While action from US/UK was expected, kind of disheartened to see France join in.

France has changed since Macron took over.

KICT wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

KICT wrote:

Also, under what authority are these strikes being carried out?

Article 2 of the Constitution has been used by every President for over a century for these types of military actions. Their use of that clause has been affirmed time and time again by the Supreme Court.

"I appreciate that the President has responded to Assad’s latest chemical attack with allies, France & United Kingdom. Moving forward, it's important that the administration honors the Constitution by working with Congress on future military action." - Senator Lankford (R-OK)

That's a nice statement.

BawliBooch wrote:

While action from US/UK was expected, kind of disheartened to see France join in.

France has changed since Macron took over.

Yes, for the better. Good to see France living up to its international responsibility. If only Germany would stop living in the shadow of its role in WWII

787Driver wrote:

BawliBooch wrote:

While action from US/UK was expected, kind of disheartened to see France join in.

France has changed since Macron took over.

Yes, for the better. Good to see France living up to its international responsibility. If only Germany would stop living in the shadow of its role in WWII

I'm fine with Germany taking a rest. They've proven to be a bit much in the past.

tu204 wrote:

Nice that even your buddy Trump ain't as insane as you to shoot at Russian equipment or Russian troops to prevent a shitstorm.

US forces have already killed between 200 and 300 Russian forces on the ground. Seems Putin is fine with it.

Maybe he's not as stupid as you claim and actually has an understanding of the consequences of one's actions? Compared to you anyways...

Since Russia ordered Assad to carry out that Chemical strike exactly to get a limited strike to protect their assets in the white house, the risk was zero.

I am curious to know what was used to take out some of the incoming Tomahawks. You are right the the S-200 wouldn't be an ideal tool for that.

Gravity. Or AAA getting lucky near a target. Russian air defense missiles have been useless for well over 40 years by now.

Best regards
Thomas

787Driver wrote:

BawliBooch wrote:

While action from US/UK was expected, kind of disheartened to see France join in.

France has changed since Macron took over.

Yes, for the better. Good to see France living up to its international responsibility. If only Germany would stop living in the shadow of its role in WWII

Yeah.. we bought Taurus for exactly the kind of attacks needed, against bunkers. Preferably the one Assad is hiding in.

Best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

And that your buddy Putin isn't as stupid as taking down the platforms the Tomohawks came from - even if he could - , which he threatened to do.

The only chance the Russian armed forces have to get to anyone but 3rd rate armed forces is to commit suicide, I.e.start a nuclear attack.

Putin may be fine with everyone else being dead in Russia, but his polices will be based on his own survival. He didn't even have Russian SAM fired at incoming unmaned Cruise missiles. If anyone hurts a US soldier, Putin is probably ordering to have that one executed himself.

Best regards
Thomas

787Driver wrote:

BawliBooch wrote:

While action from US/UK was expected, kind of disheartened to see France join in.

France has changed since Macron took over.

Yes, for the better. Good to see France living up to its international responsibility. If only Germany would stop living in the shadow of its role in WWII

Under François Hollande France was also ready to strike Syria over the use of chemical weapons, however Obama and Cameron backed down, losing a lot of credibility in the process, that emboldened Assad and Putin.

Days after having taken power Macron deliberately drew the same red line again, when he was at the side of Putin at a presser in Versailles, so he couldn't let it go.

I see it as similar to China backing NK with Putin and Assad. Nice thing to have a little guy as a thorn in the side of the West. Meanwhile China continues quietly to invest in Africa and the middle East and the South China seas, the later being a hot favourite for the next shooting match to kick off.
Meanwhile in Syria nothing will change, as others have said the attack was symbolic,"I said we would bomb you and we did, doesn't change anything."

Guys - I'm seriously disappointed none of you have picked up on this gem. I realise this thread is in non-aviation, but I had thought at least somebody here would have shot this down.

anrec80 wrote:

In their military, it's regular occurrence when 50,000-70,000 of troops in, say, European region, get woken up at 4:00 AM, boards IL-76s, flies to Siberia (3-4K miles), performs maneuvers and shootings, and gets flown back. Nearly every military division does such an exercise every few months.

