'Russian-made' missile explodes into fireball in Cyprus near capital city

#61
We were always told 1/3rd of all ordnance does not function either by a fault (dodgy fusing, faulty electronics) or design (long delay, anti-disturbance)
Exactly, also imagine what the failure rate is for the third world. I can still recall the random explosions in various African states throughout the 90s/00s, as older Russian artillery rounds were blowing up after spending years sitting in dumps unused.
 
#62
What you are doing is arguing as usual, on simple minded good/evil points of order and its all very noble.
What you are doing, as usual, is projecting.
I am discussing a less sophisticated opponent who are firing off old missiles from a system out of warranty and like a AAA Gun from GW1 or whatever, they are designed around the concept of throwing more into the air, for the very reason that it increases a kill %.
Then you're clearly out of date. The missiles were upgraded by Russia after the Il-20 episode.
 
#63
Could Israeli ECM and or EW measures have disrupted that function

Indubitably.
Standard Russian tactic when dealing with heavy ECM is to fire SAMs ballistically in the general direction of the raid and self destruct them when they are near where you think the target is. The ability to interfere with the self destruct would be high on the ‘must do this’ list.
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
#64
That ‘second rate missile’ knocked down an IAF F-16I last year
And then carried on to strike Cyprus a year later?! Well impressed.
 
#67
What you are doing, as usual, is projecting.

Then you're clearly out of date. The missiles were upgraded by Russia after the Il-20 episode.
I project nothing, I simply have a default assumption of cockup theory in any situation involving the military: ours, theirs, whoever's. You are the one who is routinely on broadcast about the failures of other militaries and then reaching for political paranoia.

So the S-200 is not an old system? upgrades improve performance, but do they improve reliability and Russian reliability has never been a priority for their more technically advanced systems and they usually mass produce something to compensate for poor quality control, then throw in the Syrians competency.
 
#68
Can we take it that Israelis have found a way around Vlad's spanking new air defence system? Or am I missing something here?
It was an older model missile, the S200. The Israelis have been getting around Syria's air defence for years, often by flying over someone else's territory and launching their attack missiles from there and then heading home before the Syrians get a chance to respond.

That a Syrian missile should fail shouldn't be of any great surprise, other countries have similar problems on a regular basis but the press doesn't make a big fuss over it in those cases.

The essential problem here is that this is all taking place in a very small and crowded corner of the eastern Mediterranean, where a miss by one party stands a good chance of landing on a neutral instead.
 
#69
I project nothing, I simply have a default assumption of cockup theory in any situation involving the military: ours, theirs, whoever's. You are the one who is routinely on broadcast about the failures of other militaries and then reaching for political paranoia.
As I said, projecting. The only ‘paranoia’ comes from your handle and the two previous ones
So the S-200 is not an old system? upgrades improve performance, but do they improve reliability and Russian reliability has never been a priority for their more technically advanced systems and they usually mass produce something to compensate for poor quality control, then throw in the Syrians competency.
It’s just answering your point that it was (and remains in comparison to S-300 and S-400) an old system, but you seemed unaware that it had been upgraded.

As for its use, as per the F16 and Il-20 shootdowns, it’s a case of throwing enough stuff in the air in the hope of hitting something. In this case they hit N Cyprus.
 
#71
It was an older model missile, the S200. The Israelis have been getting around Syria's air defence for years, often by flying over someone else's territory and launching their attack missiles from there and then heading home before the Syrians get a chance to respond.

That a Syrian missile should fail shouldn't be of any great surprise, other countries have similar problems on a regular basis but the press doesn't make a big fuss over it in those cases.

The essential problem here is that this is all taking place in a very small and crowded corner of the eastern Mediterranean, where a miss by one party stands a good chance of landing on a neutral instead.
Very crowded and all I wanted to express was the IAF should be careful about drawing out a reaction in case of collateral damage (irrespective of whose errant ordnance it is).
 
#72
Very crowded and all I wanted to express was the IAF should be careful about drawing out a reaction in case of collateral damage (irrespective of whose errant ordnance it is).
What's the solution then? The IAF lay a flight plan that misses any area that might cause collateral damage anywhere for 300km? Out to sea is normally a bit safer than land.

The other solution is of course Syrian AD batteries don't lob as much ordnance as they can willy nilly to try and hit something, be it Northern Cyprus (self declared TRNC) or Il-20s.

An even better solution would be for Iran to stop supplying Hezbollah.

Of course, the IAF could stop flying these sorties, but you have agreed Israel has a right to self defence.
 
#73
What's the solution then? The IAF lay a flight plan that misses any area that might cause collateral damage anywhere for 300km? Out to sea is normally a bit safer than land.

The other solution is of course Syrian AD batteries don't lob as much ordnance as they can willy nilly to try and hit something, be it Northern Cyprus (self declared TRNC) or Il-20s.

An even better solution would be for Iran to stop supplying Hezbollah.

Of course, the IAF could stop flying these sorties, but you have agreed Israel has a right to self defence.
Why strike Syria at all, why not hit Hezbollah in Lebanon ? the IAF could be in and out of Lebanon in a flash and with limited reaction.
 
#74
Why strike Syria at all, why not hit Hezbollah in Lebanon ? the IAF could be in and out of Lebanon in a flash and with limited reaction.
Something happened in 1982. You may recall it
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#75
You called it a ‘second rate missile’, it’s not, it’s a very competent design capable of knocking down the best protected western aircraft.
No...it's a missile designed in the 1950s and fielded by numerous former Soviet client states. The fact that current operators (apart from Syria) include Libya and Myanmar should tell you all you need to know.


