A few thoughts about readers' questions about Russia's withdrawal from the memorandum. Afterword
Regular readers of our publication know that I very rarely write a continuation of my articles. Not because the topic becomes uninteresting. Just every reader after reading my material can make a conclusion on their own. Depending on your own thoughts, your own worldview, if you like. From my own life experience. True, these are just facts that have passed through the prism of the experience and knowledge of a particular person. That is why the truth is always different. More precisely, the truth is that everyone has his own.
But today is the time to continue the topic is necessary. Alas, it is necessary to ascertain that the previous material did not solve the tasks set by me at the beginning of the article. Common thoughts in the comments were gradually "trampled" by active "amateurs." This is purely my definition. And "amateurs" are quoted because they are actually fairly well-prepared opponents. And their task is simple, as the multiplication table: to divert the discussion aside. Remember the old joke about the student in the exam who learned only one question? Therefore, answering any other one, he skillfully led to this particular topic and started talking about what he knows more or less.
And further. Very unpleasant topic. Many of the commentators use the forbidden technique. It seems: "Are you ready to change the sofa to the trench?" I can not boast that I know all the old-timers of the site. But due to the subject of my articles, many are familiar to me. Who correspondence, and who personally. And these are not just “sofa hamsters”, but really people who know the army and the war. Really knowledgeable military production people. And not from the machine, but from fairly large cabinets. Some, like, for example, Astarta, a distinguished military general, who passed, in particular, Egypt (we discussed this article in absentia in absentia) we have already lost. Not everyone likes to argue with an aggressive "amateur". Therefore, dear readers, let us without meanness and "torn vests" on a skinny chest ...
But back to the topic that makes our brain "boil" for several days. To the subject of Russia’s withdrawal from the memorandum.
To begin with, let’s see if the Syrian Su-22 had chances against the American F / A-18 Super Hornet. Was it "self-defense", according to the Americans? I will break my own "rules" and immediately answer this question. Bullshit, designed for complete idiots or people who have never seen combat aircraft, even on video. Americans really wanted to show their strength. Wolf and Lamb ...
Let's start with the "terrible" Syrian fighter-bomber Su-22. This is actually an export modification of the old (mid-70-ies) Soviet Su-17 aircraft. The beautiful word "fighter" this aircraft received for the opportunity to use air-to-air missiles. Again, "scary" for a modern American aircraft. The firing range of these missiles is approximately 20-22 kilometers. Yes, and eyes "drying" blind. Suffering from senile "myopia". Airborne systems provide target acquisition at approximately 80 km range.
Hence, the Syrian aircraft was not used as a fighter, but as a bomber. After all, 4 tons of combat load is essential. Specialists, by the way, have very big doubts about the presence of air-to-air missiles in this flight. The last plane shot down in aerial combat on the account of the Americans was in 1999 (Serbian MiG-29 over Bosnia).
And to whom did the Su-22 "attack"? What kind of "harmless samoletik" from the Americans? The F / A-18E / F Super Hornet is a multipurpose carrier-based fighter (mid-90-s). This is a deep upgrade of the F / A-18 Hornet. The aircraft is primarily intended for air combat. Although it carries a combat load twice as large as the Su-22. The “eyes” are seen at approximately 150 km. And the air-to-air missiles fly 70 km ...
Conclusions about the chances of aircraft in open battle do it yourself. The Syrian was just a target ... And we will analyze another important, but controversial moment. The Americans claim that they did exactly as prescribed in the memorandum. They contacted the Russian command and warned about the possible use of force against the aircraft of Syria. Moreover, it is alleged that they tried to contact the Syrian pilot ...
Both of these statements are nothing more than a proposal to the Russian side to "hush up" the matter. Again, exactly what I wrote in the last article. "Well, it happens ... The young guy is hot. He did not take the order like that ... Do not judge the hero ..." Russia, as conceived by the American command, must acknowledge the receipt of the warning and transfer it to the Syrian pilot. And that ... should die at the hands of terrorists.