Let's do the math.
The Russian Air Force can lay hold of around 200 Il-76s (2006; Wikipedia)
So that's ..... 250-350 troops on each a/c.
We know from the Algerian crash (recent) and Iran (2003) that 257 pax can be carried, but in one or both cases this number included civilians (i.e. men, women, and children) and the flights were relatively short duration. I personally doubt that 257 properly dressed and equipped troops could be accommodated on an Il-76 deck, and certainly not for a flight of 3-4,000km. Needless to say, 350 is definitely out of the question.

Wikipedia wrote:

Another intended version was a double-decked 250-passenger airliner but that project was cancelled.

Anybody care to guess what a standard single-deck Il-76 might carry? (Way less than 250)
I can believe that both the Iranian and Algerian a/c were fitted out with a locally constructed double-deck, which may or may not have satisfied IATA regs, but as military a/c they wouldn't have to worry too much about that. However, there is no way any air force would want to compromise it's military lifting capabilities by converting their entire fleet, so we are only talking about isolated examples at best.

I also doubt that out of a fleet of ca 200 a/c, the Russian A/F would regularly commit it's entire transport force to a regular (training) event, or would even have that many a/c serviceable at any one time.

Conclusion;
There is no way the numbers add up.

Anyways, it supports various theories that certain posters here are both susceptible to Russian propaganda, and expect the rest of us to swallow these lies too. As for the rest of you, I can only conclude you either know nothing about aviation, or were too lazy to do the math!

*Apologies for introducing two unusual subjects to this thread
1) Aviation
2) Facts

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Anybody care to guess what a standard single-deck Il-76 might carry? (Way less than 250)

OEM says 145.

Best regards
Thomas

Mortyman wrote:

which is why he most likely don't care

He cared, you can bet on that. He just had no way to effectively respond.

The last time Syria crossed the line in the sand, that president went to Congress to ask for use of military force and they said "no" and blamed that president for not doing anything about Syria. Anyone hazard a guess as to who that was?

But, now, we have a military genius in the White House, apparently, and he don't need no stinkin' Congress for nothing. Flint still has no water, Puerto Rico still has no services, people across the country are losing medical coverage but, yeah, let's throw bombs at Russ... I mean... Syria.

MIT expert claims latest chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged

Another false flag to justify an invasion? Come on! Has that ever happened before?

These left-libs are clutching at straws.

BawliBooch wrote:

MIT expert claims latest chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged

Another false flag to justify an invasion? Come on! Has that ever happened before?

These left-libs are clutching at straws.

Isn't interesting that "left-libs" don't start wars but neo-con (CON being the operative word) always seem to sucker their base into war?

I wonder since when Chlorine was mainly a chemical weapon and not a chemical commonly used for water purification. In fact ti was the most common solution in Syria. So it is very likely available to any side which controls a water purification plant.

seahawk wrote:

I wonder since when Chlorine was mainly a chemical weapon and not a chemical commonly used for water purification. In fact ti was the most common solution in Syria. So it is very likely available to any side which controls a water purification plant.

Indeed, Chloirine compounds are used in water purification plants, and are commonly available in high street shops (in dilute form)

I'm not a chemist, so what follows is just basic stuff, E&OE

Chlorine at room temperature is a gas. Most unpleasant.
But that is rarely how it is transported (for civilian uses) or delivered (in military uses).

One commonly available option is Hydrochloric Acid, which is even more unpleasant (obviously) and after doing damage to skin etc as an acid, it degrades to yield ... chlorine gas (not necessarily enough to kill you, but generally enough that you can smell chlorine)

Chlorine trifluoride is a colourless liquid which turns into gas at 11.8 °C. It is one of the most reactive known chemical compounds, reacting with many substances which in ordinary circumstances would be considered chemically inert, such as asbestos, concrete, and sand. It explodes on contact with water and most organic substances i.e. human beings. The list of elements it sets on fire is diverse.....

I have splashed Hydrochloric acid on myself and casually rinsed it off again under the kitchen faucet without a problem, but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a barrel of Cl trifluoride if it fell out of the sky.

And at the other end of the spectrum is Sodium Chloride, aka salt, exactly as you have on your French fries.

