BFC, How much of this does Syria actually have?

[John Kettler]

I see gear here much more advanced than some of ours, to include the Msta-S (fully capable of dispersed ops and MRSI shoots), the Tor, the Sprut-SD and more. Frankly, this is calling into serious question some of the central tenets underlying what the Syrians are allowed to have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaGTmreXYm8&feature=related

I seriously doubt we're going to be able to mop the floor against a force equipped with SA-12 GLADIATOR, SA-12b GIANT ATBMs, Pantsyr and who knows what else nastiness. If we can't simply pulverize Syria with overwhelming airpower, an iffy proposition against extremely powerful advanced weaponry, then we are now faced with a much bigger force fraction surviving, the reappearance of Syrian artillery en masse, probably attack helos (Ka-25 HOKUM, if the vid's to be trusted) and maybe even some localized Syrian airpower. Some of the SAMs shown were state of the art and not even operational when I left military aerospace in 1989.

This cascades into U.S. forces under air attack they're ill equipped to deal with and have no experience being under, not to mention a huge hit in U.S. firepower because, much like the Israelis in the early stages of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, it may be way too hot for CAS. At best, strike firepower and accuracy will be degraded, and that's without getting into the real likelihood that standoff weaponry may now be engaged and shot down.

Would be interested in seeing some discussion of this and how we might incorporate this into the game. And did you know Assad's been shopping again in Russia?

Regards,

John Kettler

[meade95]

Syria would not be able to keep one aircraft in the sky's after 48-96 hours - All the hyperbole speak about the 'latest and greatest" Russian hardware meaning this or that.....just isn't reality......... Hell we (U.S. / Israel) just made Syria's whole anti-aircraft system go "dark" last year when their nuclear production facility was taken out.....

Reality is with the speed and violence the United States can put forth in conventional type warfare there are no third-world nations that could last (any length of time) in such a conflict.......

Falling back into a guerilla warfare type fight is the only option (and even threre, with resolve from the American political side......our forces will eventually come out on top)...

[The_Red_Rage]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,422911,00.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=IVA20060728&articleId=2847

Looks like Syria is going to get top of the line air defense system. Even Russia herself doesn't have Pantsyrs yet, with first order going to Syria. C-300 is pretty much as advanced as it gets with air defense nowdays, and it looks like most of Syrian terriory will be within range.

Edit: "Speed and violence" of US attacks highly depends on terrain. In the open desert - sure. Mountains/vegetaion rich terrain/or cities and you can throw all the advantage out. For example, the actual result of the multibillion bombing campaign on Serb forces in Kosovo was less than 4 knocked out tanks, the rest were mockups (contrasted with a loss of a F117). Now, add some C-300 complexes, Pantsyrs and a Black Sea Battlegroup covering the Tartus port. Syria won't be a pushover like completely demoralized by sanctions Iraq

[meade95]

Syria will be weaker than Iraq (outside of Hezz support) in comparison to 1991 - In full blown shooting war -

[dan/california]

Until there is some evidence that the the Syrian air defense system would actually work, the assumption has to be that they would get hammered. As mentioned above the Israeli's took out the reactor site without a missile being fired. That was not the only time they have demonstrated the ability to overfly Syria at will either.

Thus the assumption that the U.S. Air-Force would have absolute air supremacy in a matter of days seems quite valid until there is some actual evidence otherwise.

[The_Red_Rage]

Thing is - it ain't going to be Syrian air defense system, but rather a Russian one. C-300 are to be positioned around the Tartus port and manned by Russian personnel. C-200 makes Patriot look like a child's toy to give you and idea of what C-300 is what capable of. Combined with Pantsyrs and difficult terrain, it will make US pilots feel very paranoid.

