Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
LoooSeR

Syrian conflict.

Recommended Posts

https://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian-officer-israel-us-cyberattack-triggered-missile-defenses/

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6069343/syria-israel-attack-missiles-airstrike-homs/

 

Apparently a joint US-Israeli cyber operation targeted Syrian radars and caused them to fire missiles against 9 fake targets. Syria initially claimed 9 missiles were shot down by it, but then backtracked and said their radars were fooled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m interested in the possibility that there really wasn’t 105 missiles fired in the April 14 strike and that the bulk were decoys and/or EW.

 

That could explain the 105 vs 103 discrepancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

I would like to see evidence of that. You are literally first who i saw that claims this.

 

   And under evidence i mean something better than Baghdad Bob from Pentagon telling about all 105 missiles hit their targets. Because like half or more cruise missiles managed to disappear mid air, apparently. It is funny how Moscow Pavel and Damascus Walid were closer to what photos/sat images suggests than info from Pentagon Joe. 

This is one thing I've seen on the matter.  The general argument is that the missile launch trajectories don't seem right for something actively targeting an in-flight and low altitude object/missile.

 

Syria Air Strike Damascus

 

Perhaps jamming/EW or loss of target could also be to blame. Now way to be sure. 

 

11 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Pentagon Joe. 

 

I like the ring of Pentagon Pete better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Altitude = energy.  IE, it's a hell of a lot easier to close on a target beneath you than above. Especially when rocket motors like to burn out.  That shot doesn't mean much if you know much about how these systems work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah. I'm just jelly how Syria was able to shoot down 75 cruise missiles from the American, British, and French arsenals with 40 surface to air missiles.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Don't tell the Saudis though that all they need to stop spending petrol dollars on American anti-missile systems when all they need to do is hire half-trained Syrian missile defense teams using obsolete equipment!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Donward said:

Nah. I'm just jelly how Syria was able to shoot down 75 cruise missiles from the American, British, and French arsenals with 40 surface to air missiles.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Don't tell the Saudis though that all they need to stop spending petrol dollars on American anti-missile systems when all they need to do is hire half-trained Syrian missile defense teams using obsolete equipment!

mod claimed over 110 missiles used. Also Buk-M2E and Pantsirs aren't obsolete. Hell, video I posted on this page shows Syrian Army Pantsir-S1 with new radars and FCS. Pechoras were modified. Speaking about old - MoD claimed that S-200s launched 8 missiles and hit 0.

 

And how exactly you measured their training level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Ooohh myyy.

 

Fuck the Saudis.  I hope they get wrecked. Again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eggs benedict said:

i've seen a  bunch of those '' oh the cruise missiles were not intercepted" theories , but seriously , there are videos showing those missiles being intercepted , how are we going to skip that???

100 missiles+, 3 targets. Saturation strike. The Americans knew that a bunch would be shot down. It's part of the doctrine for a cruise missile strike on defended airspace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eggs benedict said:

i've seen a  bunch of theories about the missiles not being intercepted , but seriously , there are videos showing those missiles being intercepted , how are we going to skip that???

Shhh, let them have their fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Belesarius said:

100 missiles+, 3 targets. Saturation strike. The Americans knew that a bunch would be shot down. It's part of the doctrine for a cruise missile strike on defended airspace.

Yup.

 

My take is that the truth (such as can be determined) is that the targets were carefully chosen to fit inside the narrow convergence of 'won't look like nothing', 'won't start a general war' and 'won't result in lots of dead civilians'. There was probably at least some element of forewarning involved, such that the facilities may have been evacuated just prior to the attack.

 

The missiles did their job (but much less well than the planners hoped) and the air defences did their jobs (but not well enough to keep all the missiles out).

 

The stuff that got bombed will later prove to be tangential to any chemical weapons work the Syrians may/may not have going on at best, but will also include a few sensitive areas that the US et al wanted to bomb for other reasons.

 

The militaries of both sides will learn lessons from this: that the age of intercept-free strikes is over, and that all the changes in air defence tech still haven't lead to the promised land where they can substitute for air superiority.

 

The civilian leadership (specifically the US government in general), on the other hand, hasn't learned anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Toxn said:

My take is that the truth (such as can be determined) is that the targets were carefully chosen to fit inside the narrow convergence of 'won't look like nothing', 'won't start a general war' and 'won't result in lots of dead civilians'. There was probably at least some element of forewarning involved, such that the facilities may have been evacuated just prior to the attack.

 

That's my take on it too.....I'm beginning to think the UK (& possibly France) were the main instigators, but like the typical playground prick they haven't got the muscle to do their own dirty work, so they got their big friend to do it (and to take the rap).....But he's not quite as dumb as he seems, is he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

we are speaking of some  things we know little information about , tomahawk is subsonic but it is tiny and has a rather small rcs , besides , JASSM and SCALP have LO features.

 the damage made most definitly does not look like it was done by 76 missiles  , thats one big plot hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

A tomahawk isn't even that hard of a target. Subsonic, not all that stealthy.

