I am reading about BrahMos missile now. Impressive and scary.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Harsh Jones]

Bold move. I did not realize thar Russia has such a capability. Obviously, Iran allowed them to fly over their territory.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Guess you were born after the "cold war".

Russia now (and as part of the failed "Soviet Union"...had long range missile capability since I was knee high to a grasshopper.....

Yeah but most of the Russiophobes would , until yesterday, say that Russia could not pull off a flawless attack like that. All we hear from the Russiophobes is how Russia is using old Soviet junk. Thats not old Soviet junk we are seeing now

[Publicus]

Four of the long range cruise missiles hit Iran, which one could argue was not a part of the plan.

The Russian defense ministry showed some attempt at Russian humor by saying the four failed missiles assisted Iran by "plowing" ground there. The Russian-Syrian circus had already begun so claims by anyone of flawless anything were not only always premature, they were silly to have made.

The Russian missile systems are flawed in their basics, from mechanics to guidance to range to a whole lot of vital factors inherent to missile technology. Sure, some of 'em or most of 'em hit targets in Syria. But four did not. The fact is very bad news to Putin and his military industrial complex, engineering designs, scarce rubles etc. There's some question at the Pentagon as to how many operative missiles the Russian Navy ships have remaining, and how many overall they have at this point.

The great risk however is that the missiles travelled through Syrian and Iraq airspace where US warplanes operate along with other coalition warplanes, to include Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others involved in fighting ISIS and Assad's forces, such as France and UK.

The Russians are cruising toward real accidents in the skies and on the ground. Maybe worse.

Syria conflict: Russian cruise missiles 'crash in Iran'

A number of cruise missiles fired from a Russian warship towards targets in Syria have reportedly crashed in Iran.

At least four missiles fell as they flew over Iran, two US officials said citing military and intelligence information.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-conflict-russian-cruise-missiles-crash-in-iran-a6686856.html

[Publicus]

Bold move. I did not realize thar Russia has such a capability. Obviously, Iran allowed them to fly over their territory.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

More details are here:

Plowing the fields of Iran.

[Gene1960]

The Russian missile systems are flawed in their basics, from mechanics to guidance to range to a whole lot of vital factors inherent to missile technology. Sure, some of 'em or most of 'em hit targets in Syria. But four did not. The fact is very bad news to Putin and his military industrial complex, engineering designs, scarce rubles etc. There's some question at the Pentagon as to how many operative missiles the Russian Navy ships have remaining, and how many overall they have at this point.

[/url]

I have been hearing about Russian junk rusty rockets for several decades now. Still they fly to the space with our astronauts, have their own geo positioning system Glonass. You might know more than us laymen, why don't you share your knowledge with us about those flawed missiles?

Will that Caspian adventure change anything in the balance of forces? As I read, Russians increased the range and can hit the U.S. and the allies with conventional warheads now.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[Publicus]

The Russian missile systems are flawed in their basics, from mechanics to guidance to range to a whole lot of vital factors inherent to missile technology. Sure, some of 'em or most of 'em hit targets in Syria. But four did not. The fact is very bad news to Putin and his military industrial complex, engineering designs, scarce rubles etc. There's some question at the Pentagon as to how many operative missiles the Russian Navy ships have remaining, and how many overall they have at this point.

[/url]

I have been hearing about Russian junk rusty rockets for several decades now. Still they fly to the space with our astronauts, have their own geo positioning system Glonass. You might know more than us laymen, why don't you share your knowledge with us about those flawed missiles?

Will that Caspian adventure change anything in the balance of forces? As I read, Russians increased the range and can hit the U.S. and the allies with conventional warheads now.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

why don't you share your knowledge with us about those flawed missiles?

One does not need to be a Russian mad scientist or a connessiour of vodka to know the basics of cruise missile technology.

The cruise missile flies close to the ground, not high in the sky. Key to its success, which is to generally be below most radar most of the time, is its closeness to the ground. It follows the terrain, rising over hills or mountains, decreasing height over flat plains or water, maintaining a constant or consistent height between it and whatever surface below.

The four missiles cruised into mountains straight ahead of them or plowed into flat fields supposedly straight out in front of 'em.

Take my word for it, that is a problem of Russian technology. It certainly is not a problem of the earth coming up and bushwhacking 'em head on. (Not unless the Pentagon has something else we haven't yet heard of )

Keep in mind that while the US has over many decades had a few nuclear sub accidents, the Russians and their Navy have sunk more of their own nuclear powered submarines than the Chechens could ever dream of doing by the power of prayer.

[daveAustin]

Among other things, Putin is punishing Europe, intensifying the fighting in order to exacerbate the influx of immigrants to the EU.

[slipperylobster]

Good news for the US, that must be the first time they've actually seen these missiles in action.

I'm sure they are right now poring over all the intel gathered on their capabilities.

Then someone will have the bright idea of getting a blueprint out of a drawer.

all the info of that missle has been placed in Wiki since 2012

Sure...but why not study the implementation and strategy....as well as the training/precision of technicians on board? A weapon does nto kill people....it is how, when, where, and who...uses them. Proficiency....politics...command and control signals, political fallout, accuracy.

You can usually read a soi dog's intentions by studying how and when they attack...same for ruskies.

Accuracy sucks....4 hit Iran (an ally)

Edited October 9, 2015 by slipperylobster