Jump to content
Peter Cairns

BTR 82a in Syria

Recommended Posts

BFC have occasionally talked about doing a "CM: Shock Force" sequal and I agree - now would be a good time. They could advance the timeline to 2018 or something and have a three-way battle over Syria: NATO vs. Russia (+ Asad) vs. Insurgents vs. NATO. Would be an interesting combination. You could have some scenarios in which the Russians and NATO are effectively fighting the same enemy and others in which NATO and Russia come to blows - perhaps accidentally, perhaps not.

Edited by Cpl Steiner
gramma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope BF does this.  After a decade of WW2 CM1, I never thought that I would enjoy modern war.  But, CMSF became a really compelling game after all the patches.  I think I still prefer it to the relatively claustrophobic CMBS - I grew to love the open spaces of CMSF where one could use all those lovely long range weapons (and spotting capabilities).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh heh yeah...

 

A work in progress - warlord's opium producing village in the mountains.  Okay he's a bit stupid and it is really sunflower plants- he's just hoping someone can mod his fields.

Turkey%20005_zpswpkpvm7b.jpg

US troops making their way up via the trails


Turkey%20004_zpsdb7h70r9.jpg

Arriving unwanted guests

Turkey%20001_zpsbtqcvcuh.jpg

The village

Afghan%20004_zpsjw1uwodk.jpg

View of the valley below

Turkey%20007_zps0bvlab5o.jpg

If we can just get the uncon forces......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think BTR-82A in Syria is exciting, what are your feelings about the combat use there of the recently brought in TOS-1A? Pretty exciting footage.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/615448/Vladimir-Putin-Islamic-State-ISIS-Syria-Iraq-Latakia?utm_source=traffic.outbrain&utm_medium=traffic.outbrain&utm_term=traffic.outbrain&utm_content=traffic.outbrain&utm_campaign=traffic.outbrain

And here are no less than 70 pics on combat and combat training by anti ISIS forces in Syria and Iraq, including quite a few Russian airstrike photos, all of which say they're on ISIS targets. This is, of course, in keeping with official Russian statements. Meanwhile, as discussed over on CMBS, the truth is most strikes aren't directed against ISIS at all. The target breakdown of the 1600 Russia says it hit and The Express turns into destroyed isn't terribly informative. But if Russia has somehow managed to fly 1000 sorties in a month, then it dwarfs our so-called air effort there. Article is from October 31, 2015. Hot off the virtual presses! 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/615946/Russia-destroys-1-600-ISIS-targets-US-commandos-syria

 Were I, Putin, though, I'd be worried, not about planes being shot down SAMs large and small, but of planes falling apart in flight! The Su-24M/FENCER D first entered service in 1983 and was produced until 1981-1993 . Essentially, this is building the original airframe, then stuffing it with lots of modern avionics, countermeasure systems and other goodies.The Su-24M2, also apparently and confusingly known as FENCER D, is a post-manufacture upgrade of aircraft systems.for the Su-24M. Thus, the strike aircraft doing most of  the heavy lifting in terms of ordnance tonnage, is at least 22 years old. Understand, too, that the service life on Russian aircraft, by design and the manufacturing standards (shocking in the Western view), is much shorter than the Western birds. When last seen, Putin had a single squadron (12 planes) of these in Syria. Interestingly, as reported in a long, deeply detailed article from Bellingcat from the first of the year on the status and operations of the Syrian Air Force, the Syrians are themselves flying the selfsame Su-24M2! 

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2015/01/16/the-syrian-arab-air-force-beware-of-its-wings/

Likewise, he has a squadron of Su-25/FROGFOOT there. Though likened to an A-10, their payload is less than half that of an A-10. We think these are the extensively upgraded Su-25SM/FROGFOOT. The Su-25 was produced from 1978-1989, making the newest Su-25SM around 25 years old. He has some unknown quantity (numbers reported suggest 4) of the Su-24M replacement aircraft, the Su-27/FLANKER derived Su-34/FULLBACK. This is the only new strike aircraft Putin has, with the earliest delivery in 2009 and the bird still in production. that's the good news. the bad is that the plane, compared to the earlier Su-24M2, is vastly more complicated, which, given US experience, can create huge maintenance issues. The rest of the force, per some reports, amounts to about two squadrons of Su-30/FLANKER C and roled for air superiority. I've seen nothing so far on these birds in strike mode in Syria. Further, as the Su-34 link shows, there is imagery from Syria showing the Su-30/FLANKER C carrying AAMs only. 

