Russia also has heavy bombers hitting Syria: TU-95s which are the Russian equivalent of the B-52, TU-22Ms, which are like an older version of the B-1 Lancer and they've used their TU-160s in combat for the very first time. The TU-160 is a little like a sized-up B-1 Lancer, though it's mostly designed to launch stand-off cruise missiles and nuclear weapons.
Russia also has fighters in the area, SU-24s like the one that was shot down, SU-27s which are the Russian equivalent to the F-15, and they've deployed heavy artillery, Hind attack helicopters, and even T-90 Main Battle Tanks.
Russia is being really inconsistent in its application of force to Syria as well. They've launched cruise missiles from their TU-160s, which is wildly unnecessary. Cruise missiles are designed to penetrate into heavily defended airspace, they're a first-strike or a stand-off weapon. All sides of the Syrian conflict, be it the Assad regime, the Rebels, or IS have essentially or entirely no air-defense capability. It's pretty much Russia reminding the world that they've got these weapons, as well as a chance to practice using them in something vaguely approximating a real-world situation.
But then you have the fact that it seems like the majority of the munitions Russia is dropping in Syria are dumb bombs. Like, WWII era gravity-bombs. And they're dropping them from helicopters, hardly the best platform from which to launch bombing runs, not to mention the Hind is much better designed to launch much more precise rocket-attacks. It's not like Russia doesn't have guided munitions, or the ability to use them, the issue is that a guided munition costs thousands to tens of thousands of dollars, whereas a gravity-bomb costs a few hundred bucks.
Russia wants to show the world it's still (or again) a major military player, but they're unwilling to actually spend the money that it would take to reduce civilian casualties in the conflict.
Say what you will about Obama's drone policy, but compared to the way the Russians are behaving in Syria, the drones have been an absolute model of restraint.
Estimates that between 558 at the low end and 1,235 civilians have been killed by drone strikes across Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan since 2002. Russia is claiming they killed 600 IS fighters with a single cruise-missile strike, which, if the number is anywhere close to correct, is almost certainly mostly civilians.
Not to mention, the vast, vast majority of Russia's strikes have hit areas of Syria in which IS has little to no presence.
This map makes it pretty clear that up until the bombing of that Russian passenger plane, Russia was almost entirely focused on bolstering the Assad regime and had very little to do with the fight against IS, whatever they were claiming. The downing of the plane has altered the situation, but Russia is still behaving in a fairly abominable manner, even given the nature of IS.
Russia also is operating SU-30s in Syria, which are extremely modern fighters, equivalent to an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or F-15E Strike Eagle. They'd give everything in the sky except an F-22 a run for its money.
Also, the SU-34 is deployed in the region, it is mostly a strike-fighter, designed for Air-to-Ground and Air-to-Sea operations. It's more modern than the SU-30, but because of its design is not as capable in air-to-air operations.
A few weeks ago the US moved a few jets from a squadron of F-15C's from England to Turkey. This is interesting because this squadron trains exclusively in air-to-air combat, their jets are never, ever purposed for air-to-ground operations.
The US also has F-22s operating out of Al Dhafra in the UAE. It's fairly tragic the F-22 program was cut so short by politicians, as it's so vastly superior to anything else in the sky. In air-to-air operations, it would most likely hand the F-35 its lunch.
A potential scenario here is Russia deploying Anti-Air defenses in Syria. This would give Russia the capability to close off Syrian airspace to pretty much anything other than F-22s and B-2 Stealth bombers, and even then it would be problematic.
Last edited by driveway; 11-24-2015 at 09:57 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
Russia also is operating SU-30s in Syria, which are extremely modern fighters, equivalent to an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or F-15E Strike Eagle. They'd give everything in the sky except an F-22 a run for its money.
Also, the SU-34 is deployed in the region, it is mostly a strike-fighter, designed for Air-to-Ground and Air-to-Sea operations. It's more modern than the SU-30, but because of its design is not as capable in air-to-air operations.
A few weeks ago the US moved a few jets from a squadron of F-15C's from England to Turkey. This is interesting because this squadron trains exclusively in air-to-air combat, their jets are never, ever purposed for air-to-ground operations.
