Dramatic Change in Russian Attack Helicopter Tactics

[Luka]

Not sure why either country even bothers.

At the least they help them defend to some extent?

Oh and here's the link Duchess was referring to: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/inside-the-air-war-against-isis-60-minutes/

[Battlefront.com]

The point of airstrikes is to provide both political support as well as some practical tactical support that matters for a small engagement.  Sometimes a strike gets lucky and takes out a command element, bomb making expert, financier, etc.  Not enough to change the course of a conflict, usually, but it can be better than nothing.

Steve

[Codename Duchess]

No I understand the point in the strikes, but as someone who in the next 18 months will be over those same skies dropping those same bombs, it's not exactly something to look forward to given the **** quality of ground forces as panzer outlined.

[Battlefront.com]

No I understand the point in the strikes, but as someone who in the next 18 months will be over those same skies dropping those same bombs, it's not exactly something to look forward to given the **** quality of ground forces as panzer outlined.

Yup, there is definitely an element of "why bother" in this whole conflict (hence my general position to let them burn out).  Certainly the idea of arming the Iraqis with a couple Billion worth of equipment that they'll abandon to ISIS when the first shot is fired fits into the "why bother" category.  I remember one US officer who worked with Iraqi forces telling me they were happy to simply get the soldiers to stop doing the "death blossom" fire discipline.  Yes, that is a reference to the somewhat obscure, but awesome, movie called The Last Starfighter.  And yes, I found the comment hilarious and sad at the same time

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I was more pleasantly surprised when they started using safeties, keeping their fingers out of the trigger well, and horseplaying in their barracks with loaded weapons*.  Not death blossoming was simply a bridge too far for our Iraqis.   


*Massive OT, but when we were getting ready to go we were warned that a sniper was active in our part of Baghdad, and while he did not target Americans, he shot the living daylights out of any uniformed Iraqi person.  Many theories and profiles were created, risk assessments run, attempts at establishing patterns made, and powerpoints produced.  Fast forward to like, week two of the deployment.  An Iraqi is killed with a shot to the chest by our mystery sniper.  Our QRF burns out of the gate, trying to get there and hopefully catch this dude before he bops out of there.  The Iraqis escort the QRF to the scene of the shooting.  It's an interior barracks room with no windows.  There's a shell casing on the floor, and the dude looks to have been shot from the other part of the room.

Relevant information from that day:

1. Accidental shootings do not come with payouts to the surviving family.  Sniper attacks do!

2. Looking back at the reported sniping attacks, nearly all of them were in very unlikely locations.

3. There were dozens of these "attacks" over the course of a few months.

Needless to say it was a long year.  

[Sgt Joch]

What you fail to grasp is that the criticism leveled at your concept is well reasoned and very solidly backed up by reality.  That means your proposal isn't well informed.  It might not be "silly" or "stupid", but defending it without addressing any of the criticism leveled at it certainly isn't doing you any favors.

well Steve, as you know, my proposal is a means, a policy is desired end goals. Assuming the policy is removing Assad from power and replacing him with someone better, the means are how you get there.

Right now stated western aims in Syria are to remove Assad from power and to replace him with a more inclusive, democratic government.

The means which are currently used are to provide arms to the Rebels and bomb ISIL.  The consensus is that this will probably produce at best, an Islamic republic, at worst, a failed state like Libya, neither of which are better than the current situation. Qaddafi was a brutal dictator, but the current situation in Libya is not an improvement for the rest of the region.

It should be obvious that the only way the West achieves its stated policy of installing the more inclusive, democratic government in Damascus that western liberals want is if NATO goes in there and installs one. Now if the consensus is that this will take 100,000+ troops and 10+ years of war and that it will probably turn into a debacle like Iraq and Afghanistan, then obviously yes, that is non starter.

which brings me back to my original question, namely what are they smoking in Washington? It must be obvious to them that the means they are using will not achieve their stated policy goals and in fact will probably lead to a worst outcome.

So the policy has to be scrapped and the west has to come up with more modest and realistic goals which would mean coming up with a compromise that will probably leave Assad in power in the west and grant autonomy to the Sunni areas as you discussed. However, none of that will happen until both sides burn themselves out and a new President is in the WH.

 

Edited October 27, 2015 by Sgt Joch

[Nidan1]

 But the article being written just yesterday makes me feel as if it has a political bias to it. Of course, I wouldn't want to offend you in anyway. 

