By: JSR
- 22nd May 2016 at 15:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
seems like everyone goes to Syria to fight ISIS, but no one really does...
you are no correctly reading the situation. Russia is hitting so hard ISSI in Syrian desert that Iraki army now reaches Jordanian border. the point is to clear iSIS in desert so that Oil/gas production restored.
it's not clear why previous PM Davutoglu resigned, although the news came just a day after him publically declaring that Turkey was willing to invade Syria if need be
so it seems not unlikely that a military operation into Syria was the cause of the rift
from what I understand the PM acts as a balance to the Turkish President's power
with a newly elected loyalist, Erdogan now has pretty much free reign to do whatever he wants, whatever that my be
the goal is said to be the defeat of ISIS, however we all know the US and its allies aren't too keen on Assad either
the fact that Aleppo is edging closer to falling back into Assad's hands could be another reason for the US's increased efforts
and it certainly would be a motivator for Turkey, a staunch Assad opponent, to launch an invasion
with the excuse of fighting ISIS of course
but it seems more likely that the operations will focus on pushing back the Kurds and relieving pressure on the rebels in Aleppo
just as Russia came in to "fight ISIS" and then mostly focussed on the rebels
seems like everyone goes to Syria to fight ISIS, but no one really does...
It seems to me that many people have not catched up on how the Syrian ground and airspace borders are maintained by Syria (Russia's) forces.
I have yet to see any jet from NATO or otherwise take-off from Air Bases inside Turkey and cross into Syria.. Never mind any Turkish jets..
NATO jets are operating out from Iraq and other nearby countries Air bases.
They all use a pre-flight air corridor that have been negotiated and established between Russia and US mainly, but with other Nations like France operating from Carrier etc.
Yes Russia and US are co-op in Syria even if they both deny it..
One can understand why this is the way it is.. The shoot down of that Su-24 has made impact on everything.
If a Turkish jet cross Syrian borders, it will face the same treatment as the Late Su-24 did, TuAF, USAF and everybody else AF understand this.
Turkish action has made it much more complicated and far more costly for US and NATO to operate over Syria airspace.
From far away Air Bases, they have a long leg, which need tanker support.
And one could only speculate in what went through USAF commanders mind, stationed around in middle-East when they first learned about the Su-24 shoot down.. If they had any sense of foresight, Something tells me it was not a positive reaction..
By: ijozic
- 23rd May 2016 at 10:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
NATO jets are operating out from Iraq and other nearby countries Air bases.
They all use a pre-flight air corridor that have been negotiated and established between Russia and US mainly, but with other Nations like France operating from Carrier etc.
What about Incirlik airbase? As I understood, this is still used for both drone operations and airstrikes against IS targets in Syria as well.
By: Mercurius
- 23rd May 2016 at 13:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I had little to do last week except check a batch of page proofs, so had the time needed for repeated exchanges. But I have work to do this week and next, so need to wind this up.
Well there are types who like to claim superior technology and you may be one of them.
How can I claim "superior technology"? I'm an analyst, and don't manufacture anything. My only end product consists of sheets of A4 paper covered with lines of 11pt Helvetica text.
If you mean that I claim superior technical knowledge within my field of professional competence, that is fair comment. A study of my postings will show that these are largely confined to the subjects of radar, EW, and missiles. Those are my professional specialities. You will find little or even nothing posted by me on (for example) aircraft, fighting vehicles, warships, submarines, artillery, infantry weapons etc. etc. In those areas, my knowledge is basically that of an enthusiast, albeit leavened by my training as an engineer, and by technical presentations I have sat through.
Your earlier comments such as "Gravity takes the flares down. If they actually stopped in the line of sight, the technology of the flare would be irrelevant, but they don't" and "Flares are still manufactured because there are plenty of non-IIR missiles still widely in circulation. That is all," illustrates that your limited knowledge of flares and flare technology are badly out of date, reflecting what was the state of the art several decades ago. Some modern flares (often described as kinetic or thrusted flares) can linger in the line of sight in order to overcome seeker ECCM techniques that depend on the flare loosing velocity after launch. Contrary to your claim, their technology is far from irrelevant, since it must address factors such spectral balance and energy buildup time.
It is quite Earth-shattering because IIR is widely acknowledged to be invulnerable to flares. This is the opinion of a well-respected pilot on the matter:
You expect us to accept a posting on a Russian aviation forum as evidence on a technical issue?