Any or all of the above (and many many other compounds) can leave a smell of chlorine in the wrong circumstances. Depending on how it is used, it can be a useful household cleaner, or a military grade chemical weapon.

As I say, I'm not a chemist, so if any of that is incorrect, you can toss a bottle of bleach in my direction.

Putin is furious on the West after the air strikes on Syria. Although direct escalation seems averted, experts count on a counterattack. Not with conventional weapons, but online.

"We have warned that such actions are not without consequences," says Anatoly Antonov, the Russian ambassador of Russia in the US. "All responsibility for those consequences lies with Washington, London and Paris."

Experts count on cyber attacks and the use of trolls. They think that hackers in Moscow are already trying to gain access to computer networks that regulate the British infrastructure. In order to destabilize the West, they would have focused their arrows on traffic junctions, water and energy facilities, hospitals and banks.

Defense expert and Professor Michael Clarke agrees: "A Russian attack in the next two to three weeks poses a major threat. It will focus on the transport system, health care or air traffic control. One of the biggest concerns is a plane crash. "

Another problem is the use of trolls, which distribute fake news to discredit the West. The Pentagon already sees that a 'disinformation campaign' has started after the air strikes. "There has been an increase of 2,000 percent in Russian trolls in the last 24 hours," said spokeswoman Dana White.

In Dutch: http://www.welingelichtekringen.nl/poli ... crash.html

So a busy time for our Russian trolls and hopefully the west will protect its infrastructure from these Russian cyber attacks.

Here's the US sub that some of the missiles came from:

http://www.businessinsider.com/uss-john ... ur-2017-12

Dutchy wrote:

Putin is furious on the West after the air strikes on Syria. Although direct escalation seems averted, experts count on a counterattack. Not with conventional weapons, but online.

"We have warned that such actions are not without consequences," says Anatoly Antonov, the Russian ambassador of Russia in the US. "All responsibility for those consequences lies with Washington, London and Paris."

Experts count on cyber attacks and the use of trolls. They think that hackers in Moscow are already trying to gain access to computer networks that regulate the British infrastructure. In order to destabilize the West, they would have focused their arrows on traffic junctions, water and energy facilities, hospitals and banks.

Defense expert and Professor Michael Clarke agrees: "A Russian attack in the next two to three weeks poses a major threat. It will focus on the transport system, health care or air traffic control. One of the biggest concerns is a plane crash. "

Another problem is the use of trolls, which distribute fake news to discredit the West. The Pentagon already sees that a 'disinformation campaign' has started after the air strikes. "There has been an increase of 2,000 percent in Russian trolls in the last 24 hours," said spokeswoman Dana White.

In Dutch: http://www.welingelichtekringen.nl/poli ... crash.html

So a busy time for our Russian trolls and hopefully the west will protect its infrastructure from these Russian cyber attacks.

Russian trolls : no doubt about that, everybody can witness it already.

Cyber attacks would be very unwise, it's not like the West has no aptitude at this, if we were to retaliate is the Russian infrastructure that much better protected than ours ?

Please keep the thread on topic without resorting to off-topic personal/political attacks. Posters that are suspected of trolling may have their posts deleted, and they may be warned or banned. There's enough misinformation to go around here, and the last thing we need is people doing it on purpose.

✈️ atcsundevil

I can someone clearly explain what sense it was to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to strike, which almost did not cause damage? What do we have besides a couple of photos of abandoned buildings? What is the victory of the United States, which is so vigorously rejoice in the Western press?

Scorpius wrote:

I can someone clearly explain what sense it was to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to strike, which almost did not cause damage? What do we have besides a couple of photos of abandoned buildings? What is the victory of the United States, which is so vigorously rejoice in the Western press?

A clear warning to the Assad regime and in it's wake Russia, that not conforming to international standards (not using chemical warfare on civilians) has consequences.

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

I can someone clearly explain what sense it was to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to strike, which almost did not cause damage? What do we have besides a couple of photos of abandoned buildings? What is the victory of the United States, which is so vigorously rejoice in the Western press?