 

Why, because it does not reflect your understanding of the situation or the sources you are reading.

All commentary on military situations not received directly from folks on the ground and part of the action is suspect. Propaganda is practiced by all sides in this Syrian mess. Obviously not every news release is  100% accurate. Numbers can be fudged to reflect any outcome that is desired. 150 sorties, etc. All a sortie means is that an aircraft was dispatched to strike a target. It may not necessarily have dropped its ordnance and just flew back to base for whatever reason. Those numbers reflect operational tallies for all air forces. Unless there is accurate battle damage assessments, or strikes are followed up by tangible positive results on the ground, they are just numbers.

The U.S., for example has been conducting air/ground attack operations in the Middle East and North Africa since the Fist Gulf War. That's nearly 25 years of experience, and America still hits wrong targets and over hypes its bombing results.

Quoting articles from various sources should not offend anyone IMO, they are not directed at other posters but provided as supporting documentation for a certain point of view. We are all adults here (I think) we can discuss these situations without taking offense at the drop of a hat.

 

Edited October 27, 2015 by Nidan1

[Battlefront.com]

well Steve, as you know, my proposal is a means, a policy is desired end goals. Assuming the policy is removing Assad from power and replacing him with someone better, the means are how you get there.

Yes, but making suggestions which have zero chance of happening aren't very useful.  It's OK to propose them to start a discussion, however when counter arguments are made the original position should adapt to them instead of ignoring/rejecting them. This is where your line of argument has gotten into trouble because it's been pointed out that your proposal made some fundamental and irrevocable logic errors.  Unless you can counter those assertions, your concept should be abandoned as presented.

Right now stated western aims in Syria are to remove Assad from power and to replace him with a more inclusive, democratic government.

You are forgetting that part of the war aims is to not get directly involved in any major way.  The two are inseparable, which is why the conflict is dragging out.  If the US really wanted to remove Assad from power it could do that any day of the week by invading with ground forces.  It has the technical and logistical means of doing, and it certainly has the experience to pull it off.  Therefore, even without reading a single article or knowing even the slightest bit about US foreign and domestic policy it should be rather obvious that the US does not want to do it.

The means which are currently used are to provide arms to the Rebels and bomb ISIL.  The consensus is that this will probably produce at best, an Islamic republic, at worst, a failed state like Libya, neither of which are better than the current situation. Qaddafi was a brutal dictator, but the current situation in Libya is not an improvement for the rest of the region.

Neither would a failed multi-year, multi-billion US led ground war and occupation.  At least from the US perspective.

It should be obvious that the only way the West achieves its stated policy of installing the more inclusive, democratic government in Damascus that western liberals want is if NATO goes in there and installs one. Now if the consensus is that this will take 100,000+ troops and 10+ years of war and that it will probably turn into a debacle like Iraq and Afghanistan, then obviously yes, that is non starter.

Since that is the consensus, that is why it's a non starter.

which brings me back to my original question, namely what are they smoking in Washington? It must be obvious to them that the means they are using will not achieve their stated policy goals and in fact will probably lead to a worst outcome.

Sometimes, too frequently in fact, nation states do things just to say they are doing something instead of nothing.  Russia is doing the same thing.  In fact, all the outside players (including the entire UN) are doing things in their own way which have the illusion of meaningful action but are, in fact, doing nothing.

So the policy has to be scrapped and the west has to come up with more modest and realistic goals which would mean coming up with a compromise that will probably leave Assad in power in the west and grant autonomy to the Sunni areas as you discussed. However, none of that will happen until both sides burn themselves out and a new President is in the WH.

And as I discussed, it's got no realistic chance of happening because various parties (Russia, Iran, and Turkey in particular) do not wish it to happen YET.  Neither do any of the parties involved in the fighting.  That is the point of letting the fighting burn out.  With the fighting parties exhausted and weak, they are going to be more willing to compromise.  It also means their backers are going to be more willing to compromise because they will sense they could lose everything if they do nothing constructive.