Syrians are very well aware than Israelis punctured their air defense, and they are taking measures. Now than US and Russia stopped pretending to be in peace and harmony, both will start aggresively expanding their spheres on influence. Russia in particular, as US have been making very aggresive moves for the last 11 years. Considering that Syria was always loyal ally of the Soviets - they will have a place under Russian "wing". Problems with Sebastopol might leave Black Sea "homeless" soon, leaving Russia with two choices - relocate or attempt to orginize a coup in Ukraine and take Sebastopol back where in belongs. Considering the amount of international whining taking back Sebastopol would make, relocating seems like a more practical option. And Tartus is the best peice of real estate avaliable strategically. Now imagine the amount of hardware that will be protecting such a port, not to mention that US won't risk bombing Russian targets.

[akd]

I see gear here much more advanced than some of ours, to include the Msta-S (fully capable of dispersed ops and MRSI shoots), the Tor, the Sprut-SD and more. Frankly, this is calling into serious question some of the central tenets underlying what the Syrians are allowed to have.

Cobbling together promotional videos from Russian manufacturers (most of that footage is available here: http://www.rusarm.ru/) then labeling the video "Syrian Army" does not make the equipment magically appear in Syria, or even make the Syrians any more likely to acquire the equipment. Basically just a video compilation of stuff Russia would like someone to buy someday, so then they can maybe afford to equip their own army with some of it.

[meade95]

Thing is - it ain't going to be Syrian air defense system, but rather a Russian one. C-300 are to be positioned around the Tartus port and manned by Russian personnel. C-200 makes Patriot look like a child's toy to give you and idea of what C-300 is what capable of. Combined with Pantsyrs and difficult terrain, it will make US pilots feel very paranoid.

Syrians are very well aware than Israelis punctured their air defense, and they are taking measures. Now than US and Russia stopped pretending to be in peace and harmony, both will start aggresively expanding their spheres on influence. Russia in particular, as US have been making very aggresive moves for the last 11 years. Considering that Syria was always loyal ally of the Soviets - they will have a place under Russian "wing". Problems with Sebastopol might leave Black Sea "homeless" soon, leaving Russia with two choices - relocate or attempt to orginize a coup in Ukraine and take Sebastopol back where in belongs. Considering the amount of international whining taking back Sebastopol would make, relocating seems like a more practical option. And Tartus is the best peice of real estate avaliable strategically. Now imagine the amount of hardware that will be protecting such a port, not to mention that US won't risk bombing Russian targets.

The C300 system will be defeated and blinded just like much of the past Russian airdefense sytems have been since the 80s. In 1991 Saddam boasted (and so did plenty of others) of what incredible systematic air defense systems Iraq had.........It was useless within days....

Ditto this for Syria.....And yes, if push comes to shove, and Russian manned AAA/SAMs are targeting and shooting at U.S. aircraft they will have fires put on them.....and quickly...

Again, Syria (conventional wise) would be taken care of within a month.....The sky's would be completely ours (U.S.) within 48-96 hours......I have no doubt about this....

[The_Red_Rage]

Iraq did not have anything remotely close to C-300 or Pantsyr. Most of Iraq's military capability was aimed at dealing with its neighbours, such as Iran, rather than a modern combined arms force. Also Iraq did not have entire Russian carrier battlegroup parked near Baghdad. Syria does (http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=5706), and i would imagine it would be alot harder to blind than 1960s radar stations. With the carrier group comes the early warning, Russian sattelite capability as well as a capable modern bomber/fighter taskforce. It is pretty obvious now that Tartus will become a Russian strategic outpost, with all the improvements made to the port (including deepening the buttom to accomodate larger military ships), so all the upgrades are the matter of time.

Also, Syria is not an open desert, but rather a combination of variety of terrains - some parts (mountains in particular) present perfect opportunities for shoulder-fired AA ambushes. Remember that even F-117 was shot down by what appeared to be either SA-3 or SA-6 (both are not state of the art by any means, and are not even close to what C-300 does).

Syria, unlike Iran, is feeling very, very safe at the moment.

[John Kettler]

meade95,

If the Russians want to make things really exciting, they could give/lend the Syrians HELs and HPMs. That would put the fat in the fire, not to mention doing wonders for the operational-strategic SAMs/ATBMs. Both types of DEW (Directed Energy Weapon) were shown in the old DoD Soviet Military Power series.