A clear warning to the Assad regime and in it's wake Russia, that not conforming to international standards (not using chemical warfare on civilians) has consequences.

not using chemical warfare period

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

not using chemical warfare period

best regards
Thomas

there were no such chemical weapons in Syria. A single sample from the place of alleged chemical attack. No name of the victim or of the victim of the chemical attack. Only video from YouTube, where people behave completely wrong, as with the defeat of chemical weapons.
A warning to the Assad regime? Worth $ 150-300 million? Okay, well, the US must be rich enough to throw that kind of money into the void.

Scorpius wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

not using chemical warfare period

best regards
Thomas

there were no such chemical weapons in Syria. A single sample from the place of alleged chemical attack. No name of the victim or of the victim of the chemical attack. Only video from YouTube, where people behave completely wrong, as with the defeat of chemical weapons.
A warning to the Assad regime? Worth $ 150-300 million? Okay, well, the US must be rich enough to throw that kind of money into the void.

The Swedish Ambassador to the UN said in the United Nations Security Council, there were 6 chemical attacks in Syria. Four of those committed by the Assad regime and two by ISIS. Unless you call the Swedish Ambassador a lei-er you can agree that at least the Assad regime, backed by your government, used chemical weapons at one time, so there is a president. Furthermore, a lot of chemical weapons were destroyed by the UN, so you can't deny that the Assad regime had chemical weapons at one time.

tommy1808 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

I can someone clearly explain what sense it was to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to strike, which almost did not cause damage? What do we have besides a couple of photos of abandoned buildings? What is the victory of the United States, which is so vigorously rejoice in the Western press?

A clear warning to the Assad regime and in it's wake Russia, that not conforming to international standards (not using chemical warfare on civilians) has consequences.

not using chemical warfare period

best regards
Thomas

So I guess a mother in Sheffield will be the next to see Tomahawks smash into her home?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tchen.html

Chlorine gas is so easy produce and you only need easy to get materials, that everyone can make it.

seahawk wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A clear warning to the Assad regime and in it's wake Russia, that not conforming to international standards (not using chemical warfare on civilians) has consequences.

not using chemical warfare period

best regards
Thomas

So I guess a mother in Sheffield will be the next to see Tomahawks smash into her home?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tchen.html

Chlorine gas is so easy produce and you only need easy to get materials, that everyone can make it.

Yeah this is clearly a cleaning accident

seahawk wrote:

Chlorine gas is so easy produce and you only need easy to get materials, that everyone can make it.

Yep, it's perfectly easy to make a small quantity of chlorine gas at home. Your home.
Now please explain how you are going to transport that deadly gas to a target.
I'll make it easy - let's say the target is somebody in the next city block, around 200 yards away.
(That saves worrying about a high-tech delivery system such as barrel bombs being rolled out of the back of a C-130)

I'm really looking forward to your ideas on this.

If you have access to the building simply mix it in the building. Even more easy if you have large a number of people in a confined space like an air raid shelter. Then you just need to know the location of the air vent, the chemicals and a ventilator.

NIKV69 wrote:

Too bad Obama didn't have the guts to hit an Assad target.

Report to your local military recruiting office since you feel that way.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

I'm really looking forward to your ideas on this.

I´d say you pretty much have to make it in situ and i would assume you can cook something up, quite literally, using hydrogen chloride, H2O2 and CuCl2, or with hydrochloric acid and Manganese oxide. But even then, Chlorine in the air is hard to miss and all you would need to do is hold your breath and leave the house.

Handling Chlorine as a weapon is a logistical bitch, ensuring proper dosing even more so. I´d rather make some botulinum toxin, fairly easy to do, and a fairly decent chance to be written off as food poisoning if you just have victims in the same household.

Scorpius wrote:

A warning to the Assad regime? Worth $ 150-300 million? Okay, well, the US must be rich enough to throw that kind of money into the void.

I guess on planet Putin all those SAMs and AAA fire directed at false images created by jamming come for free? It cost Assad, and probably the Russian tax payer, much, much more money relative to the little economic power they have.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

I'm really looking forward to your ideas on this.

I´d say you pretty much have to make it in situ and i would assume you can cook something up, quite literally, using hydrogen chloride, H2O2 and CuCl2, or with hydrochloric acid and Manganese oxide. But even then, Chlorine in the air is hard to miss and all you would need to do is hold your breath and leave the house.