This is one of the major lessons to come out of the Balkan experience.  While there absolutely were things that NATO could have (and SHOULD have) done to save tens of thousands of lives and end the active fighting portion of the conflict sooner, ultimately it had to let the parties involved wear themselves out before there could be a political settlement.  Russia, which backed Yugoslavia to the hilt, eventually had to agree to let Yugoslavia break up because it was clear there was no way it could be any different.  That was not the case in 1991-1993.  Even with the breakup It had hoped that it would preserve a larger Yugoslavia (Montenegro + Kosovo + portion of Bosnia), but even that wasn't possible.  Now Russia is helping a move to break up Bosnia politically, so it's trying to achieve some of its original goals at a later time.  Which is another lesson to take away from the Balkans... outside players don't necessarily give up on their goals for good.

Steve

 

[LukeFF]

 

Who thought a few years ago that the U.S. would be able to conclude a nuclear agreement with Iran?

...which doesn't really mean much, given how horribly flawed the plan is.

 

[VladimirTarasov]

Why, because it does not reflect your understanding of the situation or the sources you are reading.

All commentary on military situations not received directly from folks on the ground and part of the action is suspect. Propaganda is practiced by all sides in this Syrian mess. Obviously not every news release is  100% accurate. Numbers can be fudged to reflect any outcome that is desired. 150 sorties, etc. All a sortie means is that an aircraft was dispatched to strike a target. It may not necessarily have dropped its ordnance and just flew back to base for whatever reason. Those numbers reflect operational tallies for all air forces. Unless there is accurate battle damage assessments, or strikes are followed up by tangible positive results on the ground, they are just numbers.

The U.S., for example has been conducting air/ground attack operations in the Middle East and North Africa since the Fist Gulf War. That's nearly 25 years of experience, and America still hits wrong targets and over hypes its bombing results.

Quoting articles from various sources should not offend anyone IMO, they are not directed at other posters but provided as supporting documentation for a certain point of view. We are all adults here (I think) we can discuss these situations without taking offense at the drop of a hat.

 

Yeah it doesn't reflect my understanding nor anything that would make sense militarily speaking. I'm familiar with Russian logistics plans, If the operational readiness of all the aircraft deployed fell at below 70% Putin would shove something into the military chain of command really deep in. Russia has experience from 80s of operating in harsh conditions in Afghanistan. It makes no sense on why you would need 25 years of experience to have logistics and maintenance in check, Even if it mattered I'm sure the Syrian military could provide some experience and advice over to us.

And I get what you are saying, But this is the internet people can get offended easily, I Just didn't want to be that guy 

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Yeah it doesn't reflect my understanding nor anything that would make sense militarily speaking. I'm familiar with Russian logistics plans, If the operational readiness of all the aircraft deployed fell at below 70% Putin would shove something into the military chain of command really deep in. Russia has experience from 80s of operating in harsh conditions in Afghanistan. It makes no sense on why you would need 25 years of experience to have logistics and maintenance in check, Even if it mattered I'm sure the Syrian military could provide some experience and advice over to us.

It's not the maintaining the equipment itself, its the maintaining the equipment "over the horizon" as it were.  There's a whole level of complexity to keeping equipment operational well away from home bases, and this is something Russia has not had as much experience with.

In regards to the operational readiness, a story:

The M1A2 SEP V2s assigned to Korea were largely from the first and early runs of that particular model.  They'd been used by 1st CAV, treated fairly roughly, and then replaced with newer M1A2 SEP V2s.  The parts stocks for Korea at the time did not include as many M1A2 parts as they should have.  Maintaining the standards the Army put down for operational readiness simply was not possible, we got close, and frankly could have gone to war with every tank in our formation, but some part of the population would have had some systems inoperable, or required breaking into the go to war parts stocks.  And because they were the buggier SEP v2s, and had been previously used, they had a lot of parts that simply needed to be replaced one way or the other.

As a result, some units instead of reporting that they had 9 operational tanks, and 5 broken ones would do some triage, and cannibalize parts from two of the broken tanks to fix up the other three enough to be fully mission capable enough to pass inspection.  Or instead of ordering the needed parts electronically against the tanks that needed them which would flag the unit as having fallen below reporting standards, all the parts would be ordered against one tank, so the system would just show that X Company had one REALLY broken tank instead of five sort of broken ones which was within tolerances. Or there'd be all sorts of paperwork twisting and dodging.  Tank C23 is totally broken right now when we're supposed to be reporting the issue....but the parts that fix it come in two days from now and it'll take about 30 minutes to install them.  So let's just say it's fine right?