Here's the current Syrian air defense SAM coverage (clickable). See those purple circles halfway across Cyprus? Those are S-200 Angara/SA-5 Gammon. It's one thing to sneak tacair in on the deck, but if you're going to in-flight refuel, operate JSTARS or AWACS you have to be at altitude, where this bird shines.

http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/09/syrian-sam-network.html

http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.49/system_detail.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-200

The red circles are V-750/SA-2 GUIDELINE, a weapon that despite intimate knowledge of its guidance modes from CIA theft of guidance components from the identical missile in Indonesian service (Op HABRINK), Wild Weasel and Iron Hand, not to mention tons of onboard jamming gear, downed 15 B-52s alone during Linebacker 2. Before we got a handle on it, the SA-2 was downing one American plane for every two SA-2s launched.

The blue rings belong to the S-125 Neva/SA-3 GOA. A modified SA-3, firing in optical mode (all Russian built tactical SAMs have TV or IR passive targeting capability) shot down an F-117 Stealth Fighter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117_Nighthawk

Pilot's own words.

Two things did in the F-117 from our end: technological hubris and predictability, the latter the same problem that led to a brief B-52 crew mutiny during Linebacker II. The flight planners kept sending the B-52s in and out the same way raid after raid. Bad idea!

The green rings are for the 2K12 Kub/SA-6 GAINFUL, whose baptism of fire was in the 1973 Yom Kippur War vs. Skyhawks and Phantoms, yet had no trouble whatsoever blowing Scott O'Grady's F-16C out of the sky in 1995.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K12_Kub

I could present several more examples, but let's just say the SAMs shown in the video make these look anemic; that the U.S. has NEVER been up against anything even remotely as deadly; that the lessons of what the U.S. can do and how it operates have been learned and learned well from those who suffered the most at its hands: the Iraqis. These systems can be netted so that they see a target from radar embarrassing angles, thus countering Stealth; they can also be netted with all manner of passive detection systems, allowing targeting without telltale radar lock. The operational-strategic systems will have decoys, jammers, GPS jammers and broadband obscurant systems protecting them, in addition to things like the 2S6 Tunguska or Pantsyr. These systems are highly mobile, some can fire on the move or from the short halt, and the number of elements to be suppressed has exploded. Where before you had to kill or jam one STRAIGHT FLUSH to put an SA-6 battery out of commission, the follow-on system, Buk/SA-11 GADFLY is designed so that each launcher can do its own targeting, and the Tor's even worse, for it has everything on the track, much like the Romb/SA-8 GECKO does, but with vastly more firepower and a shorter reaction time.

There's also the small matter that most U.S. aircraft lack countermeasures to monopulse threats. Oops! I believe this is also true of the B-1B, since ISTR the problem plagued, over budget, expensive defensive countermeasure system was canceled when the Soviet Union collapsed.

Will close by showing you a thing or two that the "hapless Serbs" did that were, well, buried.

NATO aircraft and helicopter losses

http://www.truthinmedia.org/TruthinMedia/Bulletins2006/NATO_secrets.html

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/natolosses-review01.htm

NATO UAV losses over Kosovo

http://defence-data.com/features/fpage34.htm

Combined losses from various sources

http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosovo_crisis/nato/

http://www.yuairwar.com/gubici5.asp

Aside from the obvious fact that we were lied to, the take home from this is that unless the target zone is basically a billiard table devoid of cover, which Syria assuredly isn't,

it is very expensive in aircraft and resources to dismantle even a smallish integrated air defense, and Syria's is enormous, layered, very nasty and is getting even nastier rapidly. To expect Iraq type results, where we knew practically everything there was to know about Iraqi defenses and had hacked the C3I network even before hard killing parts of it, given all the factors I've listed, and that list is by no means exhaustive, strikes me as military insanity of the worst sort and a recipe for disaster.

Regards,

John Kettler

[meade95]

Mr. John Kettler - For all you list - Reality is reality - We (yes, us and the Israelis) just made Syria's most prized / top-secret facility go "boom"....and none of their systems even knew we were there........And we weren't even trying to have a shooting war with them - We didn't even make them go dark........We just made them unknowingly blind.......(and that is big differecne)....