It does not take very much internet searching to produce evidence that flares can be used against IIR seekers. For example, look at the Linkedin page for Mike Porter, a Physicist - Electro-Optical / Infrared Systems & Countermeasures, at the US Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center, Huntsville, Alabama Area.
And what will you see included under his current duties?
"Principal investigator assess performance of flare solution against foreign imaging IR seeker surrogate".
If IIR seekers are immune to flares, why would the US Army waste time, manpower and money by assigning a team to investigate the use of flares against these? Or be planning to assess a "flare solution"?
The is not a lot of material on the internet regarding defeating IIR sensors by using flares. However a US company was cleared to give a presentation several years ago to a technical conference in India on one potential solution. It should be on the internet, but since it was unclassified, cleared for a non-NATO audience, and four years old it does not fully reflect the current state of technology in this fast-paced field.
If my memory is correct, the solution described was a three-stage process:
1 Given a reliable MAW indication of an incoming threat and its bearing, turn the aircraft away from the threat so as to turn the engagement into a tail-chase.
2 As the missile closes to short range, release flares whose output will fill the seeker's field of view with IR energy, temporarily screening the aircraft.
3 Perform an evasive manoeuvre to place the aircraft outside of the seeker's field of view by the time it has passed the flares.
At the end of this process, the missile seeker can see only the empty sky, but the missile will have reached the approximate range of its intended victim and will have no time to search for and re-acquire its intended victim.
In fact this is a realistic possibility, after all there are no systems with 100% reliability.
Indeed. Just as no SAM system can boast a 100% success rate, the same must apply to anti-SAM systems.
Among the various novelties from SA 18 when this entered in service in 1983 it has been included two modes in the trigger from the launcher that the operator could choose against the threat : the first mode were against fast targets (attack jets) and the second against slow targets ( helicopters).
"When engaging slow or straight-receding targets, the operator tracks the target with the iron sights in the launch tube and applies half-trigger. The shooter then pulls the trigger fully, and immediately applies lead and super elevation. This method is called a manual engagement. An automatic mode, which is used against fast targets, allows the shooter to fully depress the trigger in one pull followed by immediate lead and super elevation of the launch tube."
It has been some years since I had hands-on experience with an SA-18, but I do not recall the need for any lead or super elevation. I located the target, and pulled the trigger, but nothing happened. The guy who was instructing me called out for me the keep pulling trigger all the way back. It was very stiff, and needed a lot of movement, but eventually I achieved a launch and successful engagement.
By: garryA
- 23rd May 2016 at 13:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
.
How can I claim "superior technology"? I'm an analyst, and don't manufacture anything. My only end product consists of sheets of A4 paper covered with lines of 11pt Helvetica text.
You expect us to accept a posting on a Russian aviation forum as evidence on a technical issue?
t.
Mecurius, the problem is none of us can know for sure whether you are an actual analyst or not, just like we cant be sure whether the post on Russian forum belong to a pilot or not. Since neither provide any source to back up what they say so you cant blame people for being skeptical
By: Mercurius
- 23rd May 2016 at 15:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, in theory I could be a shelf-stacker in my local supermarket!
But all I can do when I realise that I have information that is not in the public domain but is relevant to the discussion in a forum thread is to offer it up in minimal detail, and leave folks decide whether or not to accept it. There is no way that I can "prove" it.
To take a recent example, the use of recorders and cameras was banned at the recent EW Europe forum in Rotterdam –perhaps not surprisingly, given the sensitivity of the topic. So the only proof I could offer for anything I learned there would be to obtain a hard copy of the relevant speaker's powerpoint slides. But the conference organisers would be less than happy to see that stuff reaching an on-line forum – their audience has had to paid serious money to be there and get that information. So that is why I stick to posting only minimal details.
There is also the additional complication that a speaker's slides are simply the illustrations that he or she used - the detailed info was in what he or she said, either in the presentation itself or in the Q&A, and there is no record of that. The conventions of the Chatham House rule introduce further restrictions.
So readers can only accept or reject any non-public-domain material that I post, based at least partly on my track record over the last decade or so in this and other fora.
What gets annoying is when some people are not happy to disbelieve and reject, but want to use their imperfect understanding or even erroneous opinions to "prove" that what I said was technically wrong.