Now for the American taxpayer, and the South Korean citizen, if war had broken out you'd have had all 14 tanks in combat.  Between the warstocks for parts, looser standards (a headlight out on a tank is a "deadline" item for safety reasons, so the tank is not mission capable.  In war time, zero pelvic thrusts given).  We were ready and we'd have taken a terrible toll on the DPRK.

But the easiest way to avoid getting someone shoving something very deep in you about readiness rates is to adjust numbers creatively, and I do not believe Russian equipment is so vastly more reliable as to not break down as much as it's western counterparts (and the Russian equipment I've seen does break down as often as its western counterparts).  Given this I imagine someone is defining operational readiness is the usual slightly flexible way vs 100% strike readiness.  

*as far as training/garrison operations parts.  There were literally warehouses and warehouses of complete M1A2s and spare parts located farther south.

[Battlefront.com]

...which doesn't really mean much, given how horribly flawed the plan is.

 

Still, if you understand the diplomacy that was needed to get this deal done you should find it extremely impressive.  Last week I heard an excellent talk by someone who was allowed to interview all sides during the negotiations and gave a lot of details about how we got to this point in time.  I've always been suspicious that certain political pressure groups were vastly distorting Iran's position and motivation for their own political gain, and this talk I heard more than reinforced that.

Anyway, the Iran deal is way too off topic to get into here.  I just wanted to point out that when there's room for negotiation in a way that all sides can get most of what they want and do not have delusions that they can get everything they want, compromise is possible.  That is not where the Syrian conflict is right now, therefore a diplomatic solution is unrealistic for the time being.

Steve

[VladimirTarasov]

Nice story panzer, Always interesting to hear about stuff like that.

But until I can get a picture or event or better evidence that 1/3 of the Russian aircraft deployed are not flying because they don't have maintenance, Then I will not even take it serious. I understand your M1A2 SEPv2s didn't have spares, But that doesn't mean Russian jets dont have any spares in Syria.

 

Edited October 27, 2015 by VladimirTarasov

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah it doesn't reflect my understanding nor anything that would make sense militarily speaking. I'm familiar with Russian logistics plans, If the operational readiness of all the aircraft deployed fell at below 70% Putin would shove something into the military chain of command really deep in.

He might, but even a dictator can not make things happen with a snap of his fingers.  Stalin learned that in 1941.  Even executing senior officers to "set an example" did not do anything to stop the German advance.  What it did do, however, was get a lot of Soviet soldiers killed for no good reason.  It was so bad that the Soviet Union almost lost the war because Stalin thought his will alone could overcome realities on the ground.

The recent series of bomber crashes is another example.  I am sure Putin didn't authorize all those crashes at a time when he was trying to show the world how strong Russia's airforce is.

The point here is that leadership does not always get what it wants no matter what.  Therefore, any argument based on the presumption that leadership demands = battlefield results is inherently flawed.

Russia has experience from 80s of operating in harsh conditions in Afghanistan.

True.  And the US had experience in large scale counter-insurgency in Vietnam.  It was almost totally forgotten when the US invaded Afghanistan and the lessons from that were not learned until several years after the invasion of Iraq.  This is because "institutional memory" fades over time.

It makes no sense on why you would need 25 years of experience to have logistics and maintenance in check, Even if it mattered I'm sure the Syrian military could provide some experience and advice over to us.

This I agree with.  I don't think Russia needs 25 years of experience before it can wage a very small, limited scope operation from a single base in Syria.  But I don't think it needs only a few days or weeks to learn everything it needs to *and* address deficiencies.  And yes, the Syrians can possibly help.  Though history shows that the more powerful partner tends to ignore the offers of help until after they discover they need it.

Steve

[Codename Duchess]

No one is claiming 67% maintenance levels, but no one also believes 100% 100% of the time.  The truth is almost certainly somewhere in between.  Again, this isn't HATO stronk, Russia weak chest-thumping, it's the experience from a couple of people who have spent time around modern military equipment.

[Battlefront.com]

Nice story panzer, Always interesting to hear about stuff like that.

But until I can get a picture or event or better evidence that 1/3 of the Russian aircraft deployed are not flying because they don't have maintenance, Then I will not even take it serious.

This is interesting logic.  There is a story about 100% readiness which is not from a reliable source.  There is another one which says 70% readiness and is from a more reliable, but not necessary correct, source.  People who have first hand experience with military deployments and readiness explain why 70% is more likely than 100%.  Then there's more commentary from others who point out how perfection is difficult to achieve for many other reasons.  Yet you decide to believe the 100% figure.

