The Middle East

[uniw]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Not trying to be insulting but what is your background as far as aviation opinions are concerned? Just asking sir.

I am an enthusiast and a hobby modeller for some 10 plus years, well I was until I had to change places from a house with a huge basement as a hobby room to a flat in the inner city. I mostly form my opinion based on reading books on the subject and the opinions of people that are respected in the community. Specific to F-35, most of my knowledge of the capabilities and shortcomings of the aircraft comes from airpower australia and other critics of the plane. What surprised me the most was Lockheed's reluctance to discuss these criticisms and dismiss them offhandedly by citing "national security" and "that's classified" excuses whereas in the past many if not most companies were proud to boast about the capabilities of their aircraft like range, turn radius, climb rate.

[uniw]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

An interesting development is becoming apparent.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...696268,00.html

Well, to be honest, ISIS and the other moderate (one can not mention this often enough ) Islamist vermin doesn't seem to be very impressed by the desperate and very expensive efforts of the American or Israeli Air Force. Amazing isn't it?

We will see if they laugh about Russians as well.

Well, for one thing since Russia is on friendly terms with Iran and Syria, they'll be certain to have better ground intelligence. U.S. had to tiptoe around forming any kind of real co-operation with Kurds in the area because of fears of offending Turkey, their ground intelligence was severely limited. Quite self-defeating especially if you consider that Turkey has in the past provided material support to Al-Nusra Front (another radical Islamist group) whose former members were crucial in the strengthening of ISIS. I don't know what it will take for the smart guys at the department of state to realize Turkey's clearly stated Neo-Ottoman ambitions for the region might not overlap with U.S. policy.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

An interesting development is becoming apparent.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...696268,00.html

Well, to be honest, ISIS and the other moderate (one can not mention this often enough ) Islamist vermin doesn't seem to be very impressed by the desperate and very expensive efforts of the American or Israeli Air Force. Amazing isn't it?

We will see if they laugh about Russians as well.

Israelis haven't had any strikes against ISIS.

The challenge with airstrikes against ISIS is that they, like Hamas in Gaza, locate their command facilities in civilian areas. Its not at all easy to get an opportunity to strike them without unacceptable civilian casualties.

On the battlefield, they're dispersed light infantry, not a particularly good target for airpower. Our chief successes are targeted killings of ISIS leaders.

[uniw]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Israelis haven't had any strikes against ISIS.

The challenge with airstrikes against ISIS is that they, like Hamas in Gaza, locate their command facilities in civilian areas. Its not at all easy to get an opportunity to strike them without unacceptable civilian casualties.

On the battlefield, they're dispersed light infantry, not a particularly good target for airpower. Our chief successes are targeted killings of ISIS leaders.

There are opportunities for air strikes. For once they do have some armored vehicles and even tanks joining their operations when they siege towns. During these sieges, their convoys with heavy weapons and artillery are vulnerable provided there is accurate and current intelligence on their location.

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Israelis haven't had any strikes against ISIS.

Exactly. They attack the regional stronghold against ISIS.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The challenge with airstrikes against ISIS is that they, like Hamas in Gaza, locate their command facilities in civilian areas. Its not at all easy to get an opportunity to strike them without unacceptable civilian casualties.

Why? Israel has never been shy when it comes to civilian casualties. Why now? Remorse, Repentance, or even a sudden guilty conscience? Completely implausible. Absurd.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

On the battlefield, they're dispersed light infantry, not a particularly good target for airpower. Our chief successes are targeted killings of ISIS leaders.

If you want to behead the hydra, I'm sure you will be very very busy.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

Why? Israel has never been shy when it comes to civilian casualties. Why now? Remorse, Repentance, or even a sudden guilty conscience? Completely implausible. Absurd.

