Syria crisis: Russian Caspian missiles 'fell in Iran'

[Pakboong]

It is a bit unsettling that we have to use Russian rockets to get ourselves the international space station.

[craigt3365]

Interesting comment on the cruise missiles:

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9482023/russia-missiles-iran-crash

For all Russia's military might — its force, one of the largest in the world, has been modernizing in recent years — its higher-tech equipment such as cruise missiles has long lagged behind Western standards.

Cruise missiles are particularly difficult technology, flying many hundreds of miles at high speed, often automated. Early American cruise missiles also crashed often, requiring many years of testing and refining before they worked as well as they do now, and the Russian land-attack cruise missiles here are recently developed.

From a Russian official:

"We are basically novices in this type of war," said Ruslan Pukhov, a defense expert and director of the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, in an interview. "And when you are a novice, you are doomed to commit some kinds of mistakes. Hopefully not deadly ones, but obviously there is a risk of casualties."

And things could change drastically:

Iran and Russia are on the same side in Syria, both supporting Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, but there have been growing reports of tension and competition between them over Syria's future. And there is a long history of bitterness between Russia and Iran, the latter of which has not forgotten Russia's imperialist history in its country, nor Russia's support of crippling UN sanctions.

[tumama]

Funny how everybody assumes that this in fact did happen. All we have is an anonymous source in the Pentagon. The U.S are not even officially claiming this and both Russia and Iran are denying it happen.

This is extremely efficient propaganda. Soon enough this will be forgotten and the idiots who fell for this will still walk around believing it happened.

[Publicus]

It is a bit unsettling that we have to use Russian rockets to get ourselves the international space station.

Hardly unsettling

While the US uses the pretty good Russian low fee taxi service Nasa is busily bringing out the radical Space Launch System by Boeing for the Mars mission and also to Europa.

The SLS rocket system is 38 stories and 130 tons with 9 million pounds of thrust, succeeding the Saturn V moon launch system of 45 years ago which was 32 stories and 7 million pounds of thrust.

A photo of the SLS is prohibited in this community. A link to SLS is anyway below.

The Russians do not have a baseline technology remotely approaching the United States nor have the Russians ever had anything like it. Same same for the CCP Chinese.

The moon rockets of the deceased Soviet Union blew up on the pad so much they became known as boomers.

The fanboyz of the Russians and the CCP Chinese who are also in Syria need to be reminded that one was the Communist Party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the other will be known in the history books as the Chinese Communist Party. Assad as with Saddam will be in the books as the take a bath party before being hanged.

http://www.space.com/12942-photos-nasa-giant-rocket-space-launch-system.html

[Publicus]

Apparently the four missiles cruised into mountains straight ahead of them or plowed into flat fields supposedly straight out in front of 'em, so it doesn't sound too good for the Russians. We'll see what show the Chinese put on when they start flying.

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 or available 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.

4 out of 26 cruise missiles going off course is not really that bad. Russians do not expend a lot of expensive missiles in training as does the USA, they would rather stockpile their top weapons. A good possibility is that Russia is rotating their stock and they did not send out what came off the assembly line this year. Most likely fired cruise missiles that have been on the shelf awhile. This is Russia's first firing of their cruise missile in "war" unlike America that has shot hundreds in the last 25 years. The missiles were model "A" not the most recent model "Z".

The bear can bite and Europe better wise up quickly.

The bear can bite this cause if 15% of your weapons fail you're going to lose your war, any war. Any company that has a 15% product defect rate is going to fail. An equipment maintenance failure rate of 15% is a program failure whether it is civilian or military. Putin needs to become a Maytag salesman because a paragraph of excuses and an apologia doesn't cut it.

Europe and Nato are fully wised up to Putin. What happened to all the jibberish about Putin last winter cutting off Europe's supply of imported Russian energy to include oil and natural gas? It was always the fantasy of unrealistic Putin fanboyz and that is all it ever was.

