Syria's Modest Air Defenses Shot Down 70% of Attacking Missiles

[cassowary]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-in ... ikes-syria

That's the same two or three sites. Where did all the other missiles go?... They were shot down, blown up or had their guidance messed up by EW!...

According to the link, only three sites were targetted.

Excerpt from link:

The governments of the US, UK and France say 105 missiles were launched at three sites in Syria as part of a coordinated operation early on the morning of 14 April, at around 4am local time.

They fired about 100 missiles on these three sites which appear to be demolished.

[Sertorio]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-in ... ikes-syria

That's the same two or three sites. Where did all the other missiles go?... They were shot down, blown up or had their guidance messed up by EW!...

According to the link, only three sites were targetted.

Excerpt from link:

The governments of the US, UK and France say 105 missiles were launched at three sites in Syria as part of a coordinated operation early on the morning of 14 April, at around 4am local time.

They fired about 100 missiles on these three sites which appear to be demolished.

Do you have any idea of what 105 missiles would have done to three sites?!... Do you think the US/UK/France would have targeted 105 missiles to three sites? What an incredible waste of explosives would that have been!!!... No. They are just trying to disguise the fact that 70% of their missiles were intercepted... Embarrassing it may be, but that's also what happened.

Do these fotos seem to you as showing buildings having been hit by over 100 missiles?

[cassowary]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-in ... ikes-syria

That's the same two or three sites. Where did all the other missiles go?... They were shot down, blown up or had their guidance messed up by EW!...

According to the link, only three sites were targetted.

Excerpt from link:

The governments of the US, UK and France say 105 missiles were launched at three sites in Syria as part of a coordinated operation early on the morning of 14 April, at around 4am local time.

They fired about 100 missiles on these three sites which appear to be demolished.

Do you have any idea of what 105 missiles would have done to three sites?!...

Yeah. 105 missiles destroyed the three sites.

Do you think the US/UK/France would have targeted 105 missiles to three sites? What an incredible waste of explosives would that have been!!!... No. They are just trying to disguise the fact that 70% of their missiles were intercepted... Embarrassing it may be, but that's also what happened.

How many missiles are required to destroy three sites? It depends on how large the sites are and how destructive each missile is. I don't have information on how large they are and what area can one missile destroy. Do you? I don't think so.

[cassowary]

How many sites do you think 105 missiles were aiming for?

If 105 missiles were targetting three sites as reported, that is an average of 35 missiles per site. If 70% were destroyed before reaching the target, then about 11 missiles hit the target.

If it is five sites, then each site would have been targetted by 21 missiles. If as you say, 70% were destroyed, then that still means each of the give sites was hit by about 6 missiles.

How much damage can 6 missiles do?

I don't know the answer, but there still will be damage. So the newspapers will be showing pictures of damage done to 5 sites instead of 3. I, therefore, believe that only 3 sites were targetted. How many, if any, were destroyed by Syrian defenses is not known.

[Sertorio]

How many sites do you think 105 missiles were aiming for?

If 105 missiles were targetting three sites as reported, that is an average of 35 missiles per site. If 70% were destroyed before reaching the target, then about 11 missiles hit the target.

If it is five sites, then each site would have been targetted by 21 missiles. If as you say, 70% were destroyed, then that still means each of the give sites was hit by about 6 missiles.

How much damage can 6 missiles do?

I don't know the answer, but there still will be damage. So the newspapers will be showing pictures of damage done to 5 sites instead of 3. I, therefore, believe that only 3 sites were targetted. How many, if any, were destroyed by Syrian defenses is not known.

The Russians said 71, and seeing the extent of the damage shown, I tend to think they are right. But of course the Americans will never recognize that, as it would show a high degree of unreliability of their missiles. But the fact is that the Syrian armed forces remained untouched, and have kept all the means needed to win the war. As we will see in the coming weeks and months. Just pay attention to what is going to happen in the southern part of the Damascus governorate in the coming days.

[SteveFoerster]

So what?

There would be little point in the Syrian government investing in anti-missile technology if it did not work.

If soviet time air defenses were this successful, one can immagine what the results would have been if the S-300 and S-400 had been used...

None of the missiles were shot down by the Syrians and the Russian AA units were active but did not fire for unknown reasons. You do know that Sputniknews is a Kremlin mouth piece ?

He's been told that, but since media owned by the Russian government are the only ones that say what he wants to hear, well, that's all he has.

[Doc]

So what?

There would be little point in the Syrian government investing in anti-missile technology if it did not work.

If soviet time air defenses were this successful, one can immagine what the results would have been if the S-300 and S-400 had been used...

None of the missiles were shot down by the Syrians and the Russian AA units were active but did not fire for unknown reasons. You do know that Sputniknews is a Kremlin mouth piece ?

He's been told that, but since media owned by the Russian government are the only ones that say what he wants to hear, well, that's all he has.

Agreed. THe question I would really like to know the answer to is why didn't the RUssian batteries fire? Maybe hesitation after MH17

[cassowary]

So what?

There would be little point in the Syrian government investing in anti-missile technology if it did not work.

If soviet time air defenses were this successful, one can immagine what the results would have been if the S-300 and S-400 had been used...

None of the missiles were shot down by the Syrians and the Russian AA units were active but did not fire for unknown reasons. You do know that Sputniknews is a Kremlin mouth piece ?

He's been told that, but since media owned by the Russian government are the only ones that say what he wants to hear, well, that's all he has.