The above means that flying 1000 sorties/month means every strike aircraft Putin has in Syria must fly a sortie/day. But we all know there is no such thing as 100% force availability, right? To give you some idea of real world numbers for a complex aircraft, circa 1980, the actual readiness figure for the F-14 Tomcat was 65%. In turn, this forced the US to use two carriers in order to sustain continuous air ops.  In rotation every 24 hours, one carrier did nothing but fly escort and CAP missions, while the other flew strike. In practice, it becomes clear that the real sortie generator for the Russians there is the relatively simple and easy to maintain Su-25SM/FROGFOOT. If the NATO designator is correct, I don't at all understand why such radical improvements in capabilities don't merit a letter after the basic designator. All in all, I don't see how the Russians can keep up such a pace, especially on the SU-24M/FENCER D end. Supporting this notion is that July 5, 2015, the Russians lost an Su-24M/FENCER D on takeoff in Khabarovsk, Russia in what accident reports would call "abrupt departure from controlled flight." Nor is this the only combat aircraft loss this year. Remember, this is for a generally geriatric set of airframes not flying daily combat operations. Moreover, even ignoring enemy action, the more you fly aircraft, especially those with short service lives for all sorts of critical components, such as engines, the more they tend to break, increasing the sortie generation demands on the remaining flyable aircraft. Consequently, I think the sustained sortie generation rate will be far less than what happened in the first month. In defense parlance, the much trumpeted triumphant beginning was the surge rate. Restated, Putin made quite a splash, but he can't keep it up. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BFC have occasionally talked about doing a "CM: Shock Force" sequal and I agree - now would be a good time. They could advance the timeline to 2018 or something and have a three-way battle over Syria: NATO vs. Russia (+ Asad) vs. Insurgents vs. NATO. Would be an interesting combination. You could have some scenarios in which the Russians and NATO are effectively fighting the same enemy and others in which NATO and Russia come to blows - perhaps accidentally, perhaps not.

In fact CMSF2 should portray a Middle East conflagration centered on Syria and Iraq but with scenarios anywhere in he region. In addition to the forces already mentioned there are the Turks, Iranians and Israelis who may be dragged into he conflct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact CMSF2 should portray a Middle East conflagration centered on Syria and Iraq but with scenarios anywhere in he region. <Snip> and Israelis who may be dragged into he conflict.

Merkava tanks ............... this would be cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

waclaw posted this in the drone video over Syria post on CMBS, and I thought it highly appropriate to our thread, since it speaks directly to Russian air power there and how they use it--both rotary and fixed wing. In a separate YT video, it's claimed the spectacular fireworks seen in the tail end this video are from a BM-30 Smerch strike. Since I saw no planes, I'd say it's a possibility. What I find especially interesting in this video, other than the shattering force of Su-25SM/FROGFOOT strikes, at 0:04, in which what appear to me to be Su-30/FLANKER C, previously described as solely operating in an air superiority role, are conducting powerful rocket strikes. If you look at the second vid, you can see why I think it's not the Su-34/FULLBACK. The nose is too long and skinny for a bird with the two crewmen seated side by side. Quite the bomb truck!

Su-34/FULLBACK

Regards,

John Kettler 

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to get the vids to post properly, I'm continuing my discussion in this one. Syria has the BM-30 and used it against Jobar in 2014. As you can see, it's a very destructive weapon. So far, I've been unable to find any statement that the Russian force deploying there has brought any.

Also, here is some imagery taken of Russian ground combat weapons, vehicles and troops in Syria. The blog refers to it as a "corps" of 2000 men, but I'm not at all sure that's the right term.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes John Kettler but remember that Russia since USSR collapse scaled down by two thirds its Su-24 fleet, so there is plenty of spare parts to keep going its tactical bomber fleet another 10 years at least, before total Su-34 replacement - in Russiadefence forums they talk about a final total number about 130 Su-34 in the 2020-2030 timeframe, which I think it's sustainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly T-90A in Syria:

z-DE4FCDtE4.jpg

 

There have been quire a few shots of T-90As in (supposedly) Aleppo area coming out for the past couple of weeks. There was also a direct quote by Putin published in Russian media stating that Russian allies that were fighting a tough war; were in great need of T-90s and other advanced armor (and it's pretty much accepted that he was not talking about DLNR...).

