US moves naval group closer to Syria

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Also, if the UK indicates it wants to get involved, I will certainly be investing time into lobbying my local MP to oppose any intervention and submitting my signature to any petition that seeks to keep British and other forces out.

[billhilly]

That it will be a long conflict is further evidence that we should steer well clear. There will be no winners in this, only losers.

An excellent reason to watch from the sidelines.

[josephpalazzo]

Also, if the UK indicates it wants to get involved, I will certainly be investing time into lobbying my local MP to oppose any intervention and submitting my signature to any petition that seeks to keep British and other forces out.

Most likely, everyone concerned in this situation is hoping that the UN inspectors won't find evidence of who has used chemical warfare. Otherwise, the US and NATO won't have any other alternative but to act. And acting feably will bring derision from the rest of the world. The stakes are high, much higher than most people are anticipating.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not that I support any "no-fly zone" action, or any other intervention, but not only are Russian air defense systems vulnerable due to overweening centralization (knock out data chokepoints, down the system), I'd be surprised to find Syria's system in good repair, given the last two years of war.  Because the rebels have little to no airpower, that infrastructure, on the government side of the ledger, has probably gotten short shrift.  And these are systems that need continual maintenance and upkeepp in order to work efficiently.

Finally, from a tactical standpoint, AD systems are vulnerable to cruise missiles, which fly below the radar net, are programmable to a 20' CEP, and are submarine-launched.  If I were designing an air campaign, I'd strike first with Tomahawks upon the C³I nodes of the system, and then attack the now-blinded individual sites with Wild Weasel strikes.

Again, not advocating attacking; just pointing out that defeating an AD system is readily doable.

[billhilly]

As long as we're not advocating..........  You lay out an excellent plan but I have to wonder to what extent the Russians and or Chinese have thought this through as well.  If I were a dirty red commie :), I might train a few Syrians to test some new countermeasures I may or may not have come up with to defeat the cruise missile based AD attack that everybody pretty much expects now days.  If it works or not I could claim it was just some old stuff I had laying around and sold to the Syrians when I was cleaning out my garage.

[Thumpalumpacus]

As long as we're not advocating..........  You lay out an excellent plan but I have to wonder to what extent the Russians and or Chinese have thought this through as well.  If I were a dirty red commie :), I might train a few Syrians to test some new countermeasures I may or may not have come up with to defeat the cruise missile based AD attack that everybody pretty much expects now days.  If it works or not I could claim it was just some old stuff I had laying around and sold to the Syrians when I was cleaning out my garage.

The problem is radar-detecting the cruise-missiles amongst the ground-clutter.  To do that you have to have what's called "look-down/shoot-down" radar mounted on an aerial platform.  Such planes are obvious in an electronic environment because of the copious ELINT signals they emit.  Plus, they're pretty vulnerable, because they're big and slow.  And Syria has none of them, anyway.  

Without look-down/shoot-down, you have ground based radar losing the cruise missiles (which can fly 40' AGL at mach .9) against features such as hills and buildings.  

The other thing is stealth tech.  It's not only incorporated into planes, but into AGMs.  Even if LD/SD radar can detect these missiles, with stealth features, that recognition is too late inside the attack envelope.

You're right, it's no sure thing -- nothing in war ever is -- but dismantling an AD system is a special study inside every air force worthy of the title.  Bottom line: static defenses anchored to land are second-best, most of the time.

None of this takes into account things like decoys or chaff.

[billhilly]

That makes sense.  It's not like I keep up with Jane's or anything but I remember a few years back there was a concern about the new generation of Chinese anti ship missiles and working on countermeasures for them.  I figured the Chinese would have thought about countermeasures as well since they designed the missiles and any countermeasures would need to effectively track very low flying cruise missiles.

I didn't consider the down looking radar although now that you mention it, I think I do recall that being discussed at the time.  That makes a lot of sense as naval groups keep planes aloft anyway and it would be a different game on the ground in Syria.

I do wonder if they've got any last minute "oh shit" kinetic systems like the Phalanx or Metal Storm.  Either way, I'm just speculating and hope to hell somebody's got enough sense to not get us involved in another war in the middle east.  It must be like a drug or something.  No president seems to be able to resist regardless of how much they were against such misadventures when they were governors, senators, or whatever.

[josephpalazzo]

Well, it's been confirmed by Kerry, all hopes that it wasn't chemical gas have been dashed. Get ready for the fireworks.

[billhilly]

Yep, here we go.  

Russia and China have stepped up their warnings against military intervention in Syria, with Moscow saying any such action would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800

[PopeyesPappy]

The Syrian SA-17 and 22 are supposed to be effective short to medium range AD systems. Last year the Ruskies announced a successful test of a SA-22 shooting down a low flying cruise missile in a live fire test. The SA-22 is the same system that shot down the Turkish F4 a while back. It is both mobile and effective. But as Joseph has pointed out the weakness will be their early detection systems. Any air defense system needs early warning to get things spun up before they can shoot anything. Most of their early warning radars are fixed assets and as such shouldn't be too difficult to take out. I do however find it hard to believe the Syrians won't be using a layered defense with the short range stuff between us and the early warning radars. While taking down the Syrian AD systems is far from undoable, it may not be a cake walk either. We could see some loses in the early part of any such operation.

[Savior2006]

Americans don't like it.

[youtube:34ff8kaw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUTwZCeBS0U[/youtube:34ff8kaw]

[Solitary]

Come on all you Christian soldiers, serve your country in time of need! Just ignore looking behind the curtain that contains this: :roll:  When will we learn?  :roll:  Solitary

[SGOS]

Americans don't like it.

Writer posted a YouTube video

All those guys saying we have to attack were Republicans.  You think there might be political motivations here?  Get Obama to attack Syria, and then complain when this thing drags out into another Iraq.  Then of course the military industrial complex will benefit because these things end up getting expensive, and they end up making money.  It's a win for the conservative agenda.

Still, I have a feeling we're going to end up in Syria.  Just a feeling, and Obama does have a history of pushing conservative agendas.  Besides the intelligence seems to be more solid than anything we had on Iraq.  I don't want to invade Syria, but think it's coming.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

When will we learn that playing world police just gets us more shit in the long run.

I know this is supposed to be a moral high ground move, stopping the use of chemical weapon use in line with international conventions (funny, I thought slaughtering your own people/ civilians was also a war crime but whatever), but really, the information about what's going on in Syria is as obscure as it comes.

It seems likely that Assad used chemical weapons, but we still don't know for sure. There have been reports that rebel groups and clandestine agents within Syria have attempted to use chemical weapons in order to accelerate the prospect of foreign intervention which will, after all, destabilise the country even more.

There's no information about who the missiles will be targeting and why. Will it be Assad? Will it be the various rebel groups that have murdered countless hundreds both within their own sects and those who aren't?

Or will it just solely be targeting chemical weapons facilities? If so, does that mean that we're ok with a killing field just so long as its the right type of killing field?

People need to remember that international conflict of this form is no longer about superior fire power. You can fire all the missiles you want at someone but you'll never blow up an idea that people advocate. And in Syria, 'I hate the US/West' is one of the strongest.

[billhilly]

Obama Seeks a 'Coalition of the Willing' on Syria
With blockages at the UN, NATO, EU and the Arab League, Obama must cobble together a patchwork of allies on Syria

http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/26/ob ... z2dCPs0Mej

Seeking a coalition of the willing to take down an Arab Ba'athist dictator over WMDs. Where have I heard this before?