But since I have been talking about modern methods of flare deployment, I cannot help wondering how an allegedly-invulnerable IIR seeker would cope with this magnitude of flare release if the deployment pattern was configured to match the missile's direction of approach.
Attachments
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 23rd May 2016 at 16:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mecurius, the problem is none of us can know for sure whether you are an actual analyst or not, just like we cant be sure whether the post on Russian forum belong to a pilot or not. Since neither provide any source to back up what they say so you cant blame people for being skeptical
Mercurius is da man, in my humble opinion 100% legit..
By: haavarla
- 23rd May 2016 at 18:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What about Incirlik airbase? As I understood, this is still used for both drone operations and airstrikes against IS targets in Syria as well.
Unless someone has any sources on the matter. Pls post it.
NATO and USAF do use Incirlik Air Base.
USAF did send over some F-15C shortly after the Su-24 shoot down. But they only helped Turkey patrol Turkish airspace. And they rotated back to UK not long after.
Think F-15S also operating there.
Different support units like E-3 perhaps.
I'm not aware of UAV being operate from Incrilic, Turkish/Syrian border.
At least not heavy UAV'S.
By: Andraxxus
- 23rd May 2016 at 20:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Haavarla, you are wrong in your assesment. F-15Cs were only there for 3 weeks or so. USAF operated 6 F-16's for months. After shooting down event, those F-16's were slowly replaced with a dozen A-10Cs. Whether not to operate same type of aircraft as TuAF to avoid getting shot, or to provide CAS better for longer times, I don't know. In any case, those routinely operate at northern Syria there are several dozen videos "syria.liveuamap.com" showing just that. Add to that, since 10.12.2015, there are a 4-6 Tornado IDSs of German Air Force, they routinely fly recon for German Air Force since 8 Jan 2016. Since February, there are 4 Saudi F-15s in Incirlik, but I am unaware if they have ever flown a mission.
From 25 Dec 2015:
From ?? Jan 2016:
From 26 Feb 2016 (newspaper claims)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246097[/ATTACH]
Also, Turkey gave permission to French in 02 December 2015 to operate from the base, two cargo planes belonging to French Air force came, but I am unaware of any French combat aircraft operating from base.
As for UAV's operating from incirlik, well, one Predator belonging to USAF crashed in 3rd February during landing was all over the news. After crash, Hürriyet newspaper claims there are 5 USAF Predators remaining in the base. Nevertheless, crash itself is sufficent proof to me.
As for Turkish operations in Syria, there is at least one occassion a Turkish airforce Bayraktar UAVs was caught in the camera some 2-3 weeks ago. A few Turkish newspapers claimed in 08 May 2016 a Turkish Special Forces team consisting of 15-20 soldiers entered Syria from 13-14 km east of Kilis, to locate ISIS Rocket launchers targeting Kilis for 9 days (46 rockets fired, caused 17 deaths, 61 injured). Turkish artillery continiously fired until Sunday morning, killing 103 ISIS terrorists, and "USA and Russia is informed about the operation." Normally, I would not take such news agency claims seriously, especially when they point to an "unnamed military source", but somehow not one rocket fell after this day, making me think this one is true.
Here's a new speculation topic about İncirlik (Although its totally irrelevant with the AH-1W shot-down, its more relevant to the title of the thread then the mentioned shooting down event itself). Turkish F-16's regularly pictured in İncirlik (taxiing or taking-off) with Guided Bombs; see above picture with A-10s. Now Turkish Airforce never used İncirlik to bomb PKK in Turkey or Iraq; Its way too far away (~700km), and Turkey has very few F-16 in that base. (around 8, compared to 65 in Diyarbakır AFB as of 17th May). Its not used for training either, as pictured aircraft are all single seater F-16s, and Incirlik both lacks facilities and its not convinient to use a NATO base for that.
So the question is, what are Turkish F-16's doing there with bombs? Could they be silently operating under the flag of NATO/coalition?
By: JSR
- 23rd May 2016 at 21:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Haavarla, you are wrong in your assesment. F-15Cs were only there for 3 weeks or so. USAF operated 6 F-16's for months. After shooting down event, those F-16's were slowly replaced with a dozen A-10Cs. Whether not to operate same type of aircraft as TuAF to avoid getting shot, or to provide CAS better for longer times, I don't know. In any case, those routinely operate at northern Syria there are several dozen videos "syria.liveuamap.com" showing just that. Add to that, since 10.12.2015, there are a 4-6 Tornado IDSs of German Air Force, they routinely fly recon for German Air Force since 8 Jan 2016. Since February, there are 4 Saudi F-15s in Incirlik, but I am unaware if they have ever flown a mission.