The fact is that Russian government is the only source that is allowed access to readiness numbers and interviews with the personnel involved.  The Russian government has no incentive to tell the truth if there is a problem with readiness.  The Russian government also has a very well established track record of bold faced lies.  Therefore, if you are expecting to get a "better picture" of the Russian readiness levels in Syria from official Russian information sources, you are deluding yourself.  Maybe, just maybe, the small independent Russian news sources might get some real information.  However, in the past you have dismissed these sources as "fifth column" organizations and therefore you don't appear likely to believe them.

Can I ask a simple question?  Where do you expect to get the better evidence?  What source out there would pass the reliability standards of the people in this discussion that you would not reject out of hand?  Or are we going to have a continuation of the Donbas discussion?

 

I understand your M1A2 SEPv2s didn't have spares, But that doesn't mean Russian jets dont have any spares in Syria.

Nobody said this.  There's thousands of moving parts on an aircraft, with a huge number of them necessary for flight and/or combat effectiveness.  It doesn't take much to keep an aircraft grounded.  Just look at the problems with bombers on Russia's home bases recently for an example of this.

Russia has reduced its combat flights by a large amount in the last few weeks.  Russia claims it is because they've destroyed so many targets that they don't need to attack as often as before.  That is very difficult to believe.  It is possible that the reduction of sorties is in part because of readiness problems.

Steve

Edited October 27, 2015 by Battlefront.com

[VladimirTarasov]

Steve,

If you take everything for word by word, Then I probably did say other exaggerations too. 90% would be the real figure. The reason I did not continue our Donbass conversation was because if I dismiss your sources, Then you will dismiss mine. There for we will just be spitting back and forth with no real outcome. My sources are videos of the conflict, statements from the MoD, Let us not forget about Syrian government news, As well as info from the rebel and terrorist groups.

 It appears to me as if you think that the US government never lies? I'm sure Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq is perfect with democracy all over.. In Yugoslavia Croatians murdered thousands of Serbians, Yet when rogue groups of Serbians get revenge all the press gets directed over to the Serbs, NATO bombed civilian areas yet NO coverage what so ever was ever done. My friend who lived in Bosnia had a failed missile right outside his village, If it exploded his village was done(Also sent by our NATO brothers). This is a example and I don't want to start a whole new off topic. 

And no Russia has not decreased its number of combat flights it has increased, In the past 3 days over 285 targets have been hit(actually from October 26th) It went from 60-70 sorties to 160 plus sorties, Now they are hitting 280 Plus targets. Here is a link on it: 

 http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151026/1029124877/russian-warplanes-hit-285-terrorist-targets.h 

The decrease in sorties wouldn't mean much either way if it was true, Because who says there is a certain range of sorties you need to do to be considered maintained, Or effective. The budget has allocated for 10,000 sorties minimum in Syria only. 

https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2015/10/27/drawing-plans-for-iraq-hamymeem-is-the-russian-pilots-favorite-destination-and-graduation/
 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The story had not much to do with spares (again, they existed, just "I get in trouble if this tank isn't working!" was not justification to break into the "we are now at war" stock), and a lot to do with how readiness is reported.  I'm positive every Russian fighter plane in Syria is fully functional and operational and doing missions, it just happens for some reason planes 123, 456, and 789 are in the hangers for unrelated training and crew rest, and for some reason we're ordering spare fan blades just in case!

Readiness and readiness expectations are often great examples of why zero defect mindsets foster bad climates.  I'll break it down a bit simpler:

Leader A believes his organization needs to attain 95% readiness.  He therein sets the standard that 95% of all equipment must be fully mission capable at all times.  He then hangs people's evaluation scores, or their future careers on their ability to achieve 95% readiness, (OR ELSE).  He does not however have access to more parts, more mechanics, but he's sure at organizations below his level can handle it.

Leader B is in charge of a sub-unit within Leader A's organization.  He likes being Leader B and would like to have Leader A's job once Leader A gets promoted.  If he does not achieve 95% readiness he will not achieve that goal.  He's already working the mechanics on 12 hour days and extra details on weekends.  The spare parts budget does not cover the additional repairs required to get from 90% to 95%.  He cannot possibly accomplish mission.  He then finds ways to adjust the readiness numbers without overtly lying (like in my example).  On paper, as reported, his organization is at 95% while in reality it's at 88% because A Company put a Bradley in a ditch and it needs some suspension work.