Not a ride. Moscow clearly answered. Not contacted! And the Syrian pilot (may Allah be good for him) "let down" the Americans. Not just survived, but also safely evacuated from the occupied territory. But the most disgusting for the Pentagon, he did not bite his tongue and can speak quite clearly. And what he will say is clear to everyone.
A fairly large group of readers yesterday put forward the thesis of the beginning of a full-scale war between the United States and Russia, if we are fulfilling our words. There were many arguments and figures. They compared almost the wear resistance of the shoes of our armies. If we put everything together, we will see a simple approach in the style of "maydanuty" guys. The United States surpasses us in everything, and we will lose in this war unequivocally (forgive me Vladimir Volfovich for the free use of the old words attributed to him).
Do you really believe that in Syria, Russia and the United States are eager to start a war between themselves? Why, after the downed bomber, we did not start a war with Turkey? Why the Americans did not start a war with the DPRK?
There are many fools in world politics. But even fools understand that in a big war there will be no restrictions. And all agreements on the non-use of something there immediately can be thrown into the trash. This will be the last war. Not for the warring countries, but for the planet. Now I can’t say for sure how many times our planet can be split with existing nuclear weapons, but I’m sure what is possible is many times over. Does it need someone?
Another part of the opponents of the Russian decision speaks of the deliberate loss of our VKS in a local conflict on Syrian territory. Russia is against the whole world ... What the "whole world" is worth, the Australians showed yesterday. Quickly turned their part in the fighting in Syria and today send their forces of self-defense back. Defend your Australia. From someone ... Probably rebelled kangaroos and platypuses. Who is there from "the whole world"? Balts, Poles and other Luxembourgers with the Netherlands?
The conflict in Syria is really possible. Local. Something similar to Vietnamese or Egyptian ... Some oppositionist "Ahmed McCain" against the Syrian "Mustafa Ivanov." But...
Oh, this is "but." Constantly puts a stick in the wheels of all reasoning. Remember what is said in the statement of the Russian MO? All aircraft will be considered as targets ... Then what? After the installation of our air defense systems in Syria, was there at least one case when American planes "accidentally flew" into the area of responsibility of these systems? At least one? The Americans and their allies very carefully choose the routes of their flights, so that, God forbid, do not "get under the distribution."
Before the events in Syria, US pilots were confident in their cars. Almost officially they called themselves the lords of the sky. And they were very surprised when Russian aerobatic teams worked out at all kinds of air shows. US intelligence reassured the pilots of the "flying and high-value" flight planes. However, in Syria, overseas "lords" saw that the planes were not piecemeal ... Serial, and there are quite a lot of them.
Can Americans Act aviation within the territories to which our warning does not apply? The question is interesting. Therefore, I refer to the opinion of one of the experts. Syria is too small for modern military aviation. Therefore, both Russian and American planes will not be able to work without entering the "alien" sky. These are the realities of modern aviation.
And here fighters take the first place. Not stationary air defense systems, namely fighters. Alas, but from the fact that today there is a presence in Syria, the coalition cannot oppose anything to our “landmarks” and MiGs. According to experts from both the United States and Russia, these planes will demolish Americans from the sky very quickly. And it is without heroism and dedication. Purely pragmatic approach. The study of aircraft performance characteristics and weapons.
Now someone will remember the F-22 ... "Predator", of course, is good. Just how many of these "little animals" are involved in the war in Syria? But those who can fight with them are involved ... I mean Su-35. Who will be from the opposite side? All the same F15 / 16 ... And how many of these Fs should be against one 35?
Do not suffer a question. According to American experts, 1 to 10 with a probability of winning 60% ... According to our estimates, more is needed. Oh, those ends of the wings of the aircraft ... "Khibiny", their mother ...
Well, the answer to the following skeptics. Why do we need it and why did it happen at all? Maybe the truth is not worth "inflate"?
Dear commentators, answer yourself a simple question. Why do we even get involved in this war? Why are the Russian guys there now? What would happen if we did not help Assad? Questions unpretentious. Repeatedly "gnawed" in various media and forums. Therefore, the answer is obvious to most. Not only in Russia, but in the world. We (all, Russia, the United States, the coalition, Iran, NATO and all that is there today) are fighting international terrorism!