If we went to war with Syria......conventionally......Syria's (or your opinion of Syria's vaunted military) would cese to be effective in a relatively shory time span.......and would not put an aircraft in the sky after 48-96 hours...... They would be shot out of the sky for those that did take off and look for a fight....and/or would hvae fires put on them when they landed to refuel.....or were secured away looking to bide their time.....

Our military changed drastically in and since the 80's.....and has continued to do so..... The U.S. military today is the most battled tested and accomplished military we have had since WWII...... We are the premire force not only in the Sky's....but in Armor and now MOUT Ops as well - We have literally a military full of experience......With technology that only keeps out paching our would be enemies....

[JonS]

Iraq [in 1991] did not have anything remotely close to C-300 or Pantsyr.

I believe the US has spent a dollar or two of their own on R&D over the last 17 years.

Also, Syria is not an open desert

Shockingly, neither is Iraq.

Remember that even F-117 was shot down by what appeared to be either SA-3 or SA-6 ...

Whoppy do. Kit getting broken in a shooting war is hardly news, and everyone gets lucky now and again. Besides, F-117s aren't in the inventory anymore, so the USAF doesn't really have to worry about a repeat of that incident anyway

[The_Red_Rage]

Our military changed drastically in and since the 80's.....and has continued to do so..... The U.S. military today is the most battled tested and accomplished military we have had since WWII...... We are the premire force not only in the Sky's....but in Armor and now MOUT Ops as well - We have literally a military full of experience......With technology that only keeps out paching our would be enemies....

Reminds me of what was preached before Iraq part 2.

Btw, during early stages of ground invasion of Iraq US commanders were paranoid that Iraqis had Kornet complexes - they didn't. Syrians have 200 million dollars worth of them.

I think you are making wrong assumptions comparing Iraqi capability with Syrian. Iraq was alone, isolated by embargoes, and simply tired of 30 years of wars. Syria is going to become a major stepping stone for Russian interests in the Middle East in the next 2 years, so a total revamp of their air and naval defense systems can be expected. They ordered 3 billion worth of hardware for their land forces as well ( lots of T-90 tanks and Kornets being most noteworthy).

To be honest, i don't think any amount of technology or experience can puncture a properly positioned C-300 defensive grid supported by Pansyrs without MASSIVE losses. And as every CMSF player knows, losses for Blue are bad.

Jon,

Thanks for the article on Serb pilots. First time i've read about the incident. If it is true -Bravo! to the pilots, true bravery to pull a stunt like that. Don't think any of them expected to come back after a mission like that - it was comparable to attacking Pearl Harbor with WW1 Soptwith Camels and getting away with it!

[meade95]

Reminds me of what was preached before Iraq part 2.

I think you are making wrong assumptions comparing Iraqi capability with Syrian. Iraq was alone, isolated by embargoes, and simply tired of 30 years of wars. Syria is going to become a major stepping stone for Russian interests in the Middle East in the next 2 years, so a total revamp of their air and naval defense systems can be expected. They ordered 3 billion worth of hardware for their land forces as well ( lots of T-90 tanks and Kornets being most noteworthy).

QUOTE]

How you speak of Syria today.....This was Iraq in 91 - They did not have an embargo on them then - They were thought to have one of the most equipped and battle hardened armies in the world at that time - Conventionally, they were chewed up and spit out within 30 days.....

And no one preached that OIF would be easy.....(in the sense of rebuilding a country that had spend 30 years under one of the most brutal dictators on earth.....Not to mention AQ looking to make it their personal base.....and the front lines of the WOT.......Which they have clearly lost, now).

With that said, conventionally speaking, OIF took Iraq, within 21 days......

Not all problems have the same solution. There were (which have been proven so) very good reasons to stand by and build up Iraq again.....to bring the values of self-worth and freedoms to the heart of the Middle East.....

