Russians asking for help after swarming drone attacks
Russia is getting blowback on its support of Assad in Syria and on supporting the takedown of ISIS/ISIL/DAESH. Now Russia is asking for global help in determining the source of the components for the drones. That is an expensive and probably a wise action giving how this could spin out of control. It is the technological equivalent of model planes dropping cherry bombs. Stopping the availability of of supplies only part of the way of deterring attacks. There needs to be a nation-state agreement that they will not continue to enhance this technology or continue to supply it to non-state actors.
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been developed by the US Air Force since the 1950s and received broader use during the Bush and Obama administrations. Here i the Wikipedia history:
In 1959, the U.S. Air Force, concerned about losing pilots over hostile territory, began planning for the use of unmanned aircraft.[18] Planning intensified after the Soviet Union shot down a U-2 in 1960. Within days, a highly classified UAV program started under the code name of “Red Wagon”.[19] The August 1964 clash in the Tonkin Gulf between naval units of the U.S. and North Vietnamese Navy initiated America’s highly classified UAVs (Ryan Model 147, Ryan AQM-91 Firefly, Lockheed D-21) into their first combat missions of the Vietnam War. When the Chinese government showed photographs of downed U.S. UAVs via Wide World Photos, the official U.S. response was “no comment”.
The War of Attrition (1967-1970) featured the introduction of UAVs with reconnaissance cameras into combat in the Middle East.
In the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel used UAVs as decoys to spur opposing forces into wasting expensive anti-aircraft missiles.
In 1973 the U.S. military officially confirmed that they had been using UAVs in Southeast Asia (Vietnam). Over 5,000 U.S. airmen had been killed and over 1,000 more were missing or captured. The USAF 100th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing flew about 3,435 UAV missions during the war at a cost of about 554 UAVs lost to all causes. In the words of USAF General George S. Brown, Commander, Air Force Systems Command, in 1972, “The only reason we need (UAVs) is that we don’t want to needlessly expend the man in the cockpit.” Later that year, General John C. Meyer, Commander in Chief, Strategic Air Command, stated, “we let the drone do the high-risk flying … the loss rate is high, but we are willing to risk more of them … they save lives!”
During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Soviet-supplied surface-to-air missile batteries in Egypt and Syria caused heavy damage to Israeli fighter jets. As a result, Israel developed the first UAV with real-time surveillance.[28][29][30] The images and radar decoys provided by these UAVs helped Israel to completely neutralize the Syrian air defenses at the start of the 1982 Lebanon War, resulting in no pilots downed.[31] The first time UAVs were used as proof-of-concept of super-agility post-stall controlled flight in combat-flight simulations involved tailless, stealth technology-based, three-dimensional thrust vectoring flight control, jet-steering UAVs in Israel in 1987.
With the maturing and miniaturization of applicable technologies in the 1980s and 1990s, interest in UAVs grew within the higher echelons of the U.S. military. In the 1990s, the U.S. DoD gave a contract to AAI Corporation along with Israeli company Malat. The U.S. Navy bought the AAI Pioneer UAV that AAI and Malat developed jointly. Many of these UAVs saw service in the 1991 Gulf War. UAVs demonstrated the possibility of cheaper, more capable fighting machines, deployable without risk to aircrews. Initial generations primarily involved surveillance aircraft, but some carried armaments, such as the General Atomics MQ-1 Predator, that launched AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles.
CAPECON was a European Union project to develop UAVs, running from 1 May 2002 to 31 December 2005.[
As of 2012, the USAF employed 7,494 UAVs – almost one in three USAF aircraft.[35][36] The Central Intelligence Agency also operated UAVs.
In 2013 at least 50 countries used UAVs. China, Iran, Israel and others designed and built their own varieties
Moreover this is the perfect market niche through which security firms like Blackwater/Xe/Academi, TITAN, DynCorp can create permanent markets in low-level wars that only occasionally blow back to the US.
And if politico/racist conflict increases in the US and Europe, this technology could be the accelerant.
It seems the march of folly is accelerating. Some sort of concord that sets the rules of the governments to protect themselves and some rebirth of diplomacy and democratic sensitivities would be a welcome sign of sanity in the midst of America’s meltdown of the will to consensus.
Don’t let you scheenfreude about Russia and Assad carry you away.
interesting story.
I don’t much like the frame of that Asia Times article, that someone opposed to the Russians fucking with Syria must be a “terrorist”.
But it doesn’t sound like there’s any magic technology that can somehow be quarantined. These sound like relatively low tech throw-away flying machines. A kilo of good quality high explosive isn’t any “cherry bomb” though. The interesting part is that they seemed to have excellent targeting information, maybe that came from some state actor.
