Bitcoin Forum

A large part of the Syrian Air Force's offensive capability against the ISIS is now neutralized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzMRwtMVhZ4  (In Russian)

The 9 destroyed aircrafts are a large part of 5 not destroyed.
As You see in the video, there is old crap from 1970 / 1980.

There are no damages on Runway.

In this way only 1/3 part of BGM-109 Tomahawk goes to hit the target.

This is a epic fail.

in their operation

What is the "operation"?
59 missiles BGM-109 Tomahawk on 2 ships, usually carried each 16 of them.
This action is premiditated, and the result of this long work is a epic fail.

Russians are good at lying!

How do you know how many missiles hit the target?

Vika do you have information if russias s-300/400 have been used to defend against the missile attack?

Less then 30 of 59 tomahawks actually hit their target - what happened with the others?

I dont think it is surprising that not much got destroyed, because it wasnt the intention of the US.
They informed russia in advance and didnt even touch the runway.

This might just be a test of russias air defense in syria before the storm starts.

Vika do you have information if russias s-300/400 have been used to defend against the missile attack?

Sometimes even the most advanced tech fails and you can't do anything about it.

They bombarded the base but didn't hit the runway and the planes escaped... Big deal, things like that happen, war is not like the movies.
Have you heard the story about British destroyer, sunk in the Falklands war? The ship had radar guided long range missiles made to track and kill incoming jets and one of them outrun the missile, approached the ship at close range, hit it with a missile and managed to run away, while the ship caught fire. Sometimes even the most advanced tech fails and you can't do anything about it.

Why You are asking at me?
There are many ways to detect such activity.
But seems "Western" media like not this argument.

I'm enjoing this epic US shit news shower.

I have no data about why. It might be electronic warfare.
The airfeld electronic devices are in perfect conditions.
And there are no s-300/400.

Noteworthy, the TLAMs flew across the MEZ (Missile Engagement Zone) of the S-400 missile battery the Russians deployed to Latakia to protect the Russian air contingent deployed there in 2015.

Did Russia’s most advanced anti-aircraft defense system detect the missiles? For sure there are no reports of any of the BGM-109 intercepted by the S-400.

Designated SA-21 “Growler” by NATO, the S-400 is believed to be able to engage all types of aerial targets including aircraft (someone says even VLO – Very Low Observable ones), drones and ballistic and cruise missiles within the range of 250 miles at an altitude of nearly 19 miles. Equipped with 3 different types of missiles and an acquisition radar capable of tracking up to 300 targets within the range of over 370 miles, the Triumph (or Triumf) is a system made of 8 launchers and a control station.

Supported by effective EW (Electronic Warfare) capabilities, the S-400 fires missiles that fly at 17,000 km/h against aerial targets.

So, at least on paper, all non-stealth aircraft and missiles would hardly be able to dodge S-400 missiles. Assuming that the Russians probably detected at least some of the Tomahawks flying fast and low towards their targets at Shayrat Airbase it’s not clear why the Trimf did not attempt to intercept any of the TLAMs launched by the US destroyers, considered the reaction by Viktor Ozerov, head of the Russian Federation Council’s defense committee, who said the American attack was “an act of aggression against a UN member […] Cooperation between the Russian and US militaries may be shut down after the US strike.” according to state news agency RIA.

Perhaps, considered that they were informed beforehand, they simply decided to let them pass. The Russian MoD statement does not say mention any Russian air defense system intercepting any of the U.S. missiles launched towards Shayrat Airbase even though some sources have suggested only 23 missiles reached their targets because the other ones were brought down near Tartous by the local S-400 and S-300 batteries.

Ohhh, show me this "sources"!

Seems in Mosul the things are bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzMRwtMVhZ4  (In Russian)

The 9 destroyed aircrafts are a large part of 5 not destroyed.
As You see in the video, there is old crap from 1970 / 1980.

There are no damages on Runway.

In this way only 1/3 part of BGM-109 Tomahawk goes to hit the target.

This is a epic fail.

If they had wanted to destroy the runways, the runways would be destroyed.  It's as simple as that.

Really?
And what was the target of other 36 missiles?

https://youtu.be/yfsZyV9eVcs?t=3m47s

If they had wanted to destroy the runways, the runways would be destroyed.  It's as simple as that.

Death, murder, war have a way of making money meaningless. Sure the tomahawks may cost 500 million or whatever but the U.S. Dollar wouldn't exist without some obscenely expensive war expenditures in the past.

In the future Billionaires will be the new millionaires and trillionaires the old billionaires and everyone will have the right to own ICBM's.

If they had wanted to destroy the runways, the runways would be destroyed.  It's as simple as that.

The most important thing about this, is that US army and their government do not care about military spendings.
If they need to reach some goal, like sending rockets to a particular place, they dont hesitate and dont look at the costs.
This kind of behaviour may lead to great military domination as a country, but on the other hand would be expensive, and only wealthier countries can afford this kind of plan.

The amount of dollars going on the Unites States military is really big, that is also another reason why they dont care about the price- the money comes to them at regular basis.
Im sure that Russia doesn't care a lot about cost of military operations.

You are mistaken. A large part of the Syrian Air Force's offensive capability against the ISIS is now neutralized. The ISIS has reported gains against the SAA in the province of Homs, where the attack occurred. The Americans have succeeded in shifting the momentum back to the ISIS.

According to the US Defence Secretary James Mattis, the American missile attacks destroyed 20% of the active aircraft in the possession of the Syrian Air Force. I know that the ISIS and the Al Qaeda will be rejoicing at this news.

The destroyed aircraft include six Russian-made MiG-23.

Is it the planes? The MiG 23 was put on the wing in 1969. It's junk. It seems to me that missiles were more expensive than the damage which they have caused Assad.

What is the price of 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk to hit with 23 of them the Syrian canteen in desert?

~ snip ~

Airport is operating, as reported.

From what I know the tomahawk is "only" some $500k a piece. However, I may be wrong and the price is not important.
I was also "impressed" by the number of missiles shot. But I understand. They have to be used. And for good reason.
This way the american tax payers (and possibly later the Syrian oil) will have to pay for newer and better technology.

The fact they destroyed anything is of tiniest importance. The news reports will tell the "truth" that matters (did you see "Wag the Dog"?).

The missiles may be more expensive than the aircraft, but they did the purpose. No matter how old these aircraft were, some of them were used for dropping barrel bombs and other explosive devices. The Americans wanted to get rid of them, at any cost. The rebels were also finding the life quite tough as a result of the bombings. So I'd say it was $500 million well spent. 

It seems to me that it was possible to destroy them with a cheaper way. To achieve their goals in Syria, the Americans need to destroy the most modern weapons, and then old. Maybe the goal was the other?

By cheaper way, do you mean dropping bombs from military jets? It is definitely an inexpensive option, but there is always a risk of one of these jets getting shot down, and the pilot being taken as a prisoner of war (if not killed). If something like that happens, then Trump can kiss his popularity ratings a good-bye. They will nosedive from the current 35% - 45% levels to single digits.

By cheaper way, do you mean dropping bombs from military jets? It is definitely an inexpensive option, but there is always a risk of one of these jets getting shot down, and the pilot being taken as a prisoner of war (if not killed). If something like that happens, then Trump can kiss his popularity ratings a good-bye. They will nosedive from the current 35% - 45% levels to single digits.

What is the price of 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk to hit with 23 of them the Syrian canteen in desert?
$500.000.000

Experts are amoused about this large number of BGM-109 Tomahawk on 2 ships.

http://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-airport-idUSL8N1HF5PT

Airport is operating, as reported.

By cheaper way, do you mean dropping bombs from military jets? It is definitely an inexpensive option, but there is always a risk of one of these jets getting shot down, and the pilot being taken as a prisoner of war (if not killed). If something like that happens, then Trump can kiss his popularity ratings a good-bye. They will nosedive from the current 35% - 45% levels to single digits.

Your math is off. The missiles cost the US 832,000 USD each. With 23 misses that cost the american tax payer 19 million.. OUCH!

Can thus Trump decided to dispose of the old rocket shelf life which came to an end. Maybe that's why so many missiles had hit the target?

After chemical weapons killed about 100 people.