Handling Chlorine as a weapon is a logistical bitch, ensuring proper dosing even more so. I´d rather make some botulinum toxin, fairly easy to do, and a fairly decent chance to be written off as food poisoning if you just have victims in the same household.

Scorpius wrote:

A warning to the Assad regime? Worth $ 150-300 million? Okay, well, the US must be rich enough to throw that kind of money into the void.

I guess on planet Putin all those SAMs and AAA fire directed at false images created by jamming come for free? It cost Assad, and probably the Russian tax payer, much, much more money relative to the little economic power they have.

best regards
Thomas

During 2.5 years of operation in Syria, Russia has used only about 100 missiles "Caliber", with a much greater beneficial effect

Scorpius wrote:

During 2.5 years of operation in Syria, Russia has used only about 100 missiles "Caliber", with a much greater beneficial effect

Mass civilian casualties are no beneficial effect. And given Russia micro-economy those probably cost relatively more than 100 Cruise Missiles. Keeping your tiny contingent in Syria costs about 2% of your "defense" Budget. So, to use the same share of our GDP just having those troops in Syria costs you, we could spend 20 Billion a year..... 10.000+ cruise missiles.... and still spend less money than you do, relatively speaking.

best regards
Thomas

tu204 wrote:

I am curious to know what was used to take out some of the incoming Tomahawks. You are right the the S-200 wouldn't be an ideal tool for that.

Likely the Pantsir and Tor systems of which Syria is a known operator, and Russia also has a bunch of deployed in Syria. The Syrians were supplied with at least 40 to 50 of the former a few years ago. The S-300 and S-400 get all the publicity, but the Pantsir and Tor systems were specifically developed in response to the American cruise missile threat in the 1980s, and are very capable of shooting down big lumbering sub-sonic Tomahawks. Downside is the short range, so they have to be deployed close to expected targets in order to be effective.

VSMUT wrote:

tu204 wrote:

I am curious to know what was used to take out some of the incoming Tomahawks. You are right the the S-200 wouldn't be an ideal tool for that.

Likely the Pantsir and Tor systems of which Syria is a known operator, and Russia also has a bunch of deployed in Syria. The Syrians were supplied with at least 40 to 50 of the former a few years ago. The S-300 and S-400 get all the publicity, but the Pantsir and Tor systems were specifically developed in response to the American cruise missile threat in the 1980s, and are very capable of shooting down big lumbering sub-sonic Tomahawks. Downside is the short range, so they have to be deployed close to expected targets in order to be effective.

Do we have independently verified numbers of how many are taken down and how many hit the intended target?

VSMUT wrote:

tu204 wrote:

I am curious to know what was used to take out some of the incoming Tomahawks. You are right the the S-200 wouldn't be an ideal tool for that.

Likely the Pantsir and Tor systems of which Syria is a known operator, and Russia also has a bunch of deployed in Syria. The Syrians were supplied with at least 40 to 50 of the former a few years ago. The S-300 and S-400 get all the publicity, but the Pantsir and Tor systems were specifically developed in response to the American cruise missile threat in the 1980s, and are very capable of shooting down big lumbering sub-sonic Tomahawks. Downside is the short range, so they have to be deployed close to expected targets in order to be effective.

Pantsir was pushed as the super battlefield/near battlefied/Point defense Weapon that can shot down everything. When they got the UAE as an export customer, a decade after the super weapon was shown, it turned out it is not deployable and the UAE needed to front over 200 Million USD to get it ready, only to find out that the Radar is trash and needed another 66 USD to get it somewhat up to snuff.

"Developed for" and "operational" claims are always somewhat questionable and the IAF has attacked Tor protected targets in Syria several times..... aside of a shot down Popeye they didn´t have to show much, and in target proximity that is almost a free falling bomb, i.e. about one of the easiest target ever.

In principle they should be effective, but ECCM seems to be very limited when confronted with advanced ECM.

best regards
Thomas

VSMUT wrote:

tu204 wrote:

I am curious to know what was used to take out some of the incoming Tomahawks. You are right the the S-200 wouldn't be an ideal tool for that.