From 25 Dec 2015:
From ?? Jan 2016:
From 26 Feb 2016 (newspaper claims)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246097[/ATTACH]
Also, Turkey gave permission to French in 02 December 2015 to operate from the base, two cargo planes belonging to French Air force came, but I am unaware of any French combat aircraft operating from base.
As for UAV's operating from incirlik, well, one Predator belonging to USAF crashed in 3rd February during landing was all over the news. After crash, Hürriyet newspaper claims there are 5 USAF Predators remaining in the base. Nevertheless, crash itself is sufficent proof to me.
As for Turkish operations in Syria, there is at least one occassion a Turkish airforce Bayraktar UAVs was caught in the camera some 2-3 weeks ago. A few Turkish newspapers claimed in 08 May 2016 a Turkish Special Forces team consisting of 15-20 soldiers entered Syria from 13-14 km east of Kilis, to locate ISIS Rocket launchers targeting Kilis for 9 days (46 rockets fired, caused 17 deaths, 61 injured). Turkish artillery continiously fired until Sunday morning, killing 103 ISIS terrorists, and "USA and Russia is informed about the operation." Normally, I would not take such news agency claims seriously, especially when they point to an "unnamed military source", but somehow not one rocket fell after this day, making me think this one is true.
Here's a new speculation topic about İncirlik (Although its totally irrelevant with the AH-1W shot-down, its more relevant to the title of the thread then the mentioned shooting down event itself). Turkish F-16's regularly pictured in İncirlik (taxiing or taking-off) with Guided Bombs; see above picture with A-10s. Now Turkish Airforce never used İncirlik to bomb PKK in Turkey or Iraq; Its way too far away (~700km), and Turkey has very few F-16 in that base. (around 8, compared to 65 in Diyarbakır AFB as of 17th May). Its not used for training either, as pictured aircraft are all single seater F-16s, and Incirlik both lacks facilities and its not convinient to use a NATO base for that.
So the question is, what are Turkish F-16's doing there with bombs? Could they be silently operating under the flag of NATO/coalition?
There is zero evidence that any F-16 has attacked Syrian Kurds so those Turkish F-16 most likely operates inside Turkey. Turkey has shortage of guided bombs it can't waste it on non Kurds. That's the reason that whole Arab coalition went away after Yemen war. Only Ruaf alone has round the clock high tempo capability.
By: haavarla
- 23rd May 2016 at 22:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Imo İncirlik AB, Seems to me the only safe bet is those Reapers.
The F-16 might be for Turkish airspace or North Iraq. We clearly see them armed with AIM-120 as well. There is no proof eighter way.
Those A-10 might have crossed Syrian border, but are we sure they aren't used in North Iraq against ISIS there?
By: TomcatViP
- 23rd May 2016 at 22:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Imo İncirlik AB, Seems to me the only safe bet is those Reapers.
The F-16 might be for Turkish airspace or North Iraq. We clearly see them armed with AIM-120 as well. There is no proff eighter way.
Those A-10 might have crossed Syrian border, but are we sure they aren't used in North Iraq against ISIS there?
For me, it's typically an Escort/CSAR mission (Turks F16s). You need PGM in case someone have to eject. CAS/CSAR for the A10 and the real provider are the rec Tornado.
For the French transports, probably prepositioning of equipment (divert) or SF (CSAR and whatever).
By: garryA
- 24th May 2016 at 06:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
.
So readers can only accept or reject any non-public-domain material that I post, based at least partly on my track record over the last decade or so in this and other fora.
What gets annoying is when some people are not happy to disbelieve and reject, but want to use their imperfect understanding or even erroneous opinions to "prove" that what I said was technically wrong.
.
Dude , people will reject an idea if they think it is wrong , and when people think an idea is wrong they will try to disprove it , nothing abnormal with that . And whether you are legit or not we cant know for sure , everyone is entitled to their own opinions on that matter
By: ijozic
- 24th May 2016 at 10:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Imo İncirlik AB, Seems to me the only safe bet is those Reapers. Those A-10 might have crossed Syrian border, but are we sure they aren't used in North Iraq against ISIS there?