Syria has been in Russia’s pocket for a long long time.
The narrative of Syria as in the pocket of the USSR (it was the USSR in 1957 and not Russia which, along with Moscow and the Kremlin, was the US propaganda version to scare Americans into supporting a Cold War) was crafted by the commie hunters John Foster and Allen Dulles.
Keep meaning to pick up Kinzer’s “The Brothers …” Expect it’s a nice companion to “The Devil’s Chessboard.”
But I’m tired and bored with trying to have discussions with people that don’t read anything but the MSM and blogs.
See my response in another diary Re: The Simpson Interview Transcript
I see my comment referenced above was out of context in that diary, so I’ll repeat it here:
Russia came to the support of the legitimate (despite US assertions and the hopes of Arab Spring activists) government of Syria to prevent US regime change using moderate jidhadists (otherwise known as sweet and gentle terrorists). The rise of ISIS/ISIL/DAESH from the collapse of Iraq changed the stakes for everyone.
Russia intervened to prevent US intervention over a likely false flag chemical weapons attack. (Not that the Assad regime is not capable of brutality.)
Yes, one man’s terrorist is another man’s “freedom fighter”. Did you watch how fast John McCain’s head swiveled over some elements of al Quaeda?
Technologies are not quarantined by technology, although inspection technology does in fact help. Technologies are quarantined by politics; the technologies do not get the political results desired because the costs are too high to construct or the risks are too high to use as a threat. Efficiency in killing people is a poor weapon for anything other than endless war. Inexpensive to deploy is a destabilizing weapon.
That is why the Congressmen who was inexpensive and mobile nuclear weapons are lunatic businessmen who think only about means and never about ends.
Just a question? Of any state actor other than the accused Ukraine with a motive to attack Russia’s support of Syria, who would the be? And who would have that targeting information? My guesses are Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. US gets written off because of the current disunity in our national security institutions. Unless it gets tweeted one way or another. But as I pointed out, they are affordable for “executive security” companies.
How extensive targeting information would have been required such that it could not have be done locally with humint? At the moment, I would not underestimate non-state actors.
A kilo is matched to a light two-stroke engine drone though utility aircraft though.
My main point is that this is not quarantinable technology. Big weapons like nukes or heavy warships can be “quarantined by politics”, little weapons like this cannot. The highest technology part of this attack is the plastic explosive, which I couldn’t get but any really determined troublemaker can. And as you say, old fashioned humint could get them the targeting info.
>>Of any state actor other than the accused Ukraine with a motive to attack Russia’s support of Syria, who would the be?
well, you immediately named 3 other options all more believable than Ukraine.
Neither are firearms, but somehow civil society and governments exist.
Is Russia seeking a causus belli for attacking Ukraine? It would be foolish and contrary to previous policy but that is the spin that come off of that selection. Which makes one wonder who Asia Times, web-fed from the US, but publishing Pablo Escobar, and headquartered in Hong Kong serves?
about Asia Times
>>Is Russia seeking a causus belli for attacking Ukraine?
always. Which is why I have such a low opinion of the writers here who don’t believe Russia’s neighbors have the right to independence and allies.
Who here has ever said that?
Some here don’t believe that Russia’s neighbors have any right to choose to be allied with Russia and if they do, it’s appropriate for the US to fund the internal opposition that lost the last election.
Pepe Escobar, Tarheel. Pablo Escobar was a Colombian cartel boss.
Or…did I miss something?
AG
That’s a big oops. Probably not the first time someone has made this particular one.
Not a big oops for a geezer. I’ve done it before. Of course, I meant Pepe Escobar, the Brazilian journalist. Happily, it doesn’t change the point I was making. Who is Asia Times speaking for? To what extent does it operate at the sufferance of the Chinese government? Anybody can lease a US server location.
Everybody is so on edge to delegitimize arguments. I remember when this place had more generosity and camaraderie.
I knew who you meant, but it’s still a big oops, old geezer or not.
But my opinion of Pepe Escober is based on Asia Times but his track record for being a reliable reporter with a left orientation. Such journalists have to scramble for employment because there’s not much money available for those who aren’t center-right and right.
Sorry, Tarheel…I wasn’t trying to delegitimize you post. Not by any means. When I read what you wrote…”publishing Pablo Escobar”…what I saw iniitially was “publisher Pablo Escobar.” As rotted-out as is the entire media system at this point in time, my mind quite calmly the possibility that Pablo Escobar…with billions at his disposal…had a part in the founding of that publication. Why not? He was a sort of revolutionary himself.
