Uncensored Info on Iraq War from the Russian GRU

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Martlet
sorry, but detecting radar is a little different than intercepting and decoding encrypted burst transmissions.

"We have interesting devices. But we'll not tell you about them"



AFAIK not long ago British army had to use cellular phones for battlefield comm on the maneuvers, because their radio equipment was designed in the 70s. As usually I "sell it for the same price I bought it", read it in a Russian IT magazine.

I think that even if all communication is "scrambled burst transmittions", that I doubt, you can discover many interesting things even if you can't decode it. Otherwise why bother and send recon ships? Our Navy can find many other ways to entertain.

[miko2d]

100% of all russian info must be false - after all they are not americans, excremely competent in everything they do, including truth suppression and used to be under communist rule untill a dozen years ago.

 They predicted that US invasion of Iraq will not be a walk-in with population and all iraqi military greeting US troops as liberators and that US would need more troops and more time than "walk-in" scenario predicted.

 They even invented a ridiculous term "fedayin" and insinuated that there are tens of thousands of those in Iraq willing to fight us. That cannot possibly be true because untill two days ago we have not heard about any mention of  "fedayin" or expectations to fight them from US Defence Department or military briefings.

 miko

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Boroda
"We have interesting devices. But we'll not tell you about them"



AFAIK not long ago British army had to use cellular phones for battlefield comm on the maneuvers, because their radio equipment was designed in the 70s. As usually I "sell it for the same price I bought it", read it in a Russian IT magazine.

I think that even if all communication is "scrambled burst transmittions", that I doubt, you can discover many interesting things even if you can't decode it. Otherwise why bother and send recon ships? Our Navy can find many other ways to entertain.

Some radio communications aren't even coded.  However, the article said they intercepted A10 transmissions.

While anything is possible, I highly doubt it.  Even assuming they did, would they release that to the press?  Would they want us to know they can do it, so that we'd change it?

[muckmaw]

Why would a flight of A-10's call in artillery to hit a moving convoy?

Last time I checked, the A-10 was designed for just such a target. WHy would they not engage the target themselves?

Even if the rails were empty, which is unheard of in a combat sortie, they still would have the Avenger.

Makes no sense to me.

I don't believe the American Media...but I believe the foreign media even less. And if Borada is purporting it to be true, well.....

[Boroda]

Originally posted by muckmaw
Why would a flight of A-10's call in artillery to hit a moving convoy?

Last time I checked, the A-10 was designed for just such a target. WHy would they not engage the target themselves?

Because they are simply scared of AAA fire. I think it's pretty obvious.

[miko2d]

Martlet: Some radio communications aren't even coded.  However, the article said they intercepted A10 transmissions.

While anything is possible, I highly doubt it.

 May be they did not. Most likely they saw from their satellites the A-10s taking off, flying over unidentified dusty column, some transmission emitting from those A-10s, US artillery commencing firing shortly after and that column being blown to pieces, possibly followed by panicked radio calls from that same column in the open and plain english "We are being blowen the s#$t out of, where the heck is the supression and support, you REMFs!".

 That's how things usually happen in wartime and then some journalist writes how intelligence "read" the transmissions, etc. That is probably how it must have happened if that happened at all.
 Which, while regrettable, would not be out of the ordinary in any conflict to raise unbelief. After all, there are quite a few confirmed cases of friendly fire even in this conflict.

 miko

[Reschke]

Originally posted by Boroda
Russia has several radio-recon ships in Persian Gulf.  Just as it had 2 ships in Adriatics in 1999 during the cgression against Yugoslavia.

And we still have the greatest recon sattelite group. In 1999 there were rumours that Russia supplied Serbs with sat recon info, helping them to intercept NATO bandits using rocket ambushes. Russian reporters in Serbian Aircraft defence said they turned on targeting radars only a few minutes before bandits reached SAM guaranteed hit range, and changed position immediately, before HARMs hit the place.

So Boroda how long does it take to dismantle a Soviet built Air Defense setup? My guess based on the similar setups within US Air Defense capability is that it takes about 5 minutes to clear the area once you set up. Now a HARM travels pretty quickly on its way to a stored location from the radar signal. I seriously doubt they can get out that fast.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by miko2d
Martlet: Some radio communications aren't even coded.  However, the article said they intercepted A10 transmissions.

