Syrian conflict.

Collimatrix · January 28, 2018

I was thinking about the logistics of the Russian air campaign in Syria.

This is a TU-160 firing the Kh-101 missile at targets in Syria:

The Kh-101 is a relatively new cruise missile that was used for the first time in combat over Syria in 2015. It is, by all accounts, a very fancy cruise missile. The missile has four(!) redundant navigational systems; it can find its way to the target by satellite navigation, or if that's jammed by matching terrain contours to a map produced by its own radar, or if that's being jammed it can use a similar electro-optical terrain-comparison system, or if that's somehow being jammed it can use an inertial navigation system. The missile has a stealthy design, by some accounts the radar cross section is a mere .01 square meters. On top of that it has a defensive radar jammer and decoy system to ensure that the missile has a good chance of slipping through even sophisticated air defense networks.

I think you can see where I am going with this; Kh-101 is huge overkill for blowing up democratic advocate's last hospitals in Idlibistan. The Lockheed Martin AGM-158 JASSM is a similar weapon, but about half the weight, and those things go for about 1.5 million $ a shot. So there is quite a bit of cost involved in fueling up a TU-160 to throw a sixpack of Kh-101s at the peaceful democratic moderate political protesters.

Here is an SU-25 doing what it does best, oppressing poor, innocent people who only wanted to rape, kill and torture their neighbors:

The S-25-O heavy fragmentation rocket has no guidance system, no electronics or electronics countermeasures. It's just a bunch of shrapnel and explosives on the end of a rocket. The SU-25 is capable of carrying some precision-guided weapons, but the majority of the ordnance it has used over Syria has been of the brutally simple, unguided variety.

So, it would seem that the SU-25 is going to deliver a much better sorties/rubles ratio... until you consider where they're operating from.

SU-25s and other tactical aircraft types have to operate from inside Syria. That means that all the fuel, weapons and spare parts need to be shipped from Russia, around Turkey, and into Syria before the frogfeet can operate. On top of that, the base needs to be secured, so additional base security personnel, air defense systems and other defenses need to be shipped in and supported. TU-160s cost more to fly per hour, and use more expensive weapons, but they operate directly from Engels-2 base in Russia.

gJnuMan.jpg?1

So which ends up being the more cost effective form of air power?

Sgt.Squarehead · January 28, 2018

On ‎16‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 8:33 AM, LoooSeR said:

I don't remember any footage of Vasilek in use by SAA.

Cheers, various reports at the time of the attack on Hmeimim claimed they'd 'been in service for years', but I could find nothing supporting that.

LoooSeR · January 30, 2018

Turkish T-129 ATAK striking Kurdish YPJ positions in Afrin.

LoooSeR · January 30, 2018

https://imp-navigator.livejournal.com/700928.html

Quote

The footage from the mountain Bersay (Parsa), which was taken by Turkish troops and detachments of pro-Turkish militants. As you can see Afrin Kurds were seriously preparing for a war with the Turks and there was created a complex of long-term fortifications with underground concrete passageways. Well, the work of Turkish aviation and artillery on their destruction is also visible.

Spoiler