The US also has F-22s operating out of Al Dhafra in the UAE. It's fairly tragic the F-22 program was cut so short by politicians, as it's so vastly superior to anything else in the sky. In air-to-air operations, it would most likely hand the F-35 its lunch.
A potential scenario here is Russia deploying Anti-Air defenses in Syria. This would give Russia the capability to close off Syrian airspace to pretty much anything other than F-22s and B-1 Stealth bombers, and even then it would be problematic.
The F-22 and F-35 are vastly different with different roles, the raptor was cut short because of it's high cost but only after 180+ were built. The development of the F-35 had nothing to do with it.
Your point about Russia I was thinking the same thing, deploying modern fighters and AA into Syria and around the Turkey border is extremely likely, after this it could be Russia proclaiming a no fly zone.
The F-22 and F-35 are vastly different with different roles, the raptor was cut short because of it's high cost but only after 180+ were built. The development of the F-35 had nothing to do with it.
That's debatable. The F-35 was all and truly in the pipeline and promising the moon when F-22 production was shelved in 2007 (production ended in 2011). While the total cost, including development and testing of an F-22 is shockingly high (339-412 million per aircraft, depending on who's estimate you believe) the actual per-plane cost in 2009 was down to about 140 million. Still really high, but every additional plane that rolls off the line makes the program overall more cost-effective.
The ultimate goal of the F-35 is for the flyaway cost to be around 80 million, though they're still a long way from that, and the first squadron was finally declared ready this July.
Between 2011, when construction stopped and 2015 when the very first F-35s were declared ready, they could have rolled another 100 F-22s off the production line.
That's debatable. The F-35 was all and truly in the pipeline and promising the moon when F-22 production was shelved in 2007 (production ended in 2011). While the total cost, including development and testing of an F-22 is shockingly high (339-412 million per aircraft, depending on who's estimate you believe) the actual per-plane cost in 2009 was down to about 140 million. Still really high, but every additional plane that rolls off the line makes the program overall more cost-effective.
The ultimate goal of the F-35 is for the flyaway cost to be around 80 million, though they're still a long way from that, and the first squadron was finally declared ready this July.
Between 2011, when construction stopped and 2015 when the very first F-35s were declared ready, they could have rolled another 100 F-22s off the production line.
The F-22 is a massive fighter and could never be developed to do what the F-35 can, The F-22 could never be carrier based for the navy or have a vertical-landing variant for the marines..it's an unmatched awesome tactical fighter but it's too big and too heavy to be anything else.
I don't know if that's necessarily true, the F-22 is both shorter and lower than an F-15 and its wingspan is only 2 feet wider. It's substantially heavier than an F-15C, but not all that much heavier than the F-15SE Strike Eagle. It also has similar wing-loading and thrust-to-weight ratios.
The F-15 was also designed almost exclusively as an air-to-air platform but has proven to be effective as an air-to-ground platform as well, the Strike Eagle variant being introduced in 1989 some 13 years after the F-15 went into service.
The F-22 went into service in 2005 and production ended a mere 6 years later in 2011. There simply wasn't time to discover the potential versatility of the aircraft. Given its advanced capabilities, I have no doubt that a multitude of applications would and will be found for the Raptor.
I'm not disparaging the F-35 here, though. It's definitely the better choice for the Navy and the Marines, and should be a good replacement for the F-16 in the Air Force. But I think the F-22 should have continued to be produced alongside it.
We could go back and forth forever on this but lets just agree that 180+ F-22's is more firepower than any nation on this planet needs.
It absolutely should be, but if I'm being honest, I'm pretty happy with a capitalist, democratic nation we're next-door to and as closely allied with as it is possible for two nations to be allied, swinging the biggest, meanest stick around.
I really don't get people who hope the United States or global capitalism for that matter "falls." Should that happen it's going to suuuuuuuccckkkkkkk for decades and decades. I have no interest in participating in those decades, I like wifi and donuts.
The Following User Says Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
I can see that. But you'd think that Turkey would also realize the risk of a newly formed Kurdish state at their border.
As a quick primer in Kurdish politics:
The Kurds are not currently actively attempting to create an independent Kurdish state or to (officially) politically unite the Kurdish areas in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria. This became the main policy I think about a decade ago when the PKK decided to give up on armed struggle and work through Turkish parliamentary democracy.
