Russia to boost Syria's air defences

[Purpleisbetter]

Dunno, at the peak of a possible impeachment of Trump necause his relationship with Moscow; all of this Syrian affair suddenly happens.

Just right in time.

[Knolan]

Chemical weaposn have been "in play" in Syria for years....

Looking into it I couldn't find any big attack since 2013. Also, it is important to notice that there are also several groups acting on Siria.

What it seems to me is that this attack was lauched by the official government (could not find any information confirming this, but I believe the US army has access to better information than me), which would definitely legitimize retaliations.

[Skroe]

Dunno, at the peak of a possible impeachment of Trump necause his relationship with Moscow; all of this Syrian affair suddenly happens.

Just right in time.

We're not getting close to impeachment. Trump-Russia is in the top of the 2nd inning. And this is coming from somebody who has a part-time job in taking down Trump and salting the earth for the alt-right.

I want Trump gone, but expectations must be managed. Getting rid of Trump isn't going to take weeks or months. It's going to take a couple of years. Do expect Trump-Russia to drag on into 2019. In fact, you want it to come to a head around February 2019. Now is too soon.

[ranzino]

destroying syrian airfields from afar looks a nice strategy. how long can syra hold out against such strikes, being aware the US navy can do such strikes again and again as soon syrian airforce looks weird at targets ?

[Bryntrollian]

So one chemical attack in another country that we hardly know the context of is an appropriate catalyst to go in and indiscriminately blow shit up?

I thought we needed to avoid war with Russia at all costs, and that Hillary was going to put up a no-fly zone and that'd just be too much.

Since when did "no-fly zone" become a more egregious military action than "BOMB 'EM," hmmm?

Because Sarin gas is classified as a WMD and you know exactly what happened last time we heard about someone in the region having a WMD(which they didn't even have)

[Deleted]

They are all gems. In special considering their sources. RT gems. Sputnik gems.

MIT scientists and Seymour Hersh and London Review of Books RT gems?Are you for real?

[Skroe]

destroying syrian airfields from afar looks a nice strategy. how long can syra hold out against such strikes, being aware the US navy can do such strikes again and again as soon syrian airforce looks weird at targets ?

The answer is "it depends what Assad's goal is".

Assad's problem is that his forces are stretched extremely thin. His Army's suffered an extreme manpower shortage for years now. And although they defend a consolidated area compared to what Assad's Syria used to be, it's with a fraction of the people, and equipment worn down by years of a grueling conflict that Assad has spent most of it losing. The chances of Assad regaining control of Syria the way he controlled it say, a decade ago, is zero.

If Assad is content to rule largely what he holds now, or a little less, there is no reason that, with extensive Russian and Iranian help, he can't do it indefinitely.

The question is, "does he want more". This is why Chemical Weapons were likely used. To bring restive areas into his control without using troops to bring about control. If he is going to retake the whole of Syria, he'll need a lot more Syrian Troops (which don't exist), a lot more Russian troops (which he won't get), or chemical weapons (which would likely incur an even larger US response).

One thing the US is very sensitive of when striking other countries is "tipping points in regimes. If the US wanted to topple Assad, it would target not just Assad, but his army's rank and file. It would try to encourage desertions and defections. It would try to get Generals to turn on him and maybe even get entire formations to defect to the rebellion. During the Iraq War, the US Army actively encouraged - and succeeded - in getting poorly trained and equipped Iraqi Army formations to entirely stand aside and allow the US Military to annihilate the Iraqi Republican Guard (drawn from Saddam's home region mostly). It did this by, in the very first few days of the war, having US air power (mostly A-10s and AH-64Ds) chew up and spit out the Iraqi Army formations guarding Baghdad. They got the message real quick.

So Assad can hold out until the US decides to force a plan of getting Assad's defenders to abandon him... and forcing that plan will only come after Assad does something that changes the equation to make the US want to take that step.

I don't think it will come - Assad's Russian advisers know all this... they know exactly how the US works in this regard and will tell him to avoid moving too boldly - but that's how it would go down.

[Shakadam]

In addition to what Kellhound said, I wrote in the other thread, that typical US approach to shooting down incoming missiles is to launch two interceptors at it. So assuming Russia does the same, for 59 missiles, you'd want 118 interceptors. Each S-400 carries up to 8 missiles. Some carry 6, some carry 4... depend son the range of the missile (larger range = larger missile, smaller range = smaller missile, so they can carry more, to put it simply). But you'd want 15-17 S-400s, each firing 2 missiles. With a very high success rate you'd succeed.