 

It's not a hard target now.  Tomahawks used to be hard targets because of the low-altitude, terrain-hugging flight profile.  At the time, radars couldn't track targets at very low altitude effectively, but advances in radar antenna and signal processing technology have pretty much solved that issue.

 

It's sort of embarrassing to admit, but a sizable portion of US military hardware is obsolete and only kept around because it's economical for walloping third-world shitholes.

 

25 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Yup.

 

My take is that the truth (such as can be determined) is that the targets were carefully chosen to fit inside the narrow convergence of 'won't look like nothing', 'won't start a general war' and 'won't result in lots of dead civilians'. There was probably at least some element of forewarning involved, such that the facilities may have been evacuated just prior to the attack.

 

The missiles did their job (but much less well than the planners hoped) and the air defences did their jobs (but not well enough to keep all the missiles out).

 

The stuff that got bombed will later prove to be tangential to any chemical weapons work the Syrians may/may not have going on at best, but will also include a few sensitive areas that the US et al wanted to bomb for other reasons.

 

The militaries of both sides will learn lessons from this: that the age of intercept-free strikes is over, and that all the changes in air defence tech still haven't lead to the promised land where they can substitute for air superiority.

 

The civilian leadership (specifically the US government in general), on the other hand, hasn't learned anything.

 

I agree that the strikes were theatrical.  Everything Trump does has a certain degree of theatricality.

 

21 minutes ago, eggs benedict said:

 

 

we are speaking of some  things we know little information about , tomahawk is subsonic but it is tiny and has a rather small rcs , besides , JASSM and SCALP have LO features.

 the damage made most definitly does not look like it was done by 76 missiles  , thats one big plot hole.

 

Who the fuck knows how many missiles were actually used.  One of the things that modern ECM systems can do is create ghost targets on enemy radar scopes.  If the enemy scopes aren't terribly sophisticated, these ghost targets are extremely convincing.  So if the coalition said they shot 200 missiles, but actually only fired 50 and a bunch of those were MALD-Js, nobody would be in a position to say that they're lying until they've actually picked up every bit of missile debris and counted the serial numbers, which is never going to happen because people in Syria have more important things to do, and the entire country is littered with rubble anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Darjeeling
      Greetings, I have been studying in the battle of Afrin since it started. Yet I still lack some information that can clearly analyse the opposite plan, war progress and order of battle of both side (Turkey army clear but YPG isn’t).
       
      I am spectacular interested in the process of the battle as it revealed the true strength of the 2nd largest NATO army. Also, the performance of YPG/YPJ militant against the regular modern army is meaningful to modern warfare study too.
       
      Hence, any kind man can help me on this field or even just give out a reading list?
    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
    • By LoooSeR
      T-14 ARMATA 
      (edited)
              This thread is about glorious russian MBT T-14, known as "Armada", "T-95", "black eagle", "T-99" and other stupid Western names given to Object 148 (T-14 in some recent documents). Here is number of images connected to that vehicle.
       

      Official model of unknown "artillery vehicle". Yeah, Putin, we know that this is T-14. Note Gatling gun on turret right side.
       
      Artist impression of T-14 based on known model, by Fyodor Podporin. 
       

      T-14 will use Relikt ERA, which is considerable improvement over Kontakt-5 in resisting to tandem HEAT warheads and EFPs.

       
      Side skirts would be thicker on a real vehicle, i think. Relikt have AFAIK bigger size than Kontakt-5 ERA build-in blocks.

       
       
       
       
       
      Whole album with renders: 
      http://imgur.com/a/8Tn9b
       
      Video of same render from same artist:

       
       
            People expect that tank would have turret weapon system like what you see on the BMP-3 "Bakhcha-U" turret - a lot of weapons in one turret for one gunner to work with. T-14 is rumored to be equipped with 30 (or even 57) mm autocannon, 4-6 barrel gatling type MG/HMG, new 125 (2A82) or even 152 mm (2A83) smoothbore cannons. Turret is unmanned, crew of 3 would be located in frontal part of hull, behind very serious frontal armor inside of compartment, well protected from all directions. Cannon would be loaded by new autoloading device. I hope that Burevestnik is working on them, those guys managed to make 100 mm Naval gun with RoF of 300 shots per minute.
       
            I really like how turret looks, but i don't understand why there is such a big turret "busket" for unmanned turret with all ammo placed inside of hull in special armored housing. Also, i don't see gunner sight and proposed FSC radar on 3D model (i assume that panoramic sight is for commander). Laser sensors on 3D model are from T-90A variant of "Shtora".
       
            Some officials mentioned works on new active protection system, that consist of powerfull radar station, that can work on "long ranges" and engage incoming projectiles (missiles) with that gatling MG. Will this system survive development stage and be presented on serial tanks is unknown. Although turret for T-15 Armata-based IFV already was shown with new APS "Afganit".
       
            If you pay attention you may see that artist used T-80 rollers for Armata chassis, and this is not a mistake - according to some sources Armata heavy chassis will use T-80 or T-80-like rollers to save weight. And looking at rear part of that tank you may notice a engine deck from gas-turbine equipped version of the T-80, which can be mistake becuase MoD want Armata with new ~1500 HP diesel engine. 
×