That might be so, but it's due to the fact that Incirlik is too small for US needs rather than your theory on how Turkish shootdown of the Su-24 threw a wrench in US plans. What is the difference if the US strike flights are entering Syria from the East (i.e. Iraq) or from the North (i.e. Turkey)? In any case it's expected they do some basic coordination with the Russians to reduce the chance of any incidents happening.
By: haavarla
- 24th May 2016 at 11:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The trouble for USAF would be that they has to talk to VKS in order to get anything done in Syria.
Much more now than prior the Su-24 shoot down.
Something tells me VKS is pulling most of the strings when it comes to control Syrian airspace. Something US finds "unwarrent", although it may be worse for US foreign department and all the Hawks in US Senate, rather than the USAF itself.
I,m not sure, but isn't Incirlik the nearest Airbase to both East Syria and North Iraq theater?
And Judging from the pics above, US/Nato has a medium size tanker fleet in Incirlik. How is this for too small?
IMO additional fuel cost for operating out of other Airbases.
And another thorn in the side for US, is that Turkey effectively made a gigantic error in shooting down a Russian jet, which killed one pilot and one Ru Marine.
Putin does not forget or forgive easily and Turkish affairs in Syria has now been short of halted.
Which in turn leave the Job of bombing ISIS in Syria to US and other Nato Nations.
While TuAF has been reduced to a merly observer in the region, in which they are viewed as a major player.
I can't see how this situation is good for US..?
And on the larger picture, US Commanders was quickly out in the media claiming that VKS efforts in Syria would be short and futile.
The exact opposite has happend, and VKS has cast a shaddow on US efforts over Syria on the 4-5 years prior, in which they lack any results against ISIS..
Not the publicity US and Turkey looking for I think.
By: JSR
- 24th May 2016 at 12:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The bigger picture is turkey is either arms embargo or lack money to implement procurement.
Plus the most dysfunctional development of weopons. signing joint development deals with every one.
There is no airdefence system yet . Is AIM-120d delivered. It's matter of time this war will overwhelm them.
By: ijozic
- 24th May 2016 at 13:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I,m not sure, but isn't Incirlik the nearest Airbase to both East Syria and North Iraq theater?
And Judging from the pics above, US/Nato has a medium size tanker fleet in Incirlik. How is this for too small?
Yes, they do, but they seem to have limited apron space available for the operation (perhaps there are some limits imposed by the Turkish government on the number of strike planes that can be deployed?). There's a lot of conflicting info regarding these deployments and limitations, though, but the numbers deployed are always rather small. E.g. there seem to be a dozen A-10's there and a number of Prowlers; the F-15C's and E's were shortly deployed and there were 6 of each, there were six F-16's deployed, etc.
By: Loke
- 24th May 2016 at 13:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dude , people will reject an idea if they think it is wrong , and when people think an idea is wrong they will try to disprove it , nothing abnormal with that . And whether you are legit or not we cant know for sure , everyone is entitled to their own opinions on that matter
I have specific reasons to believe that Mercurius is who he says he is -- and no I will not explain what those reasons are.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 22nd May 2016 at 15:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
you are no correctly reading the situation. Russia is hitting so hard ISSI in Syrian desert that Iraki army now reaches Jordanian border. the point is to clear iSIS in desert so that Oil/gas production restored.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 22nd May 2016 at 16:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It seems to me that many people have not catched up on how the Syrian ground and airspace borders are maintained by Syria (Russia's) forces.
I have yet to see any jet from NATO or otherwise take-off from Air Bases inside Turkey and cross into Syria.. Never mind any Turkish jets..
NATO jets are operating out from Iraq and other nearby countries Air bases.
They all use a pre-flight air corridor that have been negotiated and established between Russia and US mainly, but with other Nations like France operating from Carrier etc.
Yes Russia and US are co-op in Syria even if they both deny it..
One can understand why this is the way it is.. The shoot down of that Su-24 has made impact on everything.
If a Turkish jet cross Syrian borders, it will face the same treatment as the Late Su-24 did, TuAF, USAF and everybody else AF understand this.
Turkish action has made it much more complicated and far more costly for US and NATO to operate over Syria airspace.
From far away Air Bases, they have a long leg, which need tanker support.