But here's the rub. That's about $1 billion worth of S-400 units. An single S-400 maneuvering unit consists of 8 launchers (plus other vehicles), which can fire 64 missiles. So taking on 59 missiles would require two whole units, or about $1 billion worth of S-400s to intercept $70 million worth of missiles. And there is nothing to stop the US from firing another volley, or using drones, decoys, electronic warfare or other means.


There are not 17 S-400 launchers in all of Syria. There are believed to be 8. Plus another 6 Syrian S-300s (some of which were recently destroyed by Israel) and 8 Russian S-300 units, which can interoperate with S-400. In fact on all of the world, there are only 150 launchers, most of them guarding High Value sites around Moscow and in Kalingrad.

This mostly just undercuts the Russian-fans S-400 fetishism. For the US, our S-400 analog, the Patriot Missile PAC-3, is used for the missiles that get away. The US's "air defense" is air power - either shooting down cruise missiles mid flight with air to air missiles, or destroying their launches ahead of time with a strike. The US uses air defense like Patriot for the ones that get through. This is especially true of Warships, which do the same thing. The best defense against enemy missiles is aircraft going out to attack.

And the numbers can make clear why. The US has over 3500 Tomahawks. How could 150 launchers all armed with 8 missiles ever defend against that? They never could. And that doesn't include all the other types of cruise missiles, powered missiles and glide bombs the US uses. Static defenses are barely a defense at all.

Launching missiles for interception isn't the only way to deal with incoming cruise missiles though. I imagine the Russians would use something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasukha_EW_System.

According to Russian military only 23 out of 59 of the Tomahawks launched hit the airbase. No idea if that's true or not but it's not like the US military is gonna be honest about how many reached their targets anyway, the answer is likely somewhere in between as usual.

[ranzino]

Launching missiles for interception isn't the only way to deal with incoming cruise missiles though. I imagine the Russians would use something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasukha_EW_System.

According to Russian military only 23 out of 59 of the Tomahawks launched hit the airbase. No idea if that's true or not but it's not like the US military is gonna be honest about how many reached their targets anyway, the answer is likely somewhere in between as usual.

Russia was warned about the attack AFAIK. Any guess about how much they tried to avoid the missiles to find their targets ? or do we see how much russia failed in such regards ? i cannot fathom russia would let it happen, sitting idle as long the tomahawks exploded elsewhere ?

[Skroe]

Launching missiles for interception isn't the only way to deal with incoming cruise missiles though. I imagine the Russians would use something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasukha_EW_System.

According to Russian military only 23 out of 59 of the Tomahawks launched hit the airbase. No idea if that's true or not but it's not like the US military is gonna be honest about how many reached their targets anyway, the answer is likely somewhere in between as usual.

It's not true.

http://www.imagesatintl.com/us-strike-syria/

Success rate seems to be 58 out of 59.

Which if you think about it entirely makes sense. The US routinely uses precision guided munitions, and they routinely hit the correct target. And all of a sudden it ha has a 60% failure rate when used on Russia's friends? Yeah that's bullshit.

Also in reference to what you linked, the US probably used the TLAM-E, which has a multimodal seeker. The EW system wouldn't have worked against it. The seeker was designed specifically for that contingency. It could jam radar, or even GPS. It would still have other sensor systems, most self-contained.

[Kellhound]

Launching missiles for interception isn't the only way to deal with incoming cruise missiles though. I imagine the Russians would use something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasukha_EW_System.

According to Russian military only 23 out of 59 of the Tomahawks launched hit the airbase. No idea if that's true or not but it's not like the US military is gonna be honest about how many reached their targets anyway, the answer is likely somewhere in between as usual.

There is a question on which is better, Russian ECM or US ECCM.

ISI's images show 51 damaged targets, so that would be a good minimum number of missile hits.

[Varitok]

Russia was warned about the attack AFAIK. Any guess about how much they tried to avoid the missiles to find their targets ? or do we see how much russia failed in such regards ? i cannot fathom russia would let it happen, sitting idle as long the tomahawks exploded elsewhere ?

Its funny that Trump tells his master Putin that the bombs are going to happen and won't even get permission from his own government.

This is all a joke, its so convenient that Trump is in deep with this Russian collusion and then so conveniently happens to bomb an airbase that Russians were operating at, basically so he can go "See guys? Im not working with Russia, we should totally stop the investigation now".

[Tonkaden]

In theory, if the systems worked as well in real life as they do on paper, 17 S-400s would be just enough to shoot them all down with a .9pk (6 misses) and have 3 missiles left.