AFAIK their current goal is to set up autonomous areas in each of those four countries.
Iraq has already had an autonomous Kurdistan since the 70's, and obviously right now they're pretty much free to do what they want as the current Iraq government is kind of a joke. (It's worth noting though that there's a lot of political infighting between
Syria has an effectively autonomous Kurdish area (Western Kurdistan or Rojava) since the start of the civil war, but that's recognized only by the other rebel groups.
If I've understood correctly (don't quote me on this) Iranian Kurds tend to more or less content being just Iranians, although Kurdish nationalism has been on the rise I over there too I think.
In Turkey the Kurds are essentially a part of the new left alliance similar to Syriza in Greece or Podemos in Spain. They're pro-minority rights, but beyond that there hasn't been a strong push for even an autonomous Kurdish area in Turkey. The political side has strong connections to PKK, but the PKK hasn't shown an interest in active violence in a good while. I'm not sure if that has changed since Erdogan started his anti-Kurdish politics. (Which was a "funny" move considering that a decade ago Erdogan ran on a platform of settling the Kurdish issue through peaceful means.)
TL;DR:
It seems really unlikely that an independent Kurdistan would emerge any time soon, and even if it did it's unlikely that the Kurdish areas in Iran or Turkey would be interested in joining.
Last edited by Itse; 11-25-2015 at 06:41 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Russia says the second pilot is alive and well and has been rescued, also of note they are deploying the S-400 missile system to their airbase in Syria:
Russia says the second pilot is alive and well and has been rescued, also of note they are deploying the S-400 missile system to their airbase in Syria:
If I've understood correctly (don't quote me on this) Iranian Kurds tend to more or less content being just Iranians, although Kurdish nationalism has been on the rise I over there too I think.
Kurds in that "Iranian" cultural group along with other Iranians like Persians, Tajiks, etc... , similar to how Turks, Turkmen, Chuvash, Khazars, etc. are in the Turkic cultural group. So it stands to reason that they might tolerate being in a pan-Iranian country like Iran.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Russia says the second pilot is alive and well and has been rescued, also of note they are deploying the S-400 missile system to their airbase in Syria:
And the pilot was quick to say that Turkish side did not issued any warnings and shot them down without notion. Whether to believe it or not is up to you.
The Kurds are not currently actively attempting to create an independent Kurdish state or to (officially) politically unite the Kurdish areas in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria. This became the main policy I think about a decade ago when the PKK decided to give up on armed struggle and work through Turkish parliamentary democracy.
AFAIK their current goal is to set up autonomous areas in each of those four countries.
Iraq has already had an autonomous Kurdistan since the 70's, and obviously right now they're pretty much free to do what they want as the current Iraq government is kind of a joke. (It's worth noting though that there's a lot of political infighting between
Syria has an effectively autonomous Kurdish area (Western Kurdistan or Rojava) since the start of the civil war, but that's recognized only by the other rebel groups.
If I've understood correctly (don't quote me on this) Iranian Kurds tend to more or less content being just Iranians, although Kurdish nationalism has been on the rise I over there too I think.
In Turkey the Kurds are essentially a part of the new left alliance similar to Syriza in Greece or Podemos in Spain. They're pro-minority rights, but beyond that there hasn't been a strong push for even an autonomous Kurdish area in Turkey. The political side has strong connections to PKK, but the PKK hasn't shown an interest in active violence in a good while. I'm not sure if that has changed since Erdogan started his anti-Kurdish politics. (Which was a "funny" move considering that a decade ago Erdogan ran on a platform of settling the Kurdish issue through peaceful means.)
TL;DR:
It seems really unlikely that an independent Kurdistan would emerge any time soon, and even if it did it's unlikely that the Kurdish areas in Iran or Turkey would be interested in joining.
Political opinion and official policy on whether Kurdish people are satisfied with "autonomous regions" or want a state could change anytime.
The autonomous region in Iraq did come into being in 1970. However, that deal fell apart in 1973 when the Iraqi government invaded. The region didn't gain any autonomy again until the 90s when it was enforced by Western powers via no fly zones. So depicting the Kurdish people as content with an autonomous region since 1970 is far from correct and totally ignores decades of brutal conflict and oppression.