And one could only speculate in what went through USAF commanders mind, stationed around in middle-East when they first learned about the Su-24 shoot down.. If they had any sense of foresight, Something tells me it was not a positive reaction..
Posts: 612
By: ijozic - 23rd May 2016 at 10:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What about Incirlik airbase? As I understood, this is still used for both drone operations and airstrikes against IS targets in Syria as well.
Posts: 1,348
By: Mercurius - 23rd May 2016 at 13:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I had little to do last week except check a batch of page proofs, so had the time needed for repeated exchanges. But I have work to do this week and next, so need to wind this up.
How can I claim "superior technology"? I'm an analyst, and don't manufacture anything. My only end product consists of sheets of A4 paper covered with lines of 11pt Helvetica text.
If you mean that I claim superior technical knowledge within my field of professional competence, that is fair comment. A study of my postings will show that these are largely confined to the subjects of radar, EW, and missiles. Those are my professional specialities. You will find little or even nothing posted by me on (for example) aircraft, fighting vehicles, warships, submarines, artillery, infantry weapons etc. etc. In those areas, my knowledge is basically that of an enthusiast, albeit leavened by my training as an engineer, and by technical presentations I have sat through.
Your earlier comments such as "Gravity takes the flares down. If they actually stopped in the line of sight, the technology of the flare would be irrelevant, but they don't" and "Flares are still manufactured because there are plenty of non-IIR missiles still widely in circulation. That is all," illustrates that your limited knowledge of flares and flare technology are badly out of date, reflecting what was the state of the art several decades ago. Some modern flares (often described as kinetic or thrusted flares) can linger in the line of sight in order to overcome seeker ECCM techniques that depend on the flare loosing velocity after launch. Contrary to your claim, their technology is far from irrelevant, since it must address factors such spectral balance and energy buildup time.
You expect us to accept a posting on a Russian aviation forum as evidence on a technical issue?
It does not take very much internet searching to produce evidence that flares can be used against IIR seekers. For example, look at the Linkedin page for Mike Porter, a Physicist - Electro-Optical / Infrared Systems & Countermeasures, at the US Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center, Huntsville, Alabama Area.
And what will you see included under his current duties?
"Principal investigator assess performance of flare solution against foreign imaging IR seeker surrogate".
If IIR seekers are immune to flares, why would the US Army waste time, manpower and money by assigning a team to investigate the use of flares against these? Or be planning to assess a "flare solution"?
The is not a lot of material on the internet regarding defeating IIR sensors by using flares. However a US company was cleared to give a presentation several years ago to a technical conference in India on one potential solution. It should be on the internet, but since it was unclassified, cleared for a non-NATO audience, and four years old it does not fully reflect the current state of technology in this fast-paced field.
If my memory is correct, the solution described was a three-stage process:
1 Given a reliable MAW indication of an incoming threat and its bearing, turn the aircraft away from the threat so as to turn the engagement into a tail-chase.
2 As the missile closes to short range, release flares whose output will fill the seeker's field of view with IR energy, temporarily screening the aircraft.
3 Perform an evasive manoeuvre to place the aircraft outside of the seeker's field of view by the time it has passed the flares.
At the end of this process, the missile seeker can see only the empty sky, but the missile will have reached the approximate range of its intended victim and will have no time to search for and re-acquire its intended victim.
Indeed. Just as no SAM system can boast a 100% success rate, the same must apply to anti-SAM systems.
It has been some years since I had hands-on experience with an SA-18, but I do not recall the need for any lead or super elevation. I located the target, and pulled the trigger, but nothing happened. The guy who was instructing me called out for me the keep pulling trigger all the way back. It was very stiff, and needed a lot of movement, but eventually I achieved a launch and successful engagement.
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 23rd May 2016 at 13:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mecurius, the problem is none of us can know for sure whether you are an actual analyst or not, just like we cant be sure whether the post on Russian forum belong to a pilot or not. Since neither provide any source to back up what they say so you cant blame people for being skeptical
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 23rd May 2016 at 13:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IIRC Mercurius has occasionally provided information later confirmed by publication, & he's been entirely consistent, & never unbelievable.
Posts: 1,348
By: Mercurius - 23rd May 2016 at 15:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, in theory I could be a shelf-stacker in my local supermarket!
But all I can do when I realise that I have information that is not in the public domain but is relevant to the discussion in a forum thread is to offer it up in minimal detail, and leave folks decide whether or not to accept it. There is no way that I can "prove" it.
