Daily Archives: March 19, 2017

The Role Russia Played in the Israel-Syria Missile Clash

Analysis: The Role Russia Played in the Israel-Syria Missile Clash

Syria’s missile fire at Israeli warplanes may indicate that Assad and his Russian protectors are not fully coordinated.

Anshel Pfeffer Mar 19, 2017 8:36 AM

Over the six years of the Syrian war, dozens of airstrikes carried out against Hezbollah targets there have been ascribed to Israel. Until now the government has refused to acknowledge or deny them. Both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman have stated publicly that Israel does attack in Syria to defend its strategic interests – in other words, preventing Hezbollah obtaining “balance-breaking” weapons for its arsenal in Lebanon. The attacks that took place early Friday were the first to be confirmed officially by the Israel Defense Forces spokesperson. While it remains unclear what the target or targets were – was it a Hezbollah convoy, a weapons factory or storage, and whether a senior Hezbollah commander was killed in the airstrike as some reports in the Arab media have claimed – a series of important questions arise from the little information that has been published.

First, why has Israel changed its policy and suddenly acknowledged an attack? Syria’s air-defense forces launched a long-range missile  in an attempt to shoot down Israel’s fighter-jets. The missile was fired much too late to endanger the planes, but could have fallen on civilian areas within Israel and was therefore intercepted by an Arrow 2 missile. The loud explosion which was heard as far as Jerusalem and the missile parts that fell in Jordan meant that some explanation had to be given. But a statement on the missile intercept would have been sufficient. The decision to take responsibility for the attacks as well would have been made by the prime minister and may have been made for other reasons.

Exactly a week before the attacks, Netanyahu was in Moscow discussing Syria with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Few details have emerged regarding what was said in the meeting but Netanyahu said before and after that he made it clear that Israel would not agree to Iranian military presence in Syria, or that of Iran’s proxies, now that the civil war in the country seems to be winding down and President Bashar Assad’s rule has been preserved.

Whether or not this demand was met with a receptive audience, Netanyahu returned to Jerusalem with the impression that Putin takes Israel’s concerns seriously. An attack carried out by Israeli warplanes flying over Syria (and not using standoff missiles from afar as happened in other strikes recently) may be an indication that there is an understanding with Russia over Israeli operations within the area that Russia protects with its own air-defense systems.

Friday’s strikes resemble closely the pattern of the attack in December 2015 on a Damascus suburb in which nine operatives working for Iran were killed, including Samir Kuntar, the murderer of an Israeli family who had been released by Israel in a prisoner exchange in 2008 and was believed to be planning new cross-border raids. That strike took place just three days after Netanyahu and Putin had spoken by telephone and was the first to be carried out after Russia had placed an air-defense shield over large areas of Syria, including its capital.

It was unlikely then, back in December 2015 and on Friday, that Israel would have attacked in Syria, within Russia’s zone of operations, if it thought the Kremlin would react with anger. The fact that it was the Syrian army which launched a missile against Israel’s warplanes, while there are much more advanced Russian air-defense systems deployed nearby, ostensibly to protect the regime, could also indicate that Assad and his Russian protectors are not fully coordinated. Assad is aware that Putin is discussing his country’s future with other world leaders, including Netanyahu. His belated attempt to shoot down Israeli planes could be a sign of frustration at his impotence to control both his destiny and his airspace.

Original post haaretz.com


Has Israel Actually Sent The F-35 Into Combat Already? Here

SA-5 Gammon S-200 Angara Vega Dubna Ground-to-air missile system


The S-200 SA-5 GAMMON is a medium to high -altitude surface-to-air missile system. The single-stage missile has four jettisonable, wraparound solid propellant boosters, each of which is is 4.9 m long and 0.48 m in diameter with a single fin spanning 0.35 m from the booster body. The missile is 10.72 m long overall with a wing span of 2.85 m. The main body is 0.85 m in diameter and has a solid fuel dual thrust sustainer rocket motor.

Each missile battalion has one 320 km range P-35M BARLOCK-B E/F-band target search and acquisition radar with an integral D-band IFF system, one 270 km range SQUARE PAIR H-band missile guidance radar, and six trainable semi-fixed single rail launchers.

The missile’s minimum range of 60 km is due to the booster burn time and jettison requirements, limiting the system to engagements against relatively large unmaneuverable targets at ranges up to 250 km. Guidance beyond the 60 km booster jettison point is by course correction command signals from the SQUARE PAIR radar with the S-200’s own active radar terminal homing seeker head activated near the projected intercept point for final guidance.