Neither of us can correctly speak for every Kurdish person, but from my perspective any autonomous region looks like a means to an end, which is the establishment of a larger state. Given the history of how "autonomous regions" have worked out for them in the past, my guess is a large part of their population would prefer an independent state with a true military.
Political opinion and official policy on whether Kurdish people are satisfied with "autonomous regions" or want a state could change anytime.
I agree, but that's really pure speculation.
It's just as possible that the idea of a united Kurdistan dies a slow death.
Quote:
The autonomous region in Iraq did come into being in 1970. However, that deal fell apart in 1973 when the Iraqi government invaded. The region didn't gain any autonomy again until the 90s when it was enforced by Western powers via no fly zones. So depicting the Kurdish people as content with an autonomous region since 1970 is far from correct and totally ignores decades of brutal conflict and oppression.
It wasn't really my intention to depict them as being content with autonomy, just to bring some historical context into the idea of Kurdistan. I sort of assumed that most people know that PKK used to be a pro-Kurdish-independence group, which obviously implies that the "autonomy, not independence" policy is indeed recent, not long-running.
(I probably should have written that out.)
Quote:
Neither of us can correctly speak for every Kurdish person, but from my perspective any autonomous region looks like a means to an end, which is the establishment of a larger state. Given the history of how "autonomous regions" have worked out for them in the past, my guess is a large part of their population would prefer an independent state with a true military.
Agreed. But just because it looks that way doesn't mean that's the way things will go. Temporary measures sometimes end up being permanent. (As much as anything is permanent in the Middle-East.)
When I stated that an independent Kurdish state seems unlikely anytime soon, I was mostly referring to the combination of current policy and military-political realism. What the Kurds would like is another matter.
Since we're into the realm of speculating, I think one possible scenario that might end the Syrian war is Kurds and Assad striking a deal. Kurds get their autonomous area and pull out of the war, leaving the rest of the rebels to be chewed up by Russia-backed government forces.
But really I have no idea how interested either side would actually be in such a deal.
Although I really feel that the colonial age borders of Middle-East need to go before any kind of permanency is achievable.
Last edited by Itse; 11-25-2015 at 12:21 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I agree, but that's really pure speculation.
It's just as possible that the idea of a united Kurdistan dies a slow death.
It wasn't really my intention to depict them as being content with autonomy, just to bring some historical context into the idea of Kurdistan. I sort of assumed that most people know that PKK used to be a pro-Kurdish-independence group, which obviously implies that the "autonomy, not independence" policy is indeed recent, not long-running.
(I probably should have written that out.)
Agreed. But just because it looks that way doesn't mean that's the way things will go. Temporary measures sometimes end up being permanent. (As much as anything is permanent in the Middle-East.)
When I stated that an independent Kurdish state seems unlikely anytime soon, I was mostly referring to the combination of current policy and military-political realism. What the Kurds would like is another matter.
Since we're into the realm of speculating, I think one possible scenario that might end the Syrian war is Kurds and Assad striking a deal. Kurds get their autonomous area and pull out of the war, leaving the rest of the rebels to be chewed up by Russia-backed government forces.
But really I have no idea how interested either side would actually be in such a deal.
Although I really feel that the colonial age borders of Middle-East need to go before any kind of permanency is achievable.
This just leads me back to seeing Turkey's foreign policy as very shortsighted. Although I'd agree that in the short-term, we are unlikely to see a Kurdish state, it is a long term goal for many. One of the greatest obstacles to such a state is Turkish influence. However, Turkey seems to be doing everything in their power to alienate the other states preventing that.
As others have mentioned, it might make sense from a short term political perspective. Stirring up animosity towards and conflict with the Kurdish population might be fueling support for the dominant Sunni orientated political parties in Turkey. However, from the long term perspective, it seems disastrous.
In the past, Turkey had the ability to lean on both the Western nations and Russia (as well as Iran and Israel) to prevent any kind of Kurdish autonomy along their border with Syria. Like you've said, if Russia is unsuccessful at re-instating Assad quickly, an option for them may be an alliance with Kurdish forces and a compromise involving an autonomous region. Given current events, I don't see Russia being very mindful of Turkey's interests going forward. In fact, Putin seems like the type to impose a large geo-political change just out of spit.
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