Likely the Pantsir and Tor systems of which Syria is a known operator, and Russia also has a bunch of deployed in Syria. The Syrians were supplied with at least 40 to 50 of the former a few years ago. The S-300 and S-400 get all the publicity, but the Pantsir and Tor systems were specifically developed in response to the American cruise missile threat in the 1980s, and are very capable of shooting down big lumbering sub-sonic Tomahawks. Downside is the short range, so they have to be deployed close to expected targets in order to be effective.

System Pantsir and Tor designed for direct cover positional areas. The S-300 and S-400 are systems for monitoring long-range approaches, and there are only Russian bases. For medium distances on the weapons Syria have systems BUK-M2 and S-125.

tommy1808 wrote:

When they got the UAE as an export customer, a decade after the super weapon was shown, it turned out it is not deployable and the UAE needed to front over 200 Million USD to get it ready, only to find out that the Radar is trash and needed another 66 USD to get it somewhat up to snuff.

That was over 15 years ago First system to the UAE was delivered in 2003. And they apparently disliked it so much that they went and placed a follow-up order The UAE currently fields the system in Yemen, where they accidentally shot down a Saudi Apache.

It was also the Pantsir that shot down that unfortunate Turkish RF-4E back in 2012, and also shot down 7 of the 13 drones used in the swarm attack on the Russian airbase in Syria earlier this year. Other claims to fame include Grad rockets, various western and Israeli UAVs, an Israeli ballistic missile and some TOWs fired against it. They also claim to have shot down 13 Israeli missiles in the attack earlier this year that ended up costing an Israeli F-16I.

It is noteworthy that until this attack a few days ago, nobody doubted the efficiency of this system or refuted any claims of kills.

tommy1808 wrote:

In principle they should be effective, but ECCM seems to be very limited when confronted with advanced ECM.

And who do you suggest holds the upper hand when it comes to electronic warfare in Syria? I doubt that it is as one-sided as you think. The Russians have deployed some pretty capable systems, both on aircraft and on the ground.

The Tomahawk is also an ageing missile, dating back to the 70s. The Iraqi's managed to shoot down 2 or 3 during the war in 1991, and the Serbs also nailed a few. The Russians and Chinese were undoubtedly involved in both cases. They were also present when Tomahawks were used against Iraq in 1993, 1995, 1996 and 1998, against Libya and the first attack against Syria. It really isn't hard to imagine that the Russians and Chinese after nearly 30 years have cracked to code to shooting down Tomahawks en masse. The Americans have launched over 2000 of the missiles against Russian and Chinese allies. That's 2000 chances of practicing to intercept them, and potentially 2000 wrecked missiles that could have been brought back to Russia to study.
The JASSM and SCALP/Storm Shadow are newer, but even they are rapidly ageing designs, and all are subsonic. At least one Storm Shadow wreck was showcased by the Syrians over the past few days, so they did at least shoot down one of these too.

I'm still waiting for explanation of why it is necessary to send 76 of missiles in a single complex of buildings. For comparison-the density of the falling missiles:
Seriously, does anyone really believe that 76 cruise missiles hit this building complex?

Scorpius wrote:

I'm still waiting for explanation of why it is necessary to send 76 of missiles in a single complex of buildings. For comparison-the density of the falling missiles

Different detonation depths to account for armored walls and ceilings. Plus they probably didn't believe that Russian AD systems are quite as useless as they have proven to be.
The picture however is useless without giving the dimensions. Those buildings have ~2500 m2 each and several levels plus eventually sub levels. So we are talking about probably well beyond 100.000 m3 target volume. That is well over 1000m3 of volume per warhead. If you want to be able to destroy heavy equipment beyond repair, that seems to a reasonable amount of firepower. Didn't your handler tell you that, or did he give you a script in case your bs gets debunked?

Best regards
Thomas

Scorpius wrote:

I'm still waiting for explanation of why it is necessary to send 76 of missiles in a single complex of buildings.

I'm still waiting for an explanation how 76 cruise missiles could possibly have hit the target when Russia claims Syria shot down around 70% of the 100-odd launched?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... y-missiles

The Russian military has claimed that the Syrian air defences, whose most modern weapon is a three-decades-old Russian-supplied anti-aircraft system, shot down 71 of 103 missiles fired by the US and its allies, the UK and France

More Russian lies.