Reality is that Russian GDP is minus 5% this year, new car sales are off by nearly 50% and one Russian car manufacturer closed indefinitely. The ruble is a rubble while oil prices are a long long way from ever leading a recovery or of being anything but a severe drag on the biting bear's economy. The only biting the bear is doing is on a bullet as Putin in Syria only increases the already huge risk of a Russian economy depression. Nato countries remain set on continuing sanctions through at least 2017 so Russia's future is overall negative and counting.

Putin has been unable to consolidate anything in Ukraine and is frozen in his tracks there. Putin has been unable to respond to Ukraine's decision to shut out Russian airlines from Ukraine airspace.

ISIS are rats which is why Putin is only tickling them with some very few hits by his air forces. IS just the other day popped an Iranian general, the deputy commander of the Republican Guards and senior Iranian commander in Syria, in fighting outside Aleppo, so Putin's military commanders in Syria have to hope IS doesn't get their addresses too...same for the Syrian generals who already have been laying low and in the background given IS seems to have a list of addresses of important invited visitors and their hosts.

If little Rasputin isn't more careful as all these and other negatives continue to expand and intensify he may find himself looking up through the ice in the Moscow River.

"The bear can bite this cause if 15% of your weapons fail you're going to lose your war, any war."

The faulty reasoning here is that those missiles represented 15% of the entire Russian effort in Syria. As far as I'm concerned launching those Kalibr/Klub (Wiki) cruise missiles was simply a testing/training/PR effort that they knew would have little strategic impact. They have (allegedly) only a 450 kg warhead and their guidance system in general might have a lot to be desired although the Wiki page does indicate they use, in addition to inertial and radar the are using satellite DMACS (GPS). If the warheads were nuclear, then we're be talking about a serious weapon system, providing you could get them anywhere near their targets. What I find the most interesting about them is their (alleged) capability to go supersonic (allegedly, Mach 2.5-2.9) when in close proximity to target as a "surprise" tactic.

The rest of your post is similar, exaggerated histrionics. I do give you credit for an engaging writing style in the vein of movie scripts and spy novels, however.

The faulty reasoning here is that those missiles represented 15% of the entire Russian effort in Syria

That is the erroneous presumption you make in the factually sloppy and overstated post. My post was about the missiles, not the entire Russian armed forces presence in Syria as it is. The Russian clunker missiles were not launched in Syria. They were fired from a Russian Naval cruiser in the Caspian Sea.

as far as I'm concerned launching those Kalibr/Klub (Wiki) cruise missiles was simply a testing/training/PR effort that they knew would have little strategic impact.

That is interesting and I suppose it and $25 bucks will get a person a coffee at Starbucks in New York. All the same it is obvious Putin is screwing around in Syria cause he's bored with being shut down in Ukraine and the economy back home is no fun either.

I never mentioned nuclear warheads btw.

Try to stay focused plse thx.

[deeks]

Well at least Russia and Iran and Iraq are attemping to do something WITH Assad about those christian beheading thugs.

[slipperylobster]

Apparently the four missiles cruised into mountains straight ahead of them or plowed into flat fields supposedly straight out in front of 'em, so it doesn't sound too good for the Russians. We'll see what show the Chinese put on when they start flying.

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 or available 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.

4 out of 26 cruise missiles going off course is not really that bad. Russians do not expend a lot of expensive missiles in training as does the USA, they would rather stockpile their top weapons. A good possibility is that Russia is rotating their stock and they did not send out what came off the assembly line this year. Most likely fired cruise missiles that have been on the shelf awhile. This is Russia's first firing of their cruise missile in "war" unlike America that has shot hundreds in the last 25 years. The missiles were model "A" not the most recent model "Z".

The bear can bite and Europe better wise up quickly.

It was said on the bombs, that Russia is dropping old cheap bombs. Which seems complete logic, why use the modern expensive high tech things if the old bomb from Soviet times does the job and if one fails drop a second one.