Only we are fighting from "different sides." Russia is on the side of the legitimate government of Syria, and the United States and others like them are on the side of the opposition. This is where the “pothole on the road” of the war is located. For us, any militant is automatically a terrorist, and for Americans selectively. I already wrote about the "bad / good" action movie in the American version in the last article.
It so happened that behind the "celestial" affairs we forgot about the sinful earth. And the answer to my last question, alas, lies precisely on the ground. More precisely, it lies in the area of Resafe. This is a key road junction south of Raqqah, which Assad aimed. Control of this outcome allows the Syrian army to launch an attack on Raqqa from the south. Such an operation on almost 100% will be successful. And everyone understands this.
The Americans have already tried to seize the initiative with the help of Kurdish controlled units. But the government forces were able to drive the troops from their positions. Resap today in the hands of Assad.
"The Americans are forced to" save "their controlled" good "militants. And, sadly, today everything depends on completely impossible demands. On the one hand, and on the other. If Assad continues, then provocations, and, quite possibly, and the outbreak of direct hostilities by the Americans is very likely. If Assad does not dare launch an offensive, he will lose all the advantages of his position today and will have to move away from Raqqi ...
In general, we can already talk about the prospects of Syria in the future. Either the Vietnamese scenario and the continuation of the war to the last Syrian, or disintegration into several parts. The territory of the "caliphate", which actually died, become a bargaining chip. In the period of a kind of "anarchy" in these territories, it is easy to create not only the Kurdish state, but several independent Syrian ones. The benefit of the principles of separation is a lot. From religious differences to political orientation.
And on leaving the memorandum, it is already possible to conclude that this is “not the way it was last time.” This is quite a conscious decision of the Russian military and political circles. And it is dictated not only by the events in Syria. It is dictated by the general situation on the Russian borders. And above all, the increased activity of NATO in the border areas. We are again trying to "show the fist." Draw into the next "cold" conflict. Syria, Ukraine, the western frontier ... Again the "old song" about the arms race ...
The air smells like a thunderstorm ... Nothing. Not all thunderstorms end in heavy rain. Rumbles more often, flashes with lightning, that's all. But the air is filled with ozone. And cleared of all dirt. You go out into the woods or the field and see the cleanliness ... And you yourself become cleaner ...
But today is the time to continue the topic is necessary. Alas, it is necessary to ascertain that the previous material did not solve the tasks set by me at the beginning of the article. Common thoughts in the comments were gradually "trampled" by active "amateurs." This is purely my definition. And "amateurs" are quoted because they are actually fairly well-prepared opponents. And their task is simple, as the multiplication table: to divert the discussion aside. Remember the old joke about the student in the exam who learned only one question? Therefore, answering any other one, he skillfully led to this particular topic and started talking about what he knows more or less.
And further. Very unpleasant topic. Many of the commentators use the forbidden technique. It seems: "Are you ready to change the sofa to the trench?" I can not boast that I know all the old-timers of the site. But due to the subject of my articles, many are familiar to me. Who correspondence, and who personally. And these are not just “sofa hamsters”, but really people who know the army and the war. Really knowledgeable military production people. And not from the machine, but from fairly large cabinets. Some, like, for example, Astarta, a distinguished military general, who passed, in particular, Egypt (we discussed this article in absentia in absentia) we have already lost. Not everyone likes to argue with an aggressive "amateur". Therefore, dear readers, let us without meanness and "torn vests" on a skinny chest ...
But back to the topic that makes our brain "boil" for several days. To the subject of Russia’s withdrawal from the memorandum.
To begin with, let’s see if the Syrian Su-22 had chances against the American F / A-18 Super Hornet. Was it "self-defense", according to the Americans? I will break my own "rules" and immediately answer this question. Bullshit, designed for complete idiots or people who have never seen combat aircraft, even on video. Americans really wanted to show their strength. Wolf and Lamb ...