Ever consider that Israel is basically staying on the side lines against daesh because if the JEWS attacked even the militant islamists that there are many, many Arabs that would be deeply offended. That IMO would lead to a lot of increased attacks by any and all on Israel. Not state to state (maybe Iran) but it would IMO cause a lot more suicide bombers and rocket attacks at the least.
Israel is reportedly working pretty closely with some Arab states now. So getting some cooperation between Israel and some Arab states is a much better scenario for Israel than attacking and killing some militants.

[Mal Hombre]

Israel attacking IS would be Their dream come true,There's Their Holy war right there.

[uniw]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

Israel attacking IS would be Their dream come true,There's Their Holy war right there.

I would perhaps not put it in those strong terms but it's obvious that if Israel takes a more central role in attacking Isis, it will be used as a propaganda tool targeting the other actors fighting against Isis, like Iran and Syria so as to say, look whose side they're on and look whose attacking Isis. Whether it would work to even begin stirring the "Holy War" pot is another issue since Isis have made it pretty clear already that they view Muslims of different sects and beliefs in the region as kaffirs and have treated them as such when they captured or attacked them. It's not like Israel bombing Isis targets will change many hearts and minds, but it's best if they were to be involved in operations that have minimal risk of collateral damage so as to not stoke these fires unnecessarily. In any case, it's obviously not concerns over propaganda that is stopping Israel, traditionally Israelis have not been sightly concerned about their image in the Western world let alone the Arab world. I think they are enjoying some of their former enemies fighting this one out among themselves.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Very interesting link NB1. It has not hit the news here yet. Not a big surprise to me.
I wonder will Russia work with the coalition already there?

Does the coalition already there have a coherent strategy and a logical plan of campaign? In Mr Putin's shoes, this would be my question. It is not going to be possible for Russia to work with a US led coalition unless that coalition knows what it is trying to do and how it is trying to do it. Mr Obama exhibited thick-as-pig-shit folly in attempting to orchestrate a bombing campaign against the Assad regime and in favour of opposition forces which we now know were and are dominated and led by ISIL. Britain's PM, Mr Cameron, was ardently in favour of having his seat in the war room and his chance to point sticks at maps, and was openly angry and frustrated when the Parliament emphatically refused to endorse British participation in the "Lets bomb Assad" project. Lest we forget, it was Mr Putin who produced an intelligent and face saving Plan B. I have no liking for Mr Putin, but provided the USA has learned better sense and is not still trying to promote regime-change in Syria, then the American side should see Russian participation in the war against ISIL as good news. Frankly, I hope the Russians provide air cover and air defence systems to the Kurds as a message to Erdogan in Turkey, telling him to either direct his war at ISIL or go back to being neutral.

America should be talking constructively to Putin's government about Syria. Russia will certainly know a lot more about Syria than America knows.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Does the coalition already there have a coherent strategy and a logical plan of campaign? In Mr Putin's shoes, this would be my question. It is not going to be possible for Russia to work with a US led coalition unless that coalition knows what it is trying to do and how it is trying to do it. Mr Obama exhibited thick-as-pig-shit folly in attempting to orchestrate a bombing campaign against the Assad regime and in favour of opposition forces which we now know were and are dominated and led by ISIL. Britain's PM, Mr Cameron, was ardently in favour of having his seat in the war room and his chance to point sticks at maps, and was openly angry and frustrated when the Parliament emphatically refused to endorse British participation in the "Lets bomb Assad" project. Lest we forget, it was Mr Putin who produced an intelligent and face saving Plan B. I have no liking for Mr Putin, but provided the USA has learned better sense and is not still trying to promote regime-change in Syria, then the American side should see Russian participation in the war against ISIL as good news. Frankly, I hope the Russians provide air cover and air defence systems to the Kurds as a message to Erdogan in Turkey, telling him to either direct his war at ISIL or go back to being neutral.

America should be talking constructively to Putin's government about Syria. Russia will certainly know a lot more about Syria than America knows.

Totally agree scoundrel. However with Obama the titular head of the coalition