Leader A gets the report, puffs up his chest.  He realizes he is an amazing leader, and all it took was his divine guidance to make the readiness status go up 5%.  Realizing he has the golden touch, he then mandates maintenance status will be at 97%.  

Leader B the is forced to resort to even more sketchy math to attain standards.  The cycle will continue until it breaks down dramatically (Leader A sees a tank broken down in the motorpool, and asks Leader B how he's at 110% readiness with a broken tank).  The readiness status numbers become a joke and ultimately everyone understands it's a joke, but it's sort of a collective joke that so long as leader A's boss doesn't catch on, life continues as always.

In good military forces, readiness is still high.  Even struggling with parts issues, we rarely had more than two tanks down for more than a few hours (the great benefit of Company level maintenance, fast response times).  But the magic numbers exist to fluff someone's resume.

Which is exactly what I'm certain is behind any reports of 100% readiness, because simply it's impossible.  Complex machines break.  They do it often.  Given enough of them doing a thing some number of them will not be available because broken, or be conducting required maintenance and unavailable for mission.  

The same thing occurred with various Soviet and Chinese 5 Year Plans/whatever.  The massive results didn't exist outside of creative math, but the creative maths increased expectations of performance.  It often leads to reinforcing failure (or doubling down on marginal performance) which is always lovely.  

[JonS]

The Russian government has no incentive to tell the truth if there is a problem with readiness.

It's not even a 'problem' with readiness, either. Not necessarily. Kit breaking down is just the way it goes. Trying to deny that reality is like trying to assert that a vehicle fuel tank won't be empty at the end of a long trip, because glorious Soviet cars don't use fuel!, or sumfink.

[Battlefront.com]

Steve,

If you take everything for word by word, Then I probably did say other exaggerations too. 90% would be the real figure. The reason I did not continue our Donbass conversation was because if I dismiss your sources, Then you will dismiss mine. There for we will just be spitting back and forth with no real outcome. My sources are videos of the conflict, statements from the MoD, Let us not forget about Syrian government news, As well as info from the rebel and terrorist groups.

Those are the sorts of sources I showed you and you dismissed or refused to discuss (like the Buryat in Debaltseve).  That's why I asked you this question, because it seems whenever I presented something you could not explain you moved onto something else or (worse) dismissed it without giving any justification for doing so.  I do not do that.  In fact, I will prove it a little further down in this response.

 It appears to me as if you think that the US government never lies?

How did you come up with that?  I said exactly the opposite.  Of course the US government lies.  So does the US military.  The difference is that they are careful about what they lie about because they can get caught very easily.  For example, the US didn't invade Iraq and say "those aren't our soldiers" because in society with freedom of the press and the government has almost no media under its control, such a lie would be suicide.  Not so for Russia.  Therefore, if Russia is able to lie about very, very, very big things (like Green Men in Crimea), then it's not going to think twice about making false statements about readiness levels.

In Yugoslavia Croatians murdered thousands of Serbians, Yet when rogue groups of Serbians get revenge all the press gets directed over to the Serbs, NATO bombed civilian areas yet NO coverage what so ever was ever done.

None of what you said was true because I know of all these things and I wasn't there.  Therefore, this information is readily available.  Also, it's hard not to know about Croat warcrimes when the Hague has prosecuted many Croats for their crimes against both Serbs and Bosnians.  For example, here's information I found in 5 seconds using Google:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia

And no Russia has not decreased its number of combat flights it has increased, In the past 3 days over 285 targets have been hit(actually from October 26th) It went from 60-70 sorties to 160 plus sorties, Now they are hitting 280 Plus targets. Here is a link on it: 

 http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151026/1029124877/russian-warplanes-hit-285-terrorist-targets.h 

Sputnik News is a shameless propaganda organ of the Russian state.  It doesn't always lie, but it lies enough that it can not be relied upon without other non-Kremlin controlled information sources. In this case it seems that the basic part of the Sputnik article is true, but I only believed the increase when I saw it reported in other sources.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-in-syria-moscow-to-increase-missions-in-syria-to-300-a-day-a6698876.html

Though all this article, and another I checked out, can do is repeat what Russian officials tell them.  There is no independent verification and, as I said before, Russian officials making these statements are not trust worthy.