Let's start with the "terrible" Syrian fighter-bomber Su-22. This is actually an export modification of the old (mid-70-ies) Soviet Su-17 aircraft. The beautiful word "fighter" this aircraft received for the opportunity to use air-to-air missiles. Again, "scary" for a modern American aircraft. The firing range of these missiles is approximately 20-22 kilometers. Yes, and eyes "drying" blind. Suffering from senile "myopia". Airborne systems provide target acquisition at approximately 80 km range.
Hence, the Syrian aircraft was not used as a fighter, but as a bomber. After all, 4 tons of combat load is essential. Specialists, by the way, have very big doubts about the presence of air-to-air missiles in this flight. The last plane shot down in aerial combat on the account of the Americans was in 1999 (Serbian MiG-29 over Bosnia).
And to whom did the Su-22 "attack"? What kind of "harmless samoletik" from the Americans? The F / A-18E / F Super Hornet is a multipurpose carrier-based fighter (mid-90-s). This is a deep upgrade of the F / A-18 Hornet. The aircraft is primarily intended for air combat. Although it carries a combat load twice as large as the Su-22. The “eyes” are seen at approximately 150 km. And the air-to-air missiles fly 70 km ...
Conclusions about the chances of aircraft in open battle do it yourself. The Syrian was just a target ... And we will analyze another important, but controversial moment. The Americans claim that they did exactly as prescribed in the memorandum. They contacted the Russian command and warned about the possible use of force against the aircraft of Syria. Moreover, it is alleged that they tried to contact the Syrian pilot ...
Both of these statements are nothing more than a proposal to the Russian side to "hush up" the matter. Again, exactly what I wrote in the last article. "Well, it happens ... The young guy is hot. He did not take the order like that ... Do not judge the hero ..." Russia, as conceived by the American command, must acknowledge the receipt of the warning and transfer it to the Syrian pilot. And that ... should die at the hands of terrorists.
Not a ride. Moscow clearly answered. Not contacted! And the Syrian pilot (may Allah be good for him) "let down" the Americans. Not just survived, but also safely evacuated from the occupied territory. But the most disgusting for the Pentagon, he did not bite his tongue and can speak quite clearly. And what he will say is clear to everyone.
A fairly large group of readers yesterday put forward the thesis of the beginning of a full-scale war between the United States and Russia, if we are fulfilling our words. There were many arguments and figures. They compared almost the wear resistance of the shoes of our armies. If we put everything together, we will see a simple approach in the style of "maydanuty" guys. The United States surpasses us in everything, and we will lose in this war unequivocally (forgive me Vladimir Volfovich for the free use of the old words attributed to him).
Do you really believe that in Syria, Russia and the United States are eager to start a war between themselves? Why, after the downed bomber, we did not start a war with Turkey? Why the Americans did not start a war with the DPRK?
There are many fools in world politics. But even fools understand that in a big war there will be no restrictions. And all agreements on the non-use of something there immediately can be thrown into the trash. This will be the last war. Not for the warring countries, but for the planet. Now I can’t say for sure how many times our planet can be split with existing nuclear weapons, but I’m sure what is possible is many times over. Does it need someone?
Another part of the opponents of the Russian decision speaks of the deliberate loss of our VKS in a local conflict on Syrian territory. Russia is against the whole world ... What the "whole world" is worth, the Australians showed yesterday. Quickly turned their part in the fighting in Syria and today send their forces of self-defense back. Defend your Australia. From someone ... Probably rebelled kangaroos and platypuses. Who is there from "the whole world"? Balts, Poles and other Luxembourgers with the Netherlands?
The conflict in Syria is really possible. Local. Something similar to Vietnamese or Egyptian ... Some oppositionist "Ahmed McCain" against the Syrian "Mustafa Ivanov." But...
Oh, this is "but." Constantly puts a stick in the wheels of all reasoning. Remember what is said in the statement of the Russian MO? All aircraft will be considered as targets ... Then what? After the installation of our air defense systems in Syria, was there at least one case when American planes "accidentally flew" into the area of responsibility of these systems? At least one? The Americans and their allies very carefully choose the routes of their flights, so that, God forbid, do not "get under the distribution."