While anything is possible, I highly doubt it.

 May be they did not. Most likely they saw from their satellites the A-10s taking off, flying over unidentified dusty column, some transmission emitting from those A-10s, US artillery commencing firing shortly after and that column being blown to pieces, possibly followed by panicked radio calls from that same column in the open and plain english "We are being blowen the s#$t out of, where the heck is the supression and support, you REMFs!".

 That's how things usually happen in wartime and then some journalist writes how intelligence "read" the transmissions, etc. That is probably how it must have happened if that happened at all.
 Which, while regrettable, would not be out of the ordinary in any conflict to raise unbelief. After all, there are quite a few confirmed cases of friendly fire even in this conflict.

 miko

keep stretching.

[muckmaw]

Originally posted by Boroda
Because they are simply scared of AAA fire. I think it's pretty obvious.

Uh....No.

A-10's are designed to fly CAS in face heavy ground fire, hit their targets and return to base safely.

If it's one thing the A-10 does not fear, it's AAA.

The "Bathtub" can take a 23mm HE AA shell, and keep on flying. Now this is not the entire aircraft, but it is indicative of what the plane was deigned for.

Plus, armed with AGM-65's the A-10 can attack from a stand off distance of 17 miles. The "Maverick" is s Launch and Leave AIr to ground missle, allowing the A-10 to engage ground target while under fire, launch the weapon, and then take immediate evasive action.

A-10's can carry up to 6 Mavericks on a single sortie, and are the most common type of missle used by this aircraft.

[miko2d]

Stretching what? Didn't my phrase "That is probably how it must have happened if that happened at all."[/i] indicate that I have no claim whether that particular incident is true, not having been there?

 Or you find a flaw in the logic of my hypothetical scenario, having a lot of experience in those matters? Why don't you share your thought with us then, what those logical flaws are? What did I stretch?

 Or do you not believe that friendly fire incidents have already happened and will happen again in this conflict?

 Or maybe you are just full of s#%t and cannot scroll past my name without issuing an empty blurb, even if you have nothing of substance to say?

 miko

[Martlet]

Originally posted by miko2d

 Or maybe you are just full of s#%t and cannot scroll past my name without issuing an empty blurb, even if you have nothing of substance to say?

 miko

That's the one.  It's kind of like the Enquirer.  I can pick up that magazine, read who puts out the information inside, then throw the whole thing away, safe in my knowledge that what is printed inside is mostly false or speculative.

[miko2d]

Reschke: So Boroda how long does it take to dismantle a Soviet built Air Defense setup? My guess based on the similar setups within US Air Defense capability is that it takes about 5 minutes to clear the area once you set up. Now a HARM travels pretty quickly on its way to a stored location from the radar signal. I seriously doubt they can get out that fast.

 The whole setup, I don't know - but a radar that can be located pretty far from the other components of the complex and is mounted on a mobile platform? Probably very quickly if the engine is running and the crew is motivated to stay alive. 1 minute? 2?

 I talked to some people who manned such installations in Egypt in the 70s and I believe they must have advanced in portability even further since then.

 miko

[miko2d]

Martlet: That's the one... I can pick ... read who puts out the information inside, then throw the whole thing away, safe in my knowledge that what is printed inside is mostly false or speculative.

 OK then. It is certainly true that some stuff in my posts is openly marked by myself as speculative and since you do not care to argue what exactly is wrong, we will just have to take your word for that.

 miko

[--am--]

Originally posted by Hangtime
some of the stuff they put up is truly hilarious...

16:26
What Do Russians Read?
Nobody say for sure why people buy newspapers, to read or to wrap something. As it turned out, Russians prefer to read the press published in the regions, not that issued in the capital. This is seen from an analysis made by the RF Ministry of Press and recently published. I have no exact information at hand concerning the amount of audience of central and local online editions, such like the PRAVDA.Ru online newspaper. But as for printed newspapers, the advantage of the local press over the central one is obvious.

now we know where the onion mines their ideas.

bla-bla-bla... You are incompetent

[Martlet]

Originally posted by --am--
bla-bla-bla... You are incompetent

GREAT COMEBACK.

now that really proves your argument