The real question at this point is who is actually operating them. I have read several theories, but the general consensus among Russian observers (for what it's worth) is that they are crewed by Iranian volunteers..

Edited by DreDay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think BTR-82A in Syria is exciting, what are your feelings about the combat use there of the recently brought in TOS-1A? Pretty exciting footage.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/615448/Vladimir-Putin-Islamic-State-ISIS-Syria-Iraq-Latakia?utm_source=traffic.outbrain&utm_medium=traffic.outbrain&utm_term=traffic.outbrain&utm_content=traffic.outbrain&utm_campaign=traffic.outbrain

And here are no less than 70 pics on combat and combat training by anti ISIS forces in Syria and Iraq, including quite a few Russian airstrike photos, all of which say they're on ISIS targets. This is, of course, in keeping with official Russian statements. Meanwhile, as discussed over on CMBS, the truth is most strikes aren't directed against ISIS at all. The target breakdown of the 1600 Russia says it hit and The Express turns into destroyed isn't terribly informative. But if Russia has somehow managed to fly 1000 sorties in a month, then it dwarfs our so-called air effort there. Article is from October 31, 2015. Hot off the virtual presses! 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/615946/Russia-destroys-1-600-ISIS-targets-US-commandos-syria

 Were I, Putin, though, I'd be worried, not about planes being shot down SAMs large and small, but of planes falling apart in flight! The Su-24M/FENCER D first entered service in 1983 and was produced until 1981-1993 . Essentially, this is building the original airframe, then stuffing it with lots of modern avionics, countermeasure systems and other goodies.The Su-24M2, also apparently and confusingly known as FENCER D, is a post-manufacture upgrade of aircraft systems.for the Su-24M. Thus, the strike aircraft doing most of  the heavy lifting in terms of ordnance tonnage, is at least 22 years old. Understand, too, that the service life on Russian aircraft, by design and the manufacturing standards (shocking in the Western view), is much shorter than the Western birds. When last seen, Putin had a single squadron (12 planes) of these in Syria. Interestingly, as reported in a long, deeply detailed article from Bellingcat from the first of the year on the status and operations of the Syrian Air Force, the Syrians are themselves flying the selfsame Su-24M2! 

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2015/01/16/the-syrian-arab-air-force-beware-of-its-wings/

Likewise, he has a squadron of Su-25/FROGFOOT there. Though likened to an A-10, their payload is less than half that of an A-10. We think these are the extensively upgraded Su-25SM/FROGFOOT. The Su-25 was produced from 1978-1989, making the newest Su-25SM around 25 years old. He has some unknown quantity (numbers reported suggest 4) of the Su-24M replacement aircraft, the Su-27/FLANKER derived Su-34/FULLBACK. This is the only new strike aircraft Putin has, with the earliest delivery in 2009 and the bird still in production. that's the good news. the bad is that the plane, compared to the earlier Su-24M2, is vastly more complicated, which, given US experience, can create huge maintenance issues. The rest of the force, per some reports, amounts to about two squadrons of Su-30/FLANKER C and roled for air superiority. I've seen nothing so far on these birds in strike mode in Syria. Further, as the Su-34 link shows, there is imagery from Syria showing the Su-30/FLANKER C carrying AAMs only. 

The above means that flying 1000 sorties/month means every strike aircraft Putin has in Syria must fly a sortie/day. But we all know there is no such thing as 100% force availability, right? To give you some idea of real world numbers for a complex aircraft, circa 1980, the actual readiness figure for the F-14 Tomcat was 65%. In turn, this forced the US to use two carriers in order to sustain continuous air ops.  In rotation every 24 hours, one carrier did nothing but fly escort and CAP missions, while the other flew strike. In practice, it becomes clear that the real sortie generator for the Russians there is the relatively simple and easy to maintain Su-25SM/FROGFOOT. If the NATO designator is correct, I don't at all understand why such radical improvements in capabilities don't merit a letter after the basic designator. All in all, I don't see how the Russians can keep up such a pace, especially on the SU-24M/FENCER D end. Supporting this notion is that July 5, 2015, the Russians lost an Su-24M/FENCER D on takeoff in Khabarovsk, Russia in what accident reports would call "abrupt departure from controlled flight." Nor is this the only combat aircraft loss this year. Remember, this is for a generally geriatric set of airframes not flying daily combat operations. Moreover, even ignoring enemy action, the more you fly aircraft, especially those with short service lives for all sorts of critical components, such as engines, the more they tend to break, increasing the sortie generation demands on the remaining flyable aircraft. Consequently, I think the sustained sortie generation rate will be far less than what happened in the first month. In defense parlance, the much trumpeted triumphant beginning was the surge rate. Restated, Putin made quite a splash, but he can't keep it up. 

