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

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1925
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

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

Post by Sertorio » Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:12 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:08 pm
Doc wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:51 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:19 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:33 pm
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.
Steve,
Would you expect the western media to recognize that American missiles could be intercepted?... CNN et al are in the West what RT and Sputnik are in Russia: very much propaganda tools, even if they may report accurately those situations which do not harm their bosses interests. RT and Sputnik may report accurately the American missile failure, because those news would not harm Russia, but CNN etc. may not, exactly because it would be detrimental to US interests.

For your information I regularly read western major press, and watch western major television media. Unfortunately I keep finding out that western media silences any item of news which may harm their governments strategies. How many western media reported that a major Swiss laboratory had identified the agent used against the Russian spy as a toxin BZ, much less lethal than Novochik? A Swiss lab which had received a sample for analysis from OPCW, mind you.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 2196
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

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

Post by Doc » Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:05 am

Sertorio wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:56 am
Doc wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:34 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:08 pm
Doc wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:51 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:19 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:33 pm
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.
Parts of Syria
This goal is being attained and the allied strike on Syria did not endanger that objective.
It was not intended to The point of the strike was to send the message that there is a cost of using Chemical Weapons

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.
Attacking Russia was not an objective Besides Putin has said there will be retaliation just the same. Likely to come as a plausibly deniable cyber attack. The act of a coward. On the other hand Putin is trying really hard to talk us to death.

A few months ago two hundred RUssian "Mercenaries" (read little green men) attacked a US position in Syria They died. Putin did nothing because the Russia military outside of of its ICBMs is for the most part a paper tiger Like the S400 which I suspect can't defend themselves from American Cruise missiles.


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.
You have yet to show any evidence of a single missile being shot down
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 2196
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Known info consistent with most of 105 missiles reaching their objective

Post by Doc » Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:06 am

Alexis wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:05 am
Few points

Sertorio wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:19 pm
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.

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:41 am
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.

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 10:44 am
And no contamination?... :shock: :shock: :shock:
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.

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:36 pm
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.

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:47 pm
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 :D

Doc wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:34 pm
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
Good analysis Noted Sertorio has no answer to it. :D
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1925
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Known info consistent with most of 105 missiles reaching their objective

Post by Sertorio » Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:38 am

Doc wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:06 am

Good analysis Noted Sertorio has no answer to it. :D
There are things which are not worthwhile answering, because they are just opinions or manifestations of a certain bias.

My answer was on my post to Steve:

Steve,
Would you expect the western media to recognize that American missiles could be intercepted?... CNN et al are in the West what RT and Sputnik are in Russia: very much propaganda tools, even if they may report accurately those situations which do not harm their bosses interests. RT and Sputnik may report accurately the American missile failure, because those news would not harm Russia, but CNN etc. may not, exactly because it would be detrimental to US interests.

For your information I regularly read major western press, and watch major western television media. Unfortunately I keep finding out that western media silences any item of news which may harm their governments strategies. How many western media reported that a major Swiss laboratory had identified the agent used against the Russian spy as a toxin BZ, much less lethal than Novichok? A Swiss lab which had received a sample for analysis from OPCW, mind you.


I suppose you and Alexis will find here the basis for my thoughts on these matters.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 2196
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Known info consistent with most of 105 missiles reaching their objective

Post by Doc » Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:45 am

Sertorio wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:38 am
Doc wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:06 am

Good analysis Noted Sertorio has no answer to it. :D
There are things which are not worthwhile answering, because they are just opinions or manifestations of a certain bias.
Alexis's post was actually quite good and addressed all of your points Try answering that post
My answer was on my post to Steve:

Steve,
Would you expect the western media to recognize that American missiles could be intercepted?... CNN et al are in the West what RT and Sputnik are in Russia: very much propaganda tools, even if they may report accurately those situations which do not harm their bosses interests. RT and Sputnik may report accurately the American missile failure, because those news would not harm Russia, but CNN etc. may not, exactly because it would be detrimental to US interests.

For your information I regularly read major western press, and watch major western television media. Unfortunately I keep finding out that western media silences any item of news which may harm their governments strategies. How many western media reported that a major Swiss laboratory had identified the agent used against the Russian spy as a toxin BZ, much less lethal than Novichok? A Swiss lab which had received a sample for analysis from OPCW, mind you.


I suppose you and Alexis will find here the basis for my thoughts on these matters.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1925
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

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

Post by Sertorio » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:56 am

New information from the Russian MoD:
Konashenkov said that 71 US-led bloc missiles had been shot down by the SADF providing details on the defense systems used by the Syrian military:

Buk: 29 missiles fired – 24 targets hit;
Osa: 11 missiles fired – 5 targets hit;
S-125: 13 missiles fired – 5 targets hit;
Strela-10: 5 missiles fired – 3 targets hit;
Kvadrat: 21 missiles fired – 11 targets hit;
S-200: 8 missiles fired – no targets hit;
Pantsir-S1: 25 missiles fired – 23 targets hit;