The large HE warhead is detonated either by a command signal or the onboard proximity fusing system. When fitted with a nuclear warhead only the command detonation option is used. Source fas.org

Surface to Air Missiles

5V28 Missile (Fakel via Vestnik PVO) – Image: ausairpower.net
Click to expand ....
Highly detailed Soviet era Fakel cutaway of the 5V28VE missile, marked “Sov. Secret” (Restored version via http://www.S-200.de – click diagram to expand). – Image: ausairpower.net
Image: ausairpower.net
Source ausairpower.net

P-35M BARLOCK-B E/F-band target search and acquisition radar


AR LOCK P-35/37
Function EW
Range 200 km
Frequency E/F-bands
Associated weapon system SA-5
  • 1 mw/b power
  • PRF 375pps
  • 7 rpm Scan
  • BW .7deg
  • PW 1.5, 4.5 us
  • Accuracy range 350m AZ .14 deg

Source fas.org

SQUARE PAIR H-band missile guidance radar


Technical data S-200 SA-5 GAMMON

Type of missile
single-stage, low- to high-altitude
Country users
Algeria, Azerbaidjan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, Iran, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Libya, Moldova, North Korea, Myanmar, Poland, Syria, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Russia.
command and/or active radar terminal homing
217 kg (97 kg explosive) HE fragmentation with proximity and command fuzing optional 25 kt nuclear for nuclear warhead variants
static semi-fixed single rail trainable
Missile velocity range
700-2,500 m/s
Effective range and altitude
(S-200) 7- 150 km
(S-200V) 7 – 250 km
(S-200D) 7 – 300 km
((S-200) 300 – 20,000 m
(S-200V) 300 – 29,000 m
(S-200D) 300 – 40,000 m
Deployment time
24 min
Bar Lock-B (P-35M): search and acquisition radar
Square Pair (5N62): range missile guidance radar
Big Back (D-band): warning radar
Dimensions (Length)
(S-200) 10.5 m
(S-200V) 10.8 m
(S-200D) 10.8 m

Technical data armyrecognition.com

Syrian SA-5 Air Defense Coverage

Syria 6 Sites 4 Sites (Masyaf, Dar’a, Shinshar, Khalhale)

Source ausairpower.net

S-400 Triumph (SA-21 Growler): Details

Russian S400 Air Defense Coverage 


US Army Wants a New Tank for 2030

After the M1A2 Abrams, the Army Wants a New Tank for 2030

This plan could make sense — and dollars, too.

Mar 18, 2017 at 12:13PM
The U.S. Army boasts a motorpool stacked to the rafters with 6,000 M1 Abrams main battle tanks — more tanks than some countries have soldiers. Yet for some crazy reason, Congress keeps buying more.Actually, the reason isn’t totally crazy. The U.S. only has one factory left that’s totally dedicated to the production of main battle tanks — General Dynamics(NYSE:GD) factory in Lima, Ohio. Sporadic demand from tank-buyers, however, keeps this factory always on the edge of having to shut down operations — at which point the U.S. wouldn’t be able to build tanks if it suddenly needed to. (A shutdown would also cost jobs in an important Congressional district.)

The politics of main battle tanks

Whenever the Lima factory is on the brink of closure, Congress rifles through the Congressional couch cushions and comes up with some loose change to buy a few more tanks, and keep Lima in business for a few more months. For example, in 2015 Congress appropriated $120 million to fund tank production.

But here’s the thing: There may be a better way to keep Lima in business — one that doesn’t involve stacking more 72-ton tanks atop the tottering column of surplus M1 Abramses the U.S. already has in inventory.

Simply put, the U.S. could build a new tank — and it just might.

A new, and better, tank

As reported on military tech website Scout.com earlier this month, the U.S. Army’s Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, or TARDEC, is currently hard at work designing a new tank to serve in the Army, and hoping to get it ready by 2030. Equipped with “advanced sensors and light-weight composite armor,” says Scout, this new tank would be “high-tech,” “lightweight,” and able to do things the Abrams can’t, like “destroy a wider range of targets from farther distances, cross bridges, incinerate drones with lasers and destroy incoming enemy artillery fire.” It would also incorporate advanced communications systems permitting it to network with other combatants on the battlefield, and even control its own drone detachments.