And then of course I went to the link and saw that it was Pepe Escobar, but I still hadn’t unraveled the “publishing/publisher” error. I had a thousand other things to do that day, so I asked…quite honestly…”Did I miss something?”
No intent, no foul.
AG
Since when has US nat-sec disunity shut down US covert ops? That’s not how institutions operate.
That was my backhanded reference to the fragmentation of US foreign policy, which comes back and blindsides us.
The Syria desk is not going along with leaving Putin alone.
Okay — you’re up to date. Thanks for clarifying.
Reuters – 15 Jan 2018 – Erdogan: we will ‘strangle’ U.S.-backed force in Syria “before it’s even born”
How many here noticed that Sunday announcement? I’m guessing less than one.
Interesting article. Sounds like a message to any actors outside of AQ supplying assets for these home-made drones that they’re fun and games may not lack all the fingerprints that they think they do; so, how about cutting it out guys.
Might also be a warning of folks thinking of becoming rogue elements within their country’s military.
Rogues in the Russian military? If that’s what you mean, it would be a weak way to send the message. They seem smarter than that to me.
From my diary @EuroTrib …
○ Challenging Russia with Swarming Suicide Drones in Syria
Challenging Russia with the drone swarming attack in Syria, any state actor would pay a price. In Idlib province, the rebels are supported by Turkey, Gulf States and Israel. I do not think the U.S. or western allies of NATO would be involved in the logistic backing of such an attack. There are enough states with the capability of course, but there needs to be a political motivation.
Do we need a reminder the proxy wars involving jihadist rebels are funded and supporte by the above mentioned states? The same nations have strong military backing from the United States in aggression against Iran. See also the alliance to fight the civil war in Yemen with all the atrocities and war crimes. Next to Saudi Arabia with young Crown Prince Salman, a new darling of the West, an important state actor is the Emirates (UAE) with strong military support from the United States …. and home base of XE or Academia or Blackwater of Erik Prince. These US mercenaries have swarmed its presence out over the globe to any hotspot of warfare, Afghanistan and Ukraine included.
« click for more info
Israel's Aeronautics [under criminal investigation] Orbiter 1K drone, also known as a 'suicide drone'
In Syria, Russia and Israel are in a political and military stand-off. Through its advanced technological drone warfare,
Israel has an alliance with former Soviet bloc states like Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine.
If that political driver and others pf drone wars are not stopped soon we are going to be living in a very much more dangerous world almost everywhere.
OT:
Update from the US Senate
Any Senator who votes for the NSA 702 extension is no longer a practical democrat and should be defeated at their next election — regardless. And there are 9 House members who should be effectively primaried by someone willing to tell the people what has been going on for 15 years.
Uh, 65 Democratic House Reps voted yea – including senior leaders of the caucus and vocal members of the Resistance, revealing their hypocrisy.
yeah, most of the fucking leadership went with the repubs on this. Bipartisanshit at its best, and with pretty much no media coverage.
Notice that it was studiously avoided on this lefty blog as well. But I did get some troll ratings for raising the issue. The hollowness of The Resistance.
Kade:
Power and money. Doesn’t matter what party. Repubs lie to their sheeplike followers who drink the kool-aid. Dems lie to their sheeplike followers who just drink a different flavor of kool-aid.
“Put not your faith in Princes.”
It was always true to some extent, but it’s gotten progressively more extreme and on a larger number of issue since 1980.
Bipartisanship dreams again:
Dems voting yes on cloture:
Carper Casey Cortez-Masto Donnelly Duckworth Feinstein Hassan Heitkamp Jones King Klobuchar Manchin McCaskill Nelson Peters Reed Shaheen Warner Whitehouse
Republicans voting NO on cloture:
Cruz Daines Gardner Heller Lee Moran Murkowski Paul
Better be no Dems on the final vote unless it is a full repeal of arbitrary and warrantless action that does not require probable cause.
Let’s see if they do better the Senate Democrats did in 2002 on the IWR. Did we toss any of those idiots out? Why no, we nominated two of them for POTUS and two of them for VP and several others were considered serious presidential candidates. Let’s not forget House minority leader Gephardt who gave GWB the thumbs up before he had made his “case for war” and the resolution was drafted.
Jack Laperruque – FISA 702 roll call on cloture — yea – 19 Democrats. 8 Republicans nay.
Julian Sanchez
Okay – split decision. 2002 Senate Democrats didn’t shut down the debate but more than half voted FOR the IWR.