Regards,

John Kettler

John, your points certainly have a lot of validity; but they are also a bit one-sided. The truth is that the service age of Russian strike aircraft operating in Syria is comparable to that of any other major Airforces operating there (i.e. aircraft made in the 80s and upgraded in mid 2000s.). Yes, Su-24M1/M2s are very complex and high-maintenance birds, but their operational record is comparable to that of their contemporaries (i.e. Tornado and F-111). Under the circumstances (minimal AD coverage and plenty of time to service them); they should function just fine, flying 1-3 sorties a day (with multiple crews). Same goes for SU-25SM (which is a lot simpler and cheaper to service). SU-34 is a pretty new bird, so we don't know too much about it; but it is reasonable to assume that its maintenance needs are similar to SU-27/30/33/35. Russians have been flying 70-120 sorties from Latakia daily and that is a pretty much their maximum capacity at this point. Any further flights would have to be conducted from other airfields (if that is what they intend); and we will probably hear about that shortly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BFC have occasionally talked about doing a "CM: Shock Force" sequal and I agree - now would be a good time. They could advance the timeline to 2018 or something and have a three-way battle over Syria: NATO vs. Russia (+ Asad) vs. Insurgents vs. NATO. Would be an interesting combination. You could have some scenarios in which the Russians and NATO are effectively fighting the same enemy and others in which NATO and Russia come to blows - perhaps accidentally, perhaps not.

Although that would be nice, I can foresee a problem. How long does it take to develop a CMx2 game from initial concept to publish date? In the world of current events things move fast. The present situation may be gone and the Russia vs NATO option may have moved elsewhere, say Iran, back to Ukraine or elsewhere. If you're a small dev working on a hypothetical future scenario based on a current hot event, and things move on, say Assad goes and a pro-western government is elected, and your Russia vs NATO concept in that country looks dated, then your work in progress is left hanging in the air. The topic country has gone cold, how will this effect sales? Do you continue working another year hoping it will pay off or do you abandon the idea as current events have moved on, and the hot topic of the minute is elsewhere? Recreating history, creating distant future SF or fictional countries a la Arma series is less of a gamble. Trying to play near future predictor with a situation that is immediate is a big gamble IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTR posted a terrific vid over on CMBS, and when I went back to YT so I could bookmark the link, I found this in the window pane that came up after it finished. From what I can tell, it's a deep look (and I do mean deep) into the Tu-160 strategic bomber, but tied into the Russian airstrikes in Syria, with considerable coverage of other Russian combat aircraft in use there. In fact, the video several times puts up a commemorative placard for the two Su-24M crewmen killed over and on Turkey while transiting it to Syria. If I made the right neural connections, two of the Tu-160s in the combat fleet now each bear one of those names emblazoned in huge letters on the fuselage.Additionally, the Su-34, Tu-22M, Su-24M, Su-25SM, Su-30SM and MiG-31 are covered on the fixed wing side, as well as the Mi-35 and Mi-17 on the rotary wing end. This vid is, as far as I'm concerned, the best gift ever for someone interested in military aviation and aviation tech, let alone Russian combat aviation. You're in the aircraft hangars, the rebuild facilities, the factories; at the airfields, in the design bureaus, looking at test footage, live fire, strikes against anti-Assad forces in Syria and much more. While it's in Russian only, and I'm certain a great deal is lost to non Russophones as a result, what's there is so stupendous that it makes drinking from a fire hydrant seem like a trickle. The only thing that bothered me is some sort of obsession the director or producer had with the same drop footage iterated many times of the Kh-55. Truly, this vid is the stuff of aviation buff and aerospace specialist dreams. Watching it won't be quick, oh, is it worth the time investment!

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2015 at 2:05 AM, VladimirTarasov said:

T-90As are crewed by Russian servicemen, Not Iranian volunteers.

Do you have some sort of evidence for this statement or are you merely attempting to stir the pot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Do you have some sort of evidence for this statement or are you merely attempting to stir the pot?

I don't get what you mean by stirring the pot but it turns out I was mistaken since during the time there was no info, I assumed such important tanks would be crewed by Russian crewmen. The crews as far as I know are Syrian soldiers trained to use the machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...