Specifics of the new tank design are still being worked out — for example, will it sport the new lightweight XM360 120mm cannon the Pentagon has been working on, or perhaps a futuristic XM813 rapid-fire 30mm auto-cannon capable of rattling off 200 rounds per minute? This all remains to be seen.

What does seem clear, though, is that if the Army decides to proceed with investment in a new 21st-century super-tank, then this would provide the funds to keep General Dynamics’ Lima plant busy building and testing prototypes. Thus, it wouldn’t be necessary to continue pouring money into the production of circa-20th-century Abrams tanks that no one seems to want anymore.

And that would be a win-win-win scenario — for the Army, taxpayers, and General Dynamics.

Original post fool.com


Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, or TARDEC, is currently hard at work designing a new tank to serve in the Army, and hoping to get it ready by 2030. Equipped with “advanced sensors and light-weight composite armor,” says Scout, this new tank would be “high-tech,” “lightweight,” and able to do things the Abrams can’t, like “destroy a wider range of targets from farther distances, cross bridges, incinerate drones with lasers and destroy incoming enemy artillery fire.”

Maybe they should go back and take a look at the Stingray light tank which is in service with the Royal Thai Army…….Which coincidentally was used in Cobra Gold 2017 for the live fire exerciser…..

Cobra Gold 17 Update – Video: Details

Stingray: Details


Seems the US have been working on 30mm and 50mm autocanons……..seen on the Stryker 8×8….

Stryker 8×8 Kongsberg’s MCT30 Remote Turret: Details

Medium [30mm XM814, 30mm Mk310, 50mm PABM] Caliber Weapon Systems (About $10 million in 2015 and 2016 and $16 million in 2017

This effort matures and demonstrates advanced medium caliber ammunition, weapon, fire control, and ammunition handling systems optimized for remote operation. This effort demonstrates cannon-super high elevation engagement, high performance stabilization, remote ammunition loading, weapon safety and reliability, improved lethality, accuracy, ability to fire a suite of ammunition from non-lethal to lethal, and escalation of force capability in one system.

In 2015, Optimized technologies from Weapon, Fire Control and Turret functional areas together in preparation of demonstrating a system level platform integration with an advanced medium caliber weapon system within a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) variant. In support of this effort, finalized and optimized a prototype turret and drive system to support the XM813 30mm weapon system; optimized and matured the advanced sensors (down range wind sensor, dynamic metrology sensor and improved laser range finder) and the scenario based fire control system supporting the XM813 30mm weapon system, 30mm armor piercing (AP) munition and the Mk310 30mm programmable air bursting munitions (PABM); performed the integration of these technologies within the BFV and demonstrated improved accuracy and lethality performance at a system level. Additionally, finalized 50mm fuze improvements and performed a fuze shoot off and demonstration to down select and optimize the burst point accuracy of the 50mm PABM munition.

Enhance Bushmaster III 50mm

XM813 features
• Semi-automatic; up to 200 rounds per minute
• Computer controlled and electrically driven
• Closed bolt operation
• First round select
• Dual feed
• Link-less
• Optimized barrel
• Integral Mount configuration
• Dual Recoil System
• Semi-closed Bolt firing mode
• Fires the complete family of 30mm x 173mm ammunition
• Provides a growth path to fire SuperShot 40mm ammunition

• Improve burst point accuracy and PD reliability of fuze technology for 50mm PABM
• Validate and refine existing 30mm Error Budget model for use in 50mm system projections
• Develop turret to demonstrate growth from 30mm XM813 to 50mm Enhanced Bushmaster III
• Perform platform integration of turret for 50mm system level test and evaluation

In 2016, Continue to mature and optimize weapon, ammunition, fire control, and turret technologies for 50mm cannon; refine the ammunition fuzing approach to improve accuracy and lethality; analyze data collected from integration, test and demonstration to apply to system level improvements; upgrade fire control to meet system level requirements and design turret for integration into a prototype platform.

In 2017, will validate PABM fuze technology and warhead lethality data, iterating and improving as necessary; using a commercially developed barrel, demonstrate PABM and AP effectiveness against personnel and materiel targets; design and fabricate 50mm weapon and ammunition handling system (AHS) prototypes; exploit advances in advanced Fire Control hardware to improve system performance; mature Fire Control software


Two other programs are for improving explosives (energetics) and active protection technology (like the Israeli trophy system).

Source nextbigfuture.com

%d bloggers like this: