QOVFEFE™
Posted on 04/15/2018 7:22:37 AM PDT by rktman
Good catch.
QOVFEFE™
The way to shoot down low-flying cruise missiles is with radar-controlled AAA fire — not SAMS’s. Missiles are for medium-to-high altitude work. So if you’re reading a Blog bragging on the S-400 system and its capabilities, you can pretty much disregard all that.
The air base that we hit was probably well defended by AAA and SAM’s. I would expect that they knocked down a few. And by “knocked down” I mean that they prevented it from hitting it’s intended target. That doesn’t mean it still didn’t hit the ground and go *BOOM*, The satellites and recon drones are counting craters and assessing damage. Bottom line... Both sides can be ‘right’ to a certain extent.
I also expect that we warned the Russians before the strike so that they could hit their bunkers. That means the Syrian gunners knew when the strike was coming within the hour. If they couldn’t hit 10% of those Tomahawks with that kind of warning....
“I don’t know these facilities/targets but I’d be highly suspicious if the bulk of their operation took place above ground.”
That’s probably true. If so, damage was minor. However, it will be hard to find workers for those facilities now that they are definitely on the target list. So, they will probably cease operations even if technically operational.
Well, gee whiz, Perfesser...each and every one of those cruise missiles crashed...into targets!
They must have been “shot down”!
Cruise missiles use inertial navigation and terrain maps. They don’t emit radiation and are difficult to detect because they fly low and “hide behind the horizon”, they can fly behind mountains and through valleys.
To detect cruise missiles early enough, you need radars positioned not far from the target because the missiles would fly around known radar zones before approaching the target.
Russian S-300 and S-400 come with decent radars and can use external radars, but all such radars can be jammed. Cruise missiles can also throw off flares and can launch decoys to distract AA missiles.
In the end, it would be very expensive for Russia to build a decent air defense network in Syria, and doing this still won’t give any guarantees of decent success.
That, and for other reasons I say: "BS"
I can’t think of one instance where they have...
"And we shot down fourtee...71 of them, yeah, that's it."
They shot down the chaff.
They did shoot down all 103. Unfortunately, they crashed on the intended target.
Concur
“shot down 71 missiles”..... including 40 of their own launched after the attack was over!!!
I guess that the Russian GPS jamming capability didn’t work that well or some of those missiles were set for home on jam capability.
Is this another one of those “possible” stories?
And the next day, Russia said they are considering supplying the Syrians with better defenses. Sounds like the Russians are lying as usual, can’t believe anything.
The Russians are in Syria to assist a valuable customer
The “mission accomplished” was very bad for future sales
FTA: and that Syrian military facilities suffered only minor damage.
I guess the holes where the buildings used to be are an optical illusion.
Back in the 60’s and early 70’s we had the GAM-77 (AGM-28) Hound Dog nuclear tipped cruise missiles that was carried by B-52’s for SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses). It had a speed of Mach 2, and could fly from 100 to 56,000ft with a range of up to 785 miles depending on flight profile.
The Hound Dog was a development of the stillborn North American SM-64 Navaho supersonic intercontinental cruise missile.
We also had the Navy’s SSM-N-8A Regulus ship or submarine launched cruise missiles from around ‘55 to ‘64.
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