Scorpius wrote:

which corresponds to the technical data of the Pantsir and Buk-M2 systems, which just have a probability of shooting down a cruise missile at about 0.65...0.7

Is that why the Russians practised on MH17 in Hrabove?

No Tax On Rotax

Scorpius wrote:

I'm still waiting for explanation of why it is necessary to send 76 of missiles in a single complex of buildings. For comparison-the density of the falling missiles:
Seriously, does anyone really believe that 76 cruise missiles hit this building complex?

It's easy to imagine they fired more missiles than normally necessary, just in case the Russian would indeed shoot down a few missiles. And if not, why would the US, UK, France exaggerate the amount of missiles fired when they easily could claim they only fired 40 missiles and have been equally successful in doing so?

Russia and Syria are just trying not to lose face more than they already did.

Tomahawks are designed for precision, not for a large blast radius. A quick Google search shows they only have a 10 ft blast radius. Now how big is this facility?

Jouhou wrote:

Tomahawks are designed for precision, not for a large blast radius. A quick Google search shows they only have a 10 ft blast radius. Now how big is this facility?

The bigger two buildings ~50m each side and several levels.

best regards
Thomas

VSMUT wrote:

It really isn't hard to imagine that the Russians and Chinese after nearly 30 years have cracked to code to shooting down Tomahawks en masse.

It might not be hard for you to imagine, but actually doing it must be impossible so far, if you take Syria as an example. When it comes to missiles, offense always has the upper hand.

I wonder if they have fitted an EMP warhead onto a Tomahawk yet? Or if they have a stealthy version waiting in the wings? Or maybe they just figure the odds are so much in favor of a plain vanilla cruise missile, all that is unnecessary.

salttee wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

It really isn't hard to imagine that the Russians and Chinese after nearly 30 years have cracked to code to shooting down Tomahawks en masse.

It might not be hard for you to imagine, but actually doing it must be impossible so far, if you take Syria as an example. When it comes to missiles, offense always has the upper hand.

I wonder if they have fitted an EMP warhead onto a Tomahawk yet? Or if they have a stealthy version waiting in the wings? Or maybe they just figure the odds are so much in favor of a plain vanilla cruise missile, all that is unnecessary.

As far as I understand, they have radar jammers, that can simulate several "ghost missiles" on the radar making it hard to know which one is the real missile.

787Driver wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

I'm still waiting for explanation of why it is necessary to send 76 of missiles in a single complex of buildings. For comparison-the density of the falling missiles:
Seriously, does anyone really believe that 76 cruise missiles hit this building complex?

It's easy to imagine they fired more missiles than normally necessary, just in case the Russian would indeed shoot down a few missiles. And if not, why would the US, UK, France exaggerate the amount of missiles fired when they easily could claim they only fired 40 missiles and have been equally successful in doing so?

Russia and Syria are just trying not to lose face more than they already did.

I have never said that the number of cruise missiles launched has been exaggerated. I am saying that the number of missiles that have flown has been exaggerated. The destruction of the building clearly does not correspond to the declared number of cruise missiles.

Scorpius wrote:

787Driver wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

I'm still waiting for explanation of why it is necessary to send 76 of missiles in a single complex of buildings. For comparison-the density of the falling missiles:
Seriously, does anyone really believe that 76 cruise missiles hit this building complex?

It's easy to imagine they fired more missiles than normally necessary, just in case the Russian would indeed shoot down a few missiles. And if not, why would the US, UK, France exaggerate the amount of missiles fired when they easily could claim they only fired 40 missiles and have been equally successful in doing so?

Russia and Syria are just trying not to lose face more than they already did.

I have never said that the number of cruise missiles launched has been exaggerated. I am saying that the number of missiles that have flown has been exaggerated. The destruction of the building clearly does not correspond to the declared number of cruise missiles.

I would believe it if a credible independent expert said what you said, but you're an anonymous airliners.net user with a clear pro Russian agenda, so I wouldn't trust what you write on this topic in any case.