That likely would not be the same solution to a situation with Syria. Brute force alone may be the best alternative there........In which case Syria would be completely overwhelmed within weeks.....

We would put fires on Syria's AAA/SAMs to the point where they would fear even lighting them up........

Again, we just bomed Syria's prize....and they didn't even know we were there......

[Lars]

Iraq did not have anything remotely close to C-300 or Pantsyr. Most of Iraq's military capability was aimed at dealing with its neighbours, such as Iran, rather than a modern combined arms force. Also Iraq did not have entire Russian carrier battlegroup parked near Baghdad. Syria does (http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=5706), and i would imagine it would be alot harder to blind than 1960s radar stations. With the carrier group comes the early warning, Russian sattelite capability as well as a capable modern bomber/fighter taskforce. It is pretty obvious now that Tartus will become a Russian strategic outpost, with all the improvements made to the port (including deepening the buttom to accomodate larger military ships), so all the upgrades are the matter of time.

I would give that carrier about a five minute lifespan, if it came down to it.

[The_Red_Rage]

"And no one preached that OIF would be easy.....(in the sense of rebuilding a country that had spend 30 years under one of the most brutal dictators on earth.....Not to mention AQ looking to make it their personal base.....and the front lines of the WOT.......Which they have clearly lost, now)."

I'm sorry I had a chuckle over that one... Haven't heard people use "Al-Queda" and "War on Terror" terminology in a serious context in a long time. Such terminology associates with *ignorance* for me (I blame my cynicism on growing up in Post-Soviet Russia and leftist liberal Canadian education system).

"Not all problems have the same solution. There were (which have been proven so) very good reasons to stand by and build up Iraq again.....to bring the values of self-worth and freedoms to the heart of the Middle East....."

....and to keep the oil pumps running (before it was oil for food, now it's oil for old military hardware for "Glorious Iraqi Army"[under new management]). Iraq is just as much of a mess as it was in 2004. Afghanistan is actually alot worse, if you look at the fact that poppy seed production increased by over 300% since Coalition invasion in 2001 (and Afghan poppy seeds= 95% of world's heroin supply = billions of dollars to fund very nasty things all over the world). Karzai's government pretty much controls just the palace area in Kabul and the rest of the country is run by sketchy warlords. Both, Iraq and Afghanistan, were epic failures - nothing concrete was achieved, billions were spent, thousands of lives lost (or over a million lives if you count Iraqis).

What brutal force can you use against a farmer with Kornet? Or a farmer with a Stinger/Strela? There is no friendly Kurds in Syria, there is no clear opposition to the regime - everything and everyone will be shooting at US forces.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Well when it comes to air defences the guys at Jane’s recon that losses for NATO could be as high as 2% when up against current generation Russian air defences. This may not sound a lot but it would be a show stopper for air in support of ground operations. Manned air assets anyway.

Imagine an air group with say 60 F16s at a mission rate of just one per aircraft per day. Let alone a mission rate of two missions per day… After a week or two the air group would be decimated.

Russian current generation air defences are just as effective as their current generation AT weapons. As we all know if you set things up in the editor such that your Syrian forces get the late ‘90s tandem weapons AT4C, RPG7 with 105mm tandem warhead, AT14 and so on NATO armour gets whacked.

The truth is that no one has a monopoly on how to make this stuff… nor is it nearly as expensive as some believe. If you measure the true cost of current kit and compare it to the costs in WWII you would be shocked. The true cost is the “opportunity cost”… best way to measure this is as a percentage of GDP. Certainly in ground kit costs have actually fallen since WWII.

Anyway… up against any enemy with current generation Russian AT weapons and air defences it would be very different from both Gulf War 1 and Gulf War 2…. Very different…

All interesting stuff…

All the best,

Kip.

[dan/california]

"Well when it comes to air defences the guys at Jane’s recon that losses for NATO could be as high as 2% when up against current generation Russian air defences. This may not sound a lot but it would be a show stopper for air in support of ground operations. Manned air assets anyway."

All valid points but.