Just to have another volley incoming behind those 59 lol. Its a pointless endeavor.

- - - Updated - - -

Launching missiles for interception isn't the only way to deal with incoming cruise missiles though. I imagine the Russians would use something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasukha_EW_System.

According to Russian military only 23 out of 59 of the Tomahawks launched hit the airbase. No idea if that's true or not but it's not like the US military is gonna be honest about how many reached their targets anyway, the answer is likely somewhere in between as usual.

Do you really think that we only operate at a 38% accuracy clip? You cannot be serious right.

- - - Updated - - -

Its funny that Trump tells his master Putin that the bombs are going to happen and won't even get permission from his own government.

This is all a joke, its so convenient that Trump is in deep with this Russian collusion and then so conveniently happens to bomb an airbase that Russians were operating at, basically so he can go "See guys? Im not working with Russia, we should totally stop the investigation now".

Nice tin foil hat there brochacho. I guess you think Bush and Cheney ordered the WTC attack too amirite?

[Kellhound]

Just to have another volley incoming behind those 59 lol. Its a pointless endeavor.

- - - Updated - - -



Do you really think that we only operate at a 38% accuracy clip? You cannot be serious right.

- - - Updated - - -



Nice tin foil hat there brochacho. I guess you think Bush and Cheney ordered the WTC attack too amirite?

There is a practical limit to how many TLAMs the US can fire at any given time on short notice. Each ship only carries a certain amount of them, with other cells loaded with SAMs or VL-ASROC.

[LMuhlen]

Wouldn't be surprised if someday we discover the US was the author of the gas attack only to validate a new war and discredit Russia.

[ranzino]

There is a practical limit to how many TLAMs the US can fire at any given time on short notice. Each ship only carries a certain amount of them, with other cells loaded with SAMs or VL-ASROC.

The 2 vessels, USS Porter and USS Ross are "Arleigh Burke"-class destroyers, usually stationed in Rota (Spain). Perhaps the other 2 vessels of 4 are on stand-by for a second volley, should the need arise ?
And there should be a carrier group in the med sea as well, which consist of some more destroyers, able to do serious shit.

[Tonkaden]

The 2 vessels, USS Porter and USS Ross are "Arleigh Burke"-class destroyers, usually stationed in Rota (Spain). Perhaps the other 2 vessels of 4 are on stand-by for a second volley, should the need arise ?
And there should be a carrier group in the med sea as well, which consist of some more destroyers, able to do serious shit.

Not only this, but its not like those 59 tomahawks were all of the ordinance that they had on the ship(s) that fired the initial attack.

[Sesshou]

Even if we assume that's true, I guess I missed where "they used chemical weapons" was an adequate "ALL BETS ARE OFF!" moment. Trump just went FAR beyond what Hillary's "war hawk" accusers ever said she'd do, and that was pretty much their only negative policy point they could come up with about her. (Though i don't think they were ever too clear about her policies.)

Are you just completely ignorant of the fact that Hillary in an interview like a day ago suggested doing the exact same thing in response to the chemical weapon attack? This isn't far beyond what Hillary would do. It is literally what she said she would have done.

[Kellhound]

The 2 vessels, USS Porter and USS Ross are "Arleigh Burke"-class destroyers, usually stationed in Rota (Spain). Perhaps the other 2 vessels of 4 are on stand-by for a second volley, should the need arise ?
And there should be a carrier group in the med sea as well, which consist of some more destroyers, able to do serious shit.

I know what they are and I know where they are stationed. They are there because they have been upgraded to launch RIM-161s. Their main mission is ABM defense.
A Burke nominally has 90 or 96 Mk41 cells depending on its Flight (a Tico has 122). They are not reloadable at sea. Those have to be allocated between SAMs, VLA, and TLAMs. Keep in mind, their primary mission is air defense, not land attack. Its a good bet the 59 missiles launched represented most, if not all, TLAMs on the two ships.

[Tonkaden]

I know what they are and I know where they are stationed. They are there because they have been upgraded to launch RIM-161s. Their main mission is ABM defense.
A Burke nominally has 90 or 96 Mk41 cells depending on its Flight (a Tico has 122). They are not reloadable at sea. Those have to be allocated between SAMs, VLA, and TLAMs. Keep in mind, their primary mission is air defense, not land attack. Its a good bet the 59 missiles launched represented most, if not all, TLAMs on the two ships.

The Arleigh Burke class destroyers hold 56 tomahawks each... so out of the 112 they have, they only fired 59... barely over half.