Before the events in Syria, US pilots were confident in their cars. Almost officially they called themselves the lords of the sky. And they were very surprised when Russian aerobatic teams worked out at all kinds of air shows. US intelligence reassured the pilots of the "flying and high-value" flight planes. However, in Syria, overseas "lords" saw that the planes were not piecemeal ... Serial, and there are quite a lot of them.
Can Americans Act aviation within the territories to which our warning does not apply? The question is interesting. Therefore, I refer to the opinion of one of the experts. Syria is too small for modern military aviation. Therefore, both Russian and American planes will not be able to work without entering the "alien" sky. These are the realities of modern aviation.
And here fighters take the first place. Not stationary air defense systems, namely fighters. Alas, but from the fact that today there is a presence in Syria, the coalition cannot oppose anything to our “landmarks” and MiGs. According to experts from both the United States and Russia, these planes will demolish Americans from the sky very quickly. And it is without heroism and dedication. Purely pragmatic approach. The study of aircraft performance characteristics and weapons.
Now someone will remember the F-22 ... "Predator", of course, is good. Just how many of these "little animals" are involved in the war in Syria? But those who can fight with them are involved ... I mean Su-35. Who will be from the opposite side? All the same F15 / 16 ... And how many of these Fs should be against one 35?
Do not suffer a question. According to American experts, 1 to 10 with a probability of winning 60% ... According to our estimates, more is needed. Oh, those ends of the wings of the aircraft ... "Khibiny", their mother ...
Well, the answer to the following skeptics. Why do we need it and why did it happen at all? Maybe the truth is not worth "inflate"?
Dear commentators, answer yourself a simple question. Why do we even get involved in this war? Why are the Russian guys there now? What would happen if we did not help Assad? Questions unpretentious. Repeatedly "gnawed" in various media and forums. Therefore, the answer is obvious to most. Not only in Russia, but in the world. We (all, Russia, the United States, the coalition, Iran, NATO and all that is there today) are fighting international terrorism!
Only we are fighting from "different sides." Russia is on the side of the legitimate government of Syria, and the United States and others like them are on the side of the opposition. This is where the “pothole on the road” of the war is located. For us, any militant is automatically a terrorist, and for Americans selectively. I already wrote about the "bad / good" action movie in the American version in the last article.
It so happened that behind the "celestial" affairs we forgot about the sinful earth. And the answer to my last question, alas, lies precisely on the ground. More precisely, it lies in the area of Resafe. This is a key road junction south of Raqqah, which Assad aimed. Control of this outcome allows the Syrian army to launch an attack on Raqqa from the south. Such an operation on almost 100% will be successful. And everyone understands this.
The Americans have already tried to seize the initiative with the help of Kurdish controlled units. But the government forces were able to drive the troops from their positions. Resap today in the hands of Assad.
"The Americans are forced to" save "their controlled" good "militants. And, sadly, today everything depends on completely impossible demands. On the one hand, and on the other. If Assad continues, then provocations, and, quite possibly, and the outbreak of direct hostilities by the Americans is very likely. If Assad does not dare launch an offensive, he will lose all the advantages of his position today and will have to move away from Raqqi ...
In general, we can already talk about the prospects of Syria in the future. Either the Vietnamese scenario and the continuation of the war to the last Syrian, or disintegration into several parts. The territory of the "caliphate", which actually died, become a bargaining chip. In the period of a kind of "anarchy" in these territories, it is easy to create not only the Kurdish state, but several independent Syrian ones. The benefit of the principles of separation is a lot. From religious differences to political orientation.
And on leaving the memorandum, it is already possible to conclude that this is “not the way it was last time.” This is quite a conscious decision of the Russian military and political circles. And it is dictated not only by the events in Syria. It is dictated by the general situation on the Russian borders. And above all, the increased activity of NATO in the border areas. We are again trying to "show the fist." Draw into the next "cold" conflict. Syria, Ukraine, the western frontier ... Again the "old song" about the arms race ...
The air smells like a thunderstorm ... Nothing. Not all thunderstorms end in heavy rain. Rumbles more often, flashes with lightning, that's all. But the air is filled with ozone. And cleared of all dirt. You go out into the woods or the field and see the cleanliness ... And you yourself become cleaner ...
Information