Syrian conflict.

[LoooSeR]

Rastan

 

 

[LoooSeR]

@Collimatrix

@Bronezhilet

Quote

Syrian militants from the town of Binnish drew graffiti in honor of Trump's attack on Syria. It is written: "Abu Ivanka, may Allah guide you. Your attack is like a fart of a cock ".

[LoooSeR]

Hahaha

[Collimatrix]

12 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

@Collimatrix

@Bronezhilet

 

Fucking ingrates!  After all we've done for them!  After all the BGM-71 missiles, food, medicine, and machetes for moderately decapitating people, this is what they chose to focus on?

[LoooSeR]

 

[LoooSeR]

Syrian Pechora

[Mighty_Zuk]

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.

[Ramlaen]

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.

[Scolopax]

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.

 

 

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.

[Belesarius]

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.

[Donward]

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.

 

 

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!

[LoooSeR]

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.

 

 

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?

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Better watch out.....The Saudis are coming: 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/saudi-arabia-says-its-open-to-sending-troops-to-syria-as-us-draws-down/2018/04/17/fdf0b3da-4256-11e8-b2dc-b0a403e4720a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ea3cf5be110f

 

Based on their performance against the Houthis, I can't wait! 

[Belesarius]

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Better watch out.....The Saudis are coming: 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/saudi-arabia-says-its-open-to-sending-troops-to-syria-as-us-draws-down/2018/04/17/fdf0b3da-4256-11e8-b2dc-b0a403e4720a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ea3cf5be110f

 

Based on their performance against the Houthis, I can't wait! 

Ooohh myyy.

 

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

 

[eggs benedict]

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???

[Belesarius]

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.

[Toxn]

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.

[Belesarius]

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

[Toxn]

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.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

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?

[eggs benedict]

 

 

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.

[Belesarius]

Also, is anyone else as amused at how quickly we can open source BDA this shit?

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Which, apparently, is a bloody site more than our media are capable of doing, for all their resources. 

[Collimatrix]

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.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Just now, Collimatrix said:

theatrical.

 

There's that word again.....But who was the performance actually aimed at?