SF recalls that the Pentagon says that 105 missiles were launched at only three targets. At the same time, the Russian and Syrian militaries say that the targets included Syrian airfields.
I find it particularly interesting seeing which systems were most, and least, effective. The S-200 was a disappointment, but the more modern Pantsir and Buk were quite efective. I suppose the S-200 is better at shooting aircraft, rather than missiles.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 2196
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

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

Post by Doc » Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:47 am

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:56 am
New information from the Russian MoD:
Konashenkov said that 71 US-led bloc missiles had been shot down by the SADF providing details on the defense systems used by the Syrian military:

Buk: 29 missiles fired – 24 targets hit;
Osa: 11 missiles fired – 5 targets hit;
S-125: 13 missiles fired – 5 targets hit;
Strela-10: 5 missiles fired – 3 targets hit;
Kvadrat: 21 missiles fired – 11 targets hit;
S-200: 8 missiles fired – no targets hit;
Pantsir-S1: 25 missiles fired – 23 targets hit;

SF recalls that the Pentagon says that 105 missiles were launched at only three targets. At the same time, the Russian and Syrian militaries say that the targets included Syrian airfields.
I find it particularly interesting seeing which systems were most, and least, effective. The S-200 was a disappointment, but the more modern Pantsir and Buk were quite efective. I suppose the S-200 is better at shooting aircraft, rather than missiles.
Well we do know that Buks are very effective at shooting down commercial airliners. Take away the wings, the size and the flight altitude and they look remarkably like Cruise missiles
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1925
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

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

Post by Sertorio » Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:28 am

Doc wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:47 am
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:56 am
New information from the Russian MoD:
Konashenkov said that 71 US-led bloc missiles had been shot down by the SADF providing details on the defense systems used by the Syrian military:

Buk: 29 missiles fired – 24 targets hit;
Osa: 11 missiles fired – 5 targets hit;
S-125: 13 missiles fired – 5 targets hit;
Strela-10: 5 missiles fired – 3 targets hit;
Kvadrat: 21 missiles fired – 11 targets hit;
S-200: 8 missiles fired – no targets hit;
Pantsir-S1: 25 missiles fired – 23 targets hit;

SF recalls that the Pentagon says that 105 missiles were launched at only three targets. At the same time, the Russian and Syrian militaries say that the targets included Syrian airfields.
I find it particularly interesting seeing which systems were most, and least, effective. The S-200 was a disappointment, but the more modern Pantsir and Buk were quite efective. I suppose the S-200 is better at shooting aircraft, rather than missiles.
Well we do know that Buks are very effective at shooting down commercial airliners. Take away the wings, the size and the flight altitude and they look remarkably like Cruise missiles
Making accusations without any evidence is indeed America's number one sport...

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:46 pm

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

Post by Alexis » Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:56 am

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:56 am
New information from the Russian MoD:
Konashenkov said that 71 US-led bloc missiles had been shot down by the SADF providing details on the defense systems used by the Syrian military:

Buk: 29 missiles fired – 24 targets hit;
Osa: 11 missiles fired – 5 targets hit;
S-125: 13 missiles fired – 5 targets hit;
Strela-10: 5 missiles fired – 3 targets hit;
Kvadrat: 21 missiles fired – 11 targets hit;
S-200: 8 missiles fired – no targets hit;
Pantsir-S1: 25 missiles fired – 23 targets hit;

SF recalls that the Pentagon says that 105 missiles were launched at only three targets. At the same time, the Russian and Syrian militaries say that the targets included Syrian airfields.
At least S-125 and Kvadrat are systems intended for medium and high altitude, whose minimum altitude of attack is 100 meters.

We are supposed to believe that Western cruise missiles attacked at medium altitude instead of 50 meters or lower like they are designed to. :D

More discrepancies, in addition to those I already spotted. ;)

Honestly Sertorio, Russian leadership is losing its propaganda skill on this one. Much better lies could have been crafted.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 2196
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

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

Post by Doc » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:55 am

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:28 am
Doc wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:47 am
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:56 am
New information from the Russian MoD:
Konashenkov said that 71 US-led bloc missiles had been shot down by the SADF providing details on the defense systems used by the Syrian military:

Buk: 29 missiles fired – 24 targets hit;
Osa: 11 missiles fired – 5 targets hit;
S-125: 13 missiles fired – 5 targets hit;
Strela-10: 5 missiles fired – 3 targets hit;
Kvadrat: 21 missiles fired – 11 targets hit;
S-200: 8 missiles fired – no targets hit;
Pantsir-S1: 25 missiles fired – 23 targets hit;

SF recalls that the Pentagon says that 105 missiles were launched at only three targets. At the same time, the Russian and Syrian militaries say that the targets included Syrian airfields.
I find it particularly interesting seeing which systems were most, and least, effective. The S-200 was a disappointment, but the more modern Pantsir and Buk were quite efective. I suppose the S-200 is better at shooting aircraft, rather than missiles.
Well we do know that Buks are very effective at shooting down commercial airliners. Take away the wings, the size and the flight altitude and they look remarkably like Cruise missiles
Making accusations without any evidence is indeed America's number one sport...
Apparently Europeans' number one sport as well. Imagine they even claim that Russian invaded Crimea
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

Post Reply