December 4, 20169 yr Author Russia has apparently given up using their carrier for airstrikes. Kuznetsov could never hope to produce the kind of sortie rate that is capable from an onshore airfield at the best of times. With only three (maybe two?) MiG-29KR and the Su-33s only carrying a pair of 500 kg iron bombs, this was going to be even worse. Meanwhile ... Russian MiG-29 Crash: More than Meets the Eye (RUSI)
December 5, 20169 yr Author Looks like they have now lost a Su-33 ... Russian Su-33 crashed in the Mediterranean while attempting to land on Kuznetsov aircraft carrier (Aviationist)
September 14, 20178 yr Author Russia Has Deployed Its MiG-29SMT Multirole Combat Aircraft To Syria For The Very First Time (Aviationist)
September 26, 20178 yr Author Russian general killed in IS shelling in Syria (Deutsche Welle) Russia airlifts bridging equipment to Syria (Jane's)
September 29, 20178 yr Author Second Russian S-400 in Syria confirmed (Jane's) The obvious question is 'why'?
October 1, 20178 yr Theoreticallly to protect the Bastion placement. Actually to show force, propaganda and support to the Assad regime. And as I suspect from years, only the "big" missile (46N6 I think) is actually deployed in the S-400 complex, and a very scarce number of them. For me only some 4-8 missile by complex, as more or less also described in the Jane's article. No trace of the two others smaller missiles in the launching system (I delete them from my personal DB long time ago).
October 1, 20178 yr Author Theoreticallly to protect the Bastion placement. Actually to show force, propaganda and support to the Assad regime. And as I suspect from years, only the "big" missile (46N6 I think) is actually deployed in the S-400 complex, and a very scarce number of them. For me only some 4-8 missile by complex, as more or less also described in the Jane's article. No trace of the two others smaller missiles in the launching system (I delete them from my personal DB long time ago). The Bastion site has been there a while now. And while having S-400 present in-country has already shown support for Assad, adding a second battery does nothing to advance that objective. I suspect there is something else going on here.
October 5, 20178 yr Well with that US missile strike against Assad's air base in April, perhaps the Russians want to try and see how well the S-400 can track Tomahawks?
October 7, 20178 yr Interesting considerations in all those points: http://warisboring.com/russias-air-defenses-in-syria-have-some-big-problems/
October 7, 20178 yr Interesting considerations in all those points: http://warisboring.com/russias-air-defenses-in-syria-have-some-big-problems/
October 9, 20178 yr Author Well with that US missile strike against Assad's air base in April, perhaps the Russians want to try and see how well the S-400 can track Tomahawks? S-400 has been deployed since last year around this time, so it was already present for the cruise missile strike. It would have had difficulty tracking or engaging any of the missiles then or in a new strike.
October 9, 20178 yr Well with that US missile strike against Assad's air base in April, perhaps the Russians want to try and see how well the S-400 can track Tomahawks? S-400 has been deployed since last year around this time, so it was already present for the cruise missile strike. It would have had difficulty tracking or engaging any of the missiles then or in a new strike. Well the article does state that due to the geography of Syria probably more than one batteries are necessary to cover Russian assets, if I understood correctly.
October 10, 20178 yr Author Well the article does state that due to the geography of Syria probably more than one batteries are necessary to cover Russian assets, if I understood correctly. Yes and this is true of any place, not just Syria. Intervening terrain or the horizon will affect any radar detection and engagement, something that HCE unfortunately tends to gloss over.
Create an account or sign in to comment