Here's the article I remembered first learning of the decrease.  It was from last week, so obviously out of date:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russia-says-fewer-air-strikes-in-syria/539203.html

The decrease in sorties wouldn't mean much either way if it was true, Because who says there is a certain range of sorties you need to do to be considered maintained, Or effective. The budget has allocated for 10,000 sorties minimum in Syria only. 

https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2015/10/27/drawing-plans-for-iraq-hamymeem-is-the-russian-pilots-favorite-destination-and-graduation/

True.  I only mentioned the decrease because it could have been linked with a readiness problem.  Putin is now telling us that the sorties are being increased, so the activity might be going up by a factor of 4.  Then again the Tygr APCs in Crimea that Putin said were purchased on eBay turned out to be Russian military, just as everybody with 1/2 a brain already knew.

Whatever the case is, any source that is saying that Russian military capabilities in Syria are operating at 100% are lying or exaggerating (there is a slight difference).  Therefore, when another source reports a lower figure it can not be dismissed by using the source reporting 100% because that source is not credible.  If you want to believe 90% is the more realistic number, what is that based on?

Steve

[Kinophile]

http://www.cast.ru/eng/?id=604

The always useful  CAST on the Russian foray into Syria. 

They also mention that equipment and readiness issues are normal and to be expected,  due to the geophysical reality of the AO and Russian lack of modern expeditionary experience in such an environment.

It would probably have a disproportionate effect compared the to US lead coalition forces,  due to the smaller numbers of airframes and sudden high tempo required for the intervention to be politically useful (ie hard hitting and fast,  as opposed to the perceived steady grind of the US campaign).

Slightly older article,  but prescient.

Edited October 28, 2015 by kinophile

[VladimirTarasov]

Steve, Not going into our past arguments but I'll give you a point, You are right I shouldn't have discontinued our argument. But thing is I argue on many other forums and websites the same thing, And after a certain point I just felt like not doing so anymore. Apologies.

On to Syria though, As far as I know there hasn't been any issues with the operations, I'm still wondering if manpads were used against Russian sorties. And if I didn't reply to any points you made its because at the moment I am really busy and this will be a quick reply

[BTR]

From my personal experience on military readiness, unless you have 100% brand new equipment checked by factory personnel at the said factory, something will always be broken. 100% readiness is a bit like an ideal gas. 

 

 

 

[Luka]

 100% readiness is a bit like an ideal gas. 

well said  

[Battlefront.com]

Steve, Not going into our past arguments but I'll give you a point, You are right I shouldn't have discontinued our argument. But thing is I argue on many other forums and websites the same thing, And after a certain point I just felt like not doing so anymore. Apologies.

If someone doesn't want to put the time into arguing a controversial point, I don't have a problem with it.  Trying to argue one, then backing down from supporting the claim, is a different matter.  I know you have decided to not engage in those debates and therefore everything is OK.  It's the "half way" argument that is frustrating.

Having said that, please keep in mind that Russian state information sources are not considered reliable by the world at large.  Therefore, in a debate it is best not to rely too heavily on them.  While they do not always lie and distort truth, they do both actions enough on a regular basis to undermine their credibility. 

On to Syria though, As far as I know there hasn't been any issues with the operations, I'm still wondering if manpads were used against Russian sorties. And if I didn't reply to any points you made its because at the moment I am really busy and this will be a quick reply

I have seen reports of MANPADs being in theater, however if they are they must be in very small quantities because otherwise the Syrian airforce would have been effectively defeated even before the Russians showed up.  Look at what happened in Ukraine when Russia flooded the DPR/LPR forces with MANPADs.  Almost overnight the Ukrainian airforce had to withdraw from combat and supply operations.  It has only made very, very limited strikes since then.

 

From my personal experience on military readiness, unless you have 100% brand new equipment checked by factory personnel at the said factory, something will always be broken. 100% readiness is a bit like an ideal gas. 

Absolutely.  And it is no different in the non-military world.  I bought a brand new Kubota tractor many years ago.  Within a few months a major component ($2000+!) failed and had to be replaced under the manufacturer's warranty.  Because this part normally doesn't fail, the US supply system had none in stock and therefore had to come directly from Japan.  It took two weeks to get my 3 month old tractor working and back to my house.  The thought that this sort of thing isn't happening for Russia in Syria is just nonsense.  Problems will happen and some of them will not be fixed in 5 minutes or even 5 days or perhaps even 5 weeks.

Steve