We do in our stock a "first in first out" as well. Different than USA, Russia didn't have a lot wars recently.

Very interesting how people here easily forgive the ruskies (remnant of the failed soviet union) for dropping missiles in the wrong country. I might find it easier, it they missed a building...or a city....but to miss an entire country is pretty much a fail.Multiply that by four times. Who knows....it might be your own country next miss.

[bendejo]

Wouldn't it be interesting if the Rooskie missiles just happened to crash in areas of strategic interest, just by coincidence.

They are more concerned about a nuclear Iran than anyone, right on their borders.

[h90]

Apparently the four missiles cruised into mountains straight ahead of them or plowed into flat fields supposedly straight out in front of 'em, so it doesn't sound too good for the Russians. We'll see what show the Chinese put on when they start flying.

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 or available 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.

4 out of 26 cruise missiles going off course is not really that bad. Russians do not expend a lot of expensive missiles in training as does the USA, they would rather stockpile their top weapons. A good possibility is that Russia is rotating their stock and they did not send out what came off the assembly line this year. Most likely fired cruise missiles that have been on the shelf awhile. This is Russia's first firing of their cruise missile in "war" unlike America that has shot hundreds in the last 25 years. The missiles were model "A" not the most recent model "Z".

The bear can bite and Europe better wise up quickly.

It was said on the bombs, that Russia is dropping old cheap bombs. Which seems complete logic, why use the modern expensive high tech things if the old bomb from Soviet times does the job and if one fails drop a second one.

We do in our stock a "first in first out" as well. Different than USA, Russia didn't have a lot wars recently.

Very interesting how people here easily forgive the ruskies (remnant of the failed soviet union) for dropping missiles in the wrong country. I might find it easier, it they missed a building...or a city....but to miss an entire country is pretty much a fail.Multiply that by four times. Who knows....it might be your own country next miss.

Iran allowed Russia to fly things over their area and told that no rockets crashed on their country. I doubt that my country would allow Russia to use the airspace. But still I wouldn't have a problem with a rocket that no one can see, or detect....not even strong USA can find any evidence of these rockets in Iran. I guess Iran would complain a bit if some rockets crash.

[h90]

Wouldn't it be interesting if the Rooskie missiles just happened to crash in areas of strategic interest, just by coincidence.

They are more concerned about a nuclear Iran than anyone, right on their borders.

But current policy is being big friends....Iran get an updated S-300.

Iran let Russia use their airspace. Russia built their power station (nuclear). So Russia wouldn't that now.....5 years later is another story.

[craigt3365]

Funny how everybody assumes that this in fact did happen. All we have is an anonymous source in the Pentagon. The U.S are not even officially claiming this and both Russia and Iran are denying it happen.

This is extremely efficient propaganda. Soon enough this will be forgotten and the idiots who fell for this will still walk around believing it happened.

Hardly an anonymous source. Please get your facts straight.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/defense-secretary-confirms-russian-missiles-crashed-iran-34365006

Defense Secretary Confirms Russian Missiles Crashed in Iran

The U.S. has indications that four Russian cruise missiles crashed in Iran rather than Syria, suggesting there were malfunctions, Defense Secretary Ash Carter confirmed Friday.

Carter spoke at a press conference in London with British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon. It was the first public comment by a U.S. official on the cruise missile failures. The British are part of the coalition striking Islamic State fighters in Iraq, but not doing strikes in Syria.

[JHolmesJr]

Defense Secretary Confirms Russian Missiles Crashed in Iran

The U.S. has indications that four Russian cruise missiles crashed in Iran rather than Syria, suggesting there were malfunctions, Defense Secretary Ash Carter confirmed Friday.

Carter spoke at a press conference in London with British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon. It was the first public comment by a U.S. official on the cruise missile failures. The British are part of the coalition striking Islamic State fighters in Iraq, but not doing strikes in Syria.

yeah…..but when asked how the USA knows, he said he couldn't reveal his sources….so we have to believe this because he's ash carter.