To take a recent example, the use of recorders and cameras was banned at the recent EW Europe forum in Rotterdam –perhaps not surprisingly, given the sensitivity of the topic. So the only proof I could offer for anything I learned there would be to obtain a hard copy of the relevant speaker's powerpoint slides. But the conference organisers would be less than happy to see that stuff reaching an on-line forum – their audience has had to paid serious money to be there and get that information. So that is why I stick to posting only minimal details.
There is also the additional complication that a speaker's slides are simply the illustrations that he or she used - the detailed info was in what he or she said, either in the presentation itself or in the Q&A, and there is no record of that. The conventions of the Chatham House rule introduce further restrictions.
So readers can only accept or reject any non-public-domain material that I post, based at least partly on my track record over the last decade or so in this and other fora.
What gets annoying is when some people are not happy to disbelieve and reject, but want to use their imperfect understanding or even erroneous opinions to "prove" that what I said was technically wrong.
But since I have been talking about modern methods of flare deployment, I cannot help wondering how an allegedly-invulnerable IIR seeker would cope with this magnitude of flare release if the deployment pattern was configured to match the missile's direction of approach.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 23rd May 2016 at 16:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mercurius is da man, in my humble opinion 100% legit..
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 23rd May 2016 at 18:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Unless someone has any sources on the matter. Pls post it.
NATO and USAF do use Incirlik Air Base.
USAF did send over some F-15C shortly after the Su-24 shoot down. But they only helped Turkey patrol Turkish airspace. And they rotated back to UK not long after.
Think F-15S also operating there.
Different support units like E-3 perhaps.
I'm not aware of UAV being operate from Incrilic, Turkish/Syrian border.
At least not heavy UAV'S.
Posts: 932
By: Andraxxus - 23rd May 2016 at 20:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Haavarla, you are wrong in your assesment. F-15Cs were only there for 3 weeks or so. USAF operated 6 F-16's for months. After shooting down event, those F-16's were slowly replaced with a dozen A-10Cs. Whether not to operate same type of aircraft as TuAF to avoid getting shot, or to provide CAS better for longer times, I don't know. In any case, those routinely operate at northern Syria there are several dozen videos "syria.liveuamap.com" showing just that. Add to that, since 10.12.2015, there are a 4-6 Tornado IDSs of German Air Force, they routinely fly recon for German Air Force since 8 Jan 2016. Since February, there are 4 Saudi F-15s in Incirlik, but I am unaware if they have ever flown a mission.
From 25 Dec 2015:
From ?? Jan 2016:
From 26 Feb 2016 (newspaper claims)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246097[/ATTACH]
Also, Turkey gave permission to French in 02 December 2015 to operate from the base, two cargo planes belonging to French Air force came, but I am unaware of any French combat aircraft operating from base.
As for UAV's operating from incirlik, well, one Predator belonging to USAF crashed in 3rd February during landing was all over the news. After crash, Hürriyet newspaper claims there are 5 USAF Predators remaining in the base. Nevertheless, crash itself is sufficent proof to me.
As for Turkish operations in Syria, there is at least one occassion a Turkish airforce Bayraktar UAVs was caught in the camera some 2-3 weeks ago. A few Turkish newspapers claimed in 08 May 2016 a Turkish Special Forces team consisting of 15-20 soldiers entered Syria from 13-14 km east of Kilis, to locate ISIS Rocket launchers targeting Kilis for 9 days (46 rockets fired, caused 17 deaths, 61 injured). Turkish artillery continiously fired until Sunday morning, killing 103 ISIS terrorists, and "USA and Russia is informed about the operation." Normally, I would not take such news agency claims seriously, especially when they point to an "unnamed military source", but somehow not one rocket fell after this day, making me think this one is true.
Here's a new speculation topic about İncirlik (Although its totally irrelevant with the AH-1W shot-down, its more relevant to the title of the thread then the mentioned shooting down event itself). Turkish F-16's regularly pictured in İncirlik (taxiing or taking-off) with Guided Bombs; see above picture with A-10s. Now Turkish Airforce never used İncirlik to bomb PKK in Turkey or Iraq; Its way too far away (~700km), and Turkey has very few F-16 in that base. (around 8, compared to 65 in Diyarbakır AFB as of 17th May). Its not used for training either, as pictured aircraft are all single seater F-16s, and Incirlik both lacks facilities and its not convinient to use a NATO base for that.