Two related issues, the first is whether or not that loss rate is maintained over time. Or are the air defenses degraded over the course of the opening week to the point of complete ineffectiveness?

The second point is that anyone who really knows the answer the first question would probably spend quite a while in prison if they talked about it on a public board.

It is also probably worth pointing out that strategic level radars and missile systems take a much higher grade of operator and maintenance tech than an RPG 29. The actual Russian military may have those people, but is VERY unclear if most of the other people operating their stuff do.

[John Kettler]

meade95,

As noted here, Syria's new toys were not yet operational when the strike, against whatever it was, went in. Further, it appears both satellite and offshore ship based jamming was used.

http://www.juancole.com/2007/10/close-israeli-intelligence-behind-syria.html

The strike seems to be anything but de novo, instead being merely the manifestation of multiple converging agendas.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/15/syria.israel

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18469.htm

Whole lot of lying going on, it seems, about nearly everything in this matter.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK21Ak03.html

Let's be clear. The ability of a small, highly trained force to execute a grossly illegal precision/near precision strike, against an unalerted foe, in peacetime isn't in dispute, especially given jamming support and near certain violations of other sovereign nations' airspace. That is a far cry indeed from conducting large scale operations, against an alerted foe, let alone one with the advanced gear deployed, dispersed and fully functional. This is even more true if we add the Russians to the equation, as occurred in Vietnam and Egypt, to name but two places where they figured directly into the SAM operation equation.

I'm not claiming the Syrians are any taller than they are, but the Israelis underestimated them in 1973 and nearly lost the country in the process. The force in the Golan barely stopped the Syrian drive, which was conducted with skill and ferocity before the tide of battle began to turn, and there was sharp fighting even after the counterattack penetrated Syria.

I think, too, that you have completely discounted a grim reality concerning the U.S. military. Yes, it does have a lot of combat experience, mostly against grossly inferior foes, but it is also one which has run, shot and flown itself ragged. The situation now is so bad that it's strikingly reminiscent of the state of the U.S. military after Vietnam.

Complex military equipment is being kept going with today's equivalents of bubble gum and baling wire. There aren't enough parts, the airframes have loads of hours on them, many suppliers no longer even exist, weapon stocks are low, and aircrew and ground

crew alike are tired and worn out from constant deployments. We've been grinding our military down, first in Iraq, later Afghanistan, for seven years, longer than we fought World War II. This has been done without the enormous efforts accompanying that little fray. This assessment, dating back to 2003, should prove sobering.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=15875&archive=true

The consistent pattern has been to embrace gee whizzery at the expense of prosaic, unglamorous beans, bullets and gas. Here's a calibration point. The Army's now so desperate it'll take recruits who flunked the Army entrance test. In a case I know of, the guy was also a high school dropout. The minimum requirement to serve was supposed to be high school diploma or GED. In my estimation, and I'm far from alone, we're in an even worse version of the predicament Hadley detailed in THE STRAW GIANT. Instead of a "monolithic" Communist threat, we live in a multipolar world with many countries and NGOs who hate us and can hurt us in a variety of ways. We are spread very thin, as the recent events in Georgia have shown and are, in the words of the pilot in a fix, rapidly running out of airspace, altitude and ideas. Not only is the delta between our capabilities and the next best reduced, but more countries are now equipped with medium to high threat level weaponry, compounding the main predicament of too many commitments, too long, and in too many places.

Top leaders have identified manning, equipment and training as major stumbling blocks,

the tanker fleet needs replacement, most of the fighter fleet's badly aged, ISR deficiencies are critical, the Air force has tripped over its sword twice in nuclear matters recently, etc. And you want to fight a full blown war atop everything else we already are stretched to the limit to handle?

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50241

The article failed to point out additional operational strains engendered by renewed border probes by Russian strategic bombers.

And if the Air Force has the above woes, it's even worse for the Navy, since it is both tech and manpower intensive, not to mention has been operating at near war/war tempo for a long time and without the requisite support. And what do we find?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030401049.html

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=15875&archive=true

The last thing we need is another war, especially since we can't afford the ones we already have and are already at/on/past the breaking point just dealing with what's already on our plate, and that was before the Russo-Georgian War and the ensuing aftermath.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Found some good information on the site that was hit, to include imagery!