Soviet engineers began to develop the S-200 surface-to-air missile system during the 1950s, primarily to counter the U.S. B-58 supersonic bomber, U2 spy plane, and other reconnaissance aircraft.1

Since its initial deployment in 1966, the S-200 received multiple upgrades to increase the system’s range and accuracy.



This is a big powerful obsolescent system , which wouldn't even see 'the best protected Western ac' - but it has awkwardly long-range and is surprisingly good at bringing down civilian jets accidentally.

Source

Siberia Airlines Flight 1812
On October 4, 2001, the Ukrainian military accidentally shot down Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 flying from Tel Aviv to Novosibirsk. As part of an air defense exercise, two antiair missiles, one from an S-200 and one from an S-300, were launched at a target drone off the Black Sea’s Crimean coast. The missile from the S-300 successfully intercepted the drone, but the errant S-200 missile flew an extra 240 km before hitting a Russian Tu-154 commercial airliner.27The plane was hit while flying 35,000 ft above the Black Sea, killing all 78 crew and passengers.28
 
#76
It was an older model missile, the S200. The Israelis have been getting around Syria's air defence for years, often by flying over someone else's territory and launching their attack missiles from there and then heading home before the Syrians get a chance to respond.

That a Syrian missile should fail shouldn't be of any great surprise, other countries have similar problems on a regular basis but the press doesn't make a big fuss over it in those cases.

The essential problem here is that this is all taking place in a very small and crowded corner of the eastern Mediterranean, where a miss by one party stands a good chance of landing on a neutral instead.
So there was no electronic "jamming" device that sent the missile haywire? It was a simple "low-tech" tactic by the Israeli aircraft of flying in from a direction they're not expected? Is this a frequent occurrence? I mean is the only reason we're hearing about this is because instead of splashing into the sea the missile hit Cyprus? Is it also reasonable to suggest that if both sides don't stop playing silly buggers a civil airliner is likely to get shot down?

(Edited to remove superfluous text)
 
Last edited:
#77
So there was no electronic "jamming" device that sent the missile haywire? It was a simple "low-tech" tactic by the Israeli aircraft of flying in from a direction they're not expected? Is this a frequent occurrence? I mean is the only reason we're hearing about this is because instead of splashing into the sea the missile hit Cyprus? Is it also reasonable to suggest that if both sides don't stop playing silly buggers a civil airliner is likely to get shot down?

(Edited to remove superfluous text)
Israel have been attacking Iranian supplies to Hezbollah in Syria for years. A lot is on this thread:
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/syria.161743/
There's also the 'green on blue' thread:
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/t...llance-aircraft-lost-at-sea-off-syria.286446/

Tbh, it's a fairly common occurrence and whilst it hits the MSM, nobody appears to take a great deal of notice. It's only when F16's or Il-20s are shot down or if (as in this case) the S-200 (SA-5) missed its target and kept on going as above re the Russian civilian airliner shot down.

Both sides have a right of 'self defence' or do you disagree?
 
#78
Israel have been attacking Iranian supplies to Hezbollah in Syria for years. A lot is on this thread:
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/syria.161743/
There's also the 'green on blue' thread:
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/t...llance-aircraft-lost-at-sea-off-syria.286446/

Tbh, it's a fairly common occurrence and whilst it hits the MSM, nobody appears to take a great deal of notice. It's only when F16's or Il-20s are shot down or if (as in this case) the S-200 (SA-5) missed its target and kept on going as above re the Russian civilian airliner shot down.

Both sides have a right of 'self defence' or do you disagree?
The self defence argument is on very shaky ground as I asked you yesterday, why should Israel attack Hezbollah in Syria ? where the air defences are significant, whereas south Lebanon where Hezbollah actually lives and has zero AD, is not hit.

I recall the US transhipped arms through the UK during the Yom Kippur/October War and does that green light the arab states to attempt bombing missions in the UK ?
 
#79
The self defence argument is on very shaky ground as I asked you yesterday, why should Israel attack Hezbollah in Syria ? where the air defences are significant, whereas south Lebanon where Hezbollah actually lives and has zero AD, is not hit.

I recall the US transhipped arms through the UK during the Yom Kippur/October War and does that green light the arab states to attempt bombing missions in the UK ?

Iranian arms routes via Syria to Hizbollah in Lebanon.
 
#80
The self defence argument is on very shaky ground as I asked you yesterday, why should Israel attack Hezbollah in Syria ? where the air defences are significant, whereas south Lebanon where Hezbollah actually lives and has zero AD, is not hit.
I mentioned Lebanon in ‘82 and you used your ‘mong button’. You were allegedly in the Army, so what’s the best COA? Interdict supplies or try and hit them when in amongst the civilians?

You said earlier Israel has a right if self defence. Now you’re changing your view as usual. Both sides have the right of self defence, that is what we’re seeing. Assad’s Forces defending Iranian supplies to Hezbollah.
I recall the US transhipped arms through the UK during the Yom Kippur/October War and does that green light the arab states to attempt bombing missions in the UK ?
Hezbollah are a terrorist organisation, recognised as such by much of the world apart from ‘the usual suspects’. It gives the Arab states as much of a ‘green light’ as Chinese supplies to both sides in any war.
 

Top