Agreed. THe question I would really like to know the answer to is why didn't the RUssian batteries fire? Maybe hesitation after MH17

I don't believe RT. But Sertorio does. Maybe Russian batteries were jammed by electronic warfare measures.

[Alexis]

Few points

If soviet time air defenses were this successful, one can immagine what the results would have been if the S-300 and S-400 had been used...

Results would have been barely different if at all: no significant amount of missiles would have been shot down.

S-400 have very large range up to 400 km, they are rumored to be very advanced, but they are not magical and cannot fire below the horizon

Cruise missiles fly very low when over hostile territory, definitely under 100 meters, possibly lower than 40. When at altitude 100 meters, the horizon is 35 km away, which means that even S-400 would have been reduced practically to point defense instead of defending a very large area.

All three sites stricken on April 14th were farther than 35 km from each of two S-400 systems Russia installed in Tartous naval base and Hmeimim air base. S-400s would have been powerless against these strikes, except with the help of permanent patrol by radar aircraft similar to A-50... which Russia has, but did not deploy in Syria.

Are you telling us that 105 missiles could only destroy a couple of buildings? Buildings supposedly containing forbidden chemicals, but which wreckage show no signs of contamination?...

Three sites were targeted by:
- Scientific complex Damascus = 76 missiles (US)
- Storage site Homs = 22 missiles (US, UK, France)
- Bunker Homs = 7 missiles (France)

How do you extensively destroy a military site? I'm no expert, but a few pointers:
- You need to account for their extent. The scientific complex in Damascus was very large
- You need to account for existing or suspected underground complexes
- You need to account for existing or suspected internal strong walls, meaning that one warhead may be limited to destroy a single room
- You need to account for possible losses (missile malfunctions, air defense successes)

76 missiles do seem a bit much for the Damascus complex, but those reasons may account for that somewhat surprising number. It's also quite possible that Damascus was thought to be better defended than Homs - after all, it's the capital of Syria and the US may have chosen to err on the strong side so as to be completely sure that nothing would remain. After all, America has thousands of cruise missiles and can afford that kind of security margin. France and Britain only have hundreds each and would probably be more stingy with their missiles.

And no contamination?...

Neurotoxic weapons - most efficient CW there is - are generally binary weapons, that is they are stored as product A + product B, both harmless. When the weapon is used, products are mixed and yield the poison.

A and B are kept apart at storage, for obious security reasons.

Now, it's entirely possible some contamination did occur. The Damascus site was in the middle of the city, but a research center. The CW storage sites in Homs were isolated in countryside and contamination of surroundings may have happened without a single loss of life.

Or not. Basically, we don't know.

A cruise missile shot in flight just blows up. There is little left to be seen.

Actually there is.

Warhead explosives in modern missiles are "insensitivized", meaning they are designed to not explode when an explosion occurs nearby - this for obvious security reasons, remembering that you need to store them. If a missile is shot down, its explosive warhead will survive. It's a relatively large, recognizable, metal object.

If pictures soon emerge of such non-exploded missile warheads, if those pictures are unmistakenly dated - proving that the objects are not remnants of missiles who were fired sooner, e.g. against ISIS Jihadists - then it will prove that some of the 105 missiles did either fail (duds) or were shot down or jammed.

If those pictures are not a mere handful (2 or 5 duds or losses out of 105 missiles would already be a very good performance) but closer to 71, we will know that Syrian and Russian media did say the truth.

So far, no such picture has emerged.

But the fact is that the Syrian armed forces remained untouched, and have kept all the means needed to win the war.

Indeed.

The reason may be... that they were not targeted

THe question I would really like to know the answer to is why didn't the RUssian batteries fire? Maybe hesitation after MH17

I would say two reasons:

- They could not fire on the missiles themselves, because of physical constraints (see beginning of this post)

- They would not fire on Western aircraft, because of political decision not to. The head of Russian forces General Gerasimov had very clearly warned in March that Russia's "red line" was that zero Russian serviceman be hurt by Western strikes. All three countries expressed very clearly that they would do their utmost to avoid any accidental wound to any Russian soldier (Mattis for the US, Macron for France). Russian leadership chose to believe them, rather than to start a war by being the first to fire on Western aircraft or ships

[Sertorio]

So what?

There would be little point in the Syrian government investing in anti-missile technology if it did not work.

If soviet time air defenses were this successful, one can immagine what the results would have been if the S-300 and S-400 had been used...

None of the missiles were shot down by the Syrians and the Russian AA units were active but did not fire for unknown reasons. You do know that Sputniknews is a Kremlin mouth piece ?

He's been told that, but since media owned by the Russian government are the only ones that say what he wants to hear, well, that's all he has.

Agreed. THe question I would really like to know the answer to is why didn't the RUssian batteries fire? Maybe hesitation after MH17

Russia is not in Syria to make war on the US, but to help the Syrian government reestablish full control over the country and defeat rebels and terrorists. This goal is being attained and the allied strike on Syria did not endanger that objective. It also did not endanger any Russians or Russian assets in Syria, as the allied countries took very seriously the Russian warning of retaliation if it had happened. So, Russia wisely prefered doing nothing. Or they did and kept silent about it. Some people believe that the high number of missiles intercepted were not the direct result of Syrian air defenses, but the result of Russian electronic warfare. If that's the case, Russia would rather keep it silent, so that the US would not make an extra effort to find defensive measures against such EW.