What did Israel bomb in Syria?

CNN coverage of U.S. claims it was an NK pattern graphite reactor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuUs3pddmps&NR=1

Assertion that U.S. provided advice and real time emission monitoring only regarding the attack. I think it would be very interesting to see what HAARP and related facilities were doing that day. Taking down an entire air defense system temporarily is exactly the kind of thing the Pentagon said HAARP could do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUUqa3YpHT0&feature=related

ABC goes with NK designed nuclear reactor scenario

IMINT & Analysis take prior to new info release. Note particularly what the analyst has to say about the wisdom of not red flagging the covert facility by sticking new SAM sites next to it, which would be bound to attract attention to the area the first time they started radiating.

http://geimint.blogspot.com/search/label/Syria

Regards,

John Kettler

[cabal23]

Hypothetically in this imaginary conflict what were to happen if Iran threw its gloves into the ring. Then Iraq would be under siege from two fronts. Then perhaps this conflict wouldn't sound like such a pushover and the Americans would be playing more of a defensive role. What say you?

[Guinnessman]

meade95,

Will close by showing you a thing or two that the "hapless Serbs" did that were, well, buried.

NATO aircraft and helicopter losses

http://www.truthinmedia.org/TruthinMedia/Bulletins2006/NATO_secrets.html

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/natolosses-review01.htm

NATO UAV losses over Kosovo

http://defence-data.com/features/fpage34.htm

Combined losses from various sources

http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosovo_crisis/nato/

http://www.yuairwar.com/gubici5.asp

Aside from the obvious fact that we were lied to, the take home from this is that unless the target zone is basically a billiard table devoid of cover, which Syria assuredly isn't,

it is very expensive in aircraft and resources to dismantle even a smallish integrated air defense, and Syria's is enormous, layered, very nasty and is getting even nastier rapidly. To expect Iraq type results, where we knew practically everything there was to know about Iraqi defenses and had hacked the C3I network even before hard killing parts of it, given all the factors I've listed, and that list is by no means exhaustive, strikes me as military insanity of the worst sort and a recipe for disaster.

Regards,

John Kettler

Umm...any independent verification of these alleged Serbian air raids and air defence skills? A google search shows nothing that backs up these claims, except for Serbian and Russian websites (unsurprisingly). The www.aeronautics.ru website definately doesn't have a lot of supporters at http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19624, although if these guys are right, the Serbs hit on an innovative way of splashing UAVs...fly alongside them in a helo and use the door guns? Smart!

Of course, flying a helo when your enemy has air supremacy is not so smart....

I have to say I think it extremely unlikely that NATO would be able to cover up the losses that these sites claim were inflicted. According to the Serbs they shot down a pretty good spread of everything NATO had in it's inventory, including a B52 and a B2! Which IIRC never went near Serb airspace, they just hung back and launched cruise missiles.

Frankly, I think this is wishful thinking by the Serbs who, as a people with a warrior tradition, are probably a little sore that their military never put up any real fight against NATO forces.

As for the whizz-bang new Syrian air defence systems - they seem to consist of older weapons which are a known quantity and have been dealt with effectively in the past, or newer systems which certainly look impressive from a technical basis, but have had no use in combat as yet. Very difficult to say how effective they will be in the event of a shooting war. I wouldnt assume Western air forces would have a cakewalk over them, but by the smae token I wouldn't assume Syria would be the graveyard of the USAF et al because of them either.

[dan/california]

Blowing that reactor to small pieces, without the Syrians even launching a missile to my knowledge, certainly can't be seen as an endorsement of their air defense capability.

[Lampshade111]

No offense to anybody here but the Serbians really love seriously overstating their kills. The biggest thing they did was get very lucky and manage to shoot down that F-117A. Meaning that way too many fools are still saying how "stealth is worthless." Is was a matter of luck, poor planning, and the help of some infrared or night vision systems.