[SheungWan]

Apparently the four missiles cruised into mountains straight ahead of them or plowed into flat fields supposedly straight out in front of 'em, so it doesn't sound too good for the Russians. We'll see what show the Chinese put on when they start flying.

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 or available 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.

4 out of 26 cruise missiles going off course is not really that bad. Russians do not expend a lot of expensive missiles in training as does the USA, they would rather stockpile their top weapons. A good possibility is that Russia is rotating their stock and they did not send out what came off the assembly line this year. Most likely fired cruise missiles that have been on the shelf awhile. This is Russia's first firing of their cruise missile in "war" unlike America that has shot hundreds in the last 25 years. The missiles were model "A" not the most recent model "Z".

The bear can bite and Europe better wise up quickly.

It was said on the bombs, that Russia is dropping old cheap bombs. Which seems complete logic, why use the modern expensive high tech things if the old bomb from Soviet times does the job and if one fails drop a second one.

We do in our stock a "first in first out" as well. Different than USA, Russia didn't have a lot wars recently.

You mean like Afghanistan, Chechnya, Ukraine, Abkhazia, South Ossetia?

[craigt3365]

Defense Secretary Confirms Russian Missiles Crashed in Iran

The U.S. has indications that four Russian cruise missiles crashed in Iran rather than Syria, suggesting there were malfunctions, Defense Secretary Ash Carter confirmed Friday.

Carter spoke at a press conference in London with British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon. It was the first public comment by a U.S. official on the cruise missile failures. The British are part of the coalition striking Islamic State fighters in Iraq, but not doing strikes in Syria.

yeah…..but when asked how the USA knows, he said he couldn't reveal his sources….so we have to believe this because he's ash carter.

We believe this because of the technology they have. Do some research.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/how-us-satellites-pinpointed-source-of-missile-that-shot-down-airliner/

President Barack Obama today said without hesitation that the missile that shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was launched from within territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine. While he didn’t go into the sources the US used to pinpoint the launch, early reports say that US intelligence had identified the infrared signature of a missile launch just before contact with the airliner was lost.

That information likely came from one of a network of satellites operated by the Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the US intelligence community’s spy satellite operations agency. Using highly sensitive infrared sensors and other electronic intelligence gathering sensors, these satellites can detect a variety of ground-based missile systems, as well as some aircraft, by their infrared signature. They also carry sensitive electronic intelligence sensors that can detect radar signals associated with anti-aircraft missile systems like the Buk launcher that has been widely pointed to as the culprit in the MH17 downing.

[h90]

Apparently the four missiles cruised into mountains straight ahead of them or plowed into flat fields supposedly straight out in front of 'em, so it doesn't sound too good for the Russians. We'll see what show the Chinese put on when they start flying.

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 or available 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.

4 out of 26 cruise missiles going off course is not really that bad. Russians do not expend a lot of expensive missiles in training as does the USA, they would rather stockpile their top weapons. A good possibility is that Russia is rotating their stock and they did not send out what came off the assembly line this year. Most likely fired cruise missiles that have been on the shelf awhile. This is Russia's first firing of their cruise missile in "war" unlike America that has shot hundreds in the last 25 years. The missiles were model "A" not the most recent model "Z".

The bear can bite and Europe better wise up quickly.

It was said on the bombs, that Russia is dropping old cheap bombs. Which seems complete logic, why use the modern expensive high tech things if the old bomb from Soviet times does the job and if one fails drop a second one.

We do in our stock a "first in first out" as well. Different than USA, Russia didn't have a lot wars recently.

You mean like Afghanistan, Chechnya, Ukraine, Abkhazia, South Ossetia?

When had Russia a war in Afghanistan?

Ukraine? If Russia would have been at war there wouldn't be any Ukraine now.

Chechnya: yes they had civil war there

South Ossetia: That was minor....

[tumama]

Just as I thought. It didn't happen and it has been completely forgotten.