So the question is, what are Turkish F-16's doing there with bombs? Could they be silently operating under the flag of NATO/coalition?
Posts: 612
By: ijozic - 23rd May 2016 at 20:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/02/03/us-drone-crashes-turkey/79783670/
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 23rd May 2016 at 21:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is zero evidence that any F-16 has attacked Syrian Kurds so those Turkish F-16 most likely operates inside Turkey. Turkey has shortage of guided bombs it can't waste it on non Kurds. That's the reason that whole Arab coalition went away after Yemen war. Only Ruaf alone has round the clock high tempo capability.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 23rd May 2016 at 22:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Imo İncirlik AB, Seems to me the only safe bet is those Reapers.
The F-16 might be for Turkish airspace or North Iraq. We clearly see them armed with AIM-120 as well. There is no proof eighter way.
Those A-10 might have crossed Syrian border, but are we sure they aren't used in North Iraq against ISIS there?
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 23rd May 2016 at 22:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For me, it's typically an Escort/CSAR mission (Turks F16s). You need PGM in case someone have to eject. CAS/CSAR for the A10 and the real provider are the rec Tornado.
For the French transports, probably prepositioning of equipment (divert) or SF (CSAR and whatever).
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 24th May 2016 at 06:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dude , people will reject an idea if they think it is wrong , and when people think an idea is wrong they will try to disprove it , nothing abnormal with that . And whether you are legit or not we cant know for sure , everyone is entitled to their own opinions on that matter
Posts: 612
By: ijozic - 24th May 2016 at 10:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That might be so, but it's due to the fact that Incirlik is too small for US needs rather than your theory on how Turkish shootdown of the Su-24 threw a wrench in US plans. What is the difference if the US strike flights are entering Syria from the East (i.e. Iraq) or from the North (i.e. Turkey)? In any case it's expected they do some basic coordination with the Russians to reduce the chance of any incidents happening.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 24th May 2016 at 11:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The trouble for USAF would be that they has to talk to VKS in order to get anything done in Syria.
Much more now than prior the Su-24 shoot down.
Something tells me VKS is pulling most of the strings when it comes to control Syrian airspace. Something US finds "unwarrent", although it may be worse for US foreign department and all the Hawks in US Senate, rather than the USAF itself.
I,m not sure, but isn't Incirlik the nearest Airbase to both East Syria and North Iraq theater?
And Judging from the pics above, US/Nato has a medium size tanker fleet in Incirlik. How is this for too small?
IMO additional fuel cost for operating out of other Airbases.
And another thorn in the side for US, is that Turkey effectively made a gigantic error in shooting down a Russian jet, which killed one pilot and one Ru Marine.
Putin does not forget or forgive easily and Turkish affairs in Syria has now been short of halted.
Which in turn leave the Job of bombing ISIS in Syria to US and other Nato Nations.
While TuAF has been reduced to a merly observer in the region, in which they are viewed as a major player.
I can't see how this situation is good for US..?
And on the larger picture, US Commanders was quickly out in the media claiming that VKS efforts in Syria would be short and futile.
The exact opposite has happend, and VKS has cast a shaddow on US efforts over Syria on the 4-5 years prior, in which they lack any results against ISIS..
Not the publicity US and Turkey looking for I think.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 24th May 2016 at 12:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The bigger picture is turkey is either arms embargo or lack money to implement procurement.
Plus the most dysfunctional development of weopons. signing joint development deals with every one.
There is no airdefence system yet . Is AIM-120d delivered. It's matter of time this war will overwhelm them.
Posts: 612
By: ijozic - 24th May 2016 at 13:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, they do, but they seem to have limited apron space available for the operation (perhaps there are some limits imposed by the Turkish government on the number of strike planes that can be deployed?). There's a lot of conflicting info regarding these deployments and limitations, though, but the numbers deployed are always rather small. E.g. there seem to be a dozen A-10's there and a number of Prowlers; the F-15C's and E's were shortly deployed and there were 6 of each, there were six F-16's deployed, etc.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/12/15/us-footprint-expands-turkeys-incirlik-air-base/77362216/
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 24th May 2016 at 13:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have specific reasons to believe that Mercurius is who he says he is -- and no I will not explain what those reasons are.