Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu May 24 08:40:29 2018

Utopia Talk / Politics / did Syria shoot down 71 missiles
The Children
Member
Sat Apr 28 06:23:12
yea they did. lmao

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1RQzij2V6Y

Cold Rod
Member
Sat Apr 28 06:41:11
TC, I know you are hot rod levels stupid, but come on.
The Children
Member
Sat Apr 28 06:45:33
dumb rod, the evidence is right there, fool. u watchin that shit or what.
Cold Rod
Member
Sat Apr 28 07:20:23
TC, I know you are hot rod levels stupid, but come on.
Rugian
Member
Sat Apr 28 07:24:51
Well jergul, you have TC on your side now. I hope you feel vindicated.
delude
Member
Sat Apr 28 07:26:30
I guess TC also fell for the miraculous defense Iraqi put them by the propaganda of Iraqi officials when the US invaded them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOnmBZHsnAM

Rugian
Member
Sat Apr 28 07:48:03
Also TC your information is out of date, Russia is now up to saying that they shot down 83. Because, you know, if you're going to lie, lie big. At this rate it'll be 92 by Sunday, 104 by Wednesday and 137 by summer.

It's not the number of pairs of boots that you produce, it's whether the people believe you've produced more boots than anticipated.
jergul
large member
Sat Apr 28 09:44:00
Ruggy
Russia shot down 0 missiles. Syria shot down some. The revised number of intercepted missiles has been reduced to 46 from the original estimate of 71.

So 1/3 of the missiles were intecepted and 3 SAM missiles were expended per missile shot intercepted.

For big lies, see the Trump administrations claim.

105 missiles used to destroy 5 structures is their story. Which is actually what the Russians are saying too.

The difference being that the US says all 105 missiles hit the 5 structures and Russia is saying 22 missiles hit the 5 structures.

The US is in huge trouble if its story is true. Missile success rates can improve by better tactics, but you can't fix the stupid inherent to targeting 5 structures with 105 missiles (The entire tomahawk stockpile would only be good for 200 targets at that rate).
Seb
Member
Sat Apr 28 09:48:31
105 - 46 = 69
69-22= 47.

47 crashes/misses seems frankly implausible too.

I am wondering if the US did just throw missiles into the rubble to meet an arbitrary number.

"Twice as big as last year" I would guess.
jergul
large member
Sat Apr 28 09:49:43
Delude
Remind us again of initial US claims against Iraqi scuds.

It amazes me that people accept claims about Patriot systems or Israel's Iron Dome, but moan in disbelief when comparable systems seem to have significantly worse statistics.

Hitting 1/3rd of missiles and expending 3 SAMs per missile shot down is easily within the realm of credible.

The US claim of shooting 105 missiles into 5 buildings is the claim that beggars belief.
jergul
large member
Sat Apr 28 09:56:21
Seb
That theory (and I think I coined it first) would involve the DoD meta-communicating with Russia. We have a moron in chief and are following his orders to the letter, but dont want any escalation so are shooting them all into 5 buildings.

47 crash/misses is plausible in a hostile electronic environment without friendly ecm running interferance if you assume the following:

The US was using early block Tomahawks (ie the old missiles in the tubes and saving the block iiis for you know, actual military relevance in the future. Elementary force preservation this)

Reports indicate almost complete French missile failure. The Scalp system is actually incredibly old. They are included in the 105 total.
jergul
large member
Sat Apr 28 10:00:56
Also contract acceptance is happy with a 75% success rate (3 of 4 missiles detonating on target in an uncluttered environment). And this is with brand new missiles with the best possible quality assurance.

Aeros
Member
Sat Apr 28 12:51:25
These stats are also irrelevant. If the US was serious about things, we would destroy the air defense with stealth bombers dropping JDAMS before using stand off cruise missiles.
Seb
Member
Sat Apr 28 12:56:28
jergul:

You might have been first to post it but you were not along in thinking it the moment you saw the number and size of the sites and the alleged number of missiles. That said the degree of destruction of the sites looks like they were over-saturated with missiles. I assumed to some degree there was an assumption that Russian SAMs would be used to intercept some missiles, but even then it looks overkill.

Scalp should be the same performance as storm shadow which has performed well. Date from c. 2000 no?

Allegedly, Hims-Shinshar facilities were exclusively targeted with storm shaddows and scalps (8 storm shadows from british tornados, 3 from frigates and 2 from Rafaels), and the bunker with 6 air launched missiles.

That would appear to be only one SCALP/Stormshaddow unaccounted for?

Where are you getting your report of failure from?

What seems incredible is 70 odd tomahawks aimed at a single site. And while Barzan looked fairly over-saturated to me, no way was that 70 missiles.

And I thought early versions of tomahawks were fire and forget essentially - used radar contour maps vs radar altimeter which should be pretty hard to jam (narrow beam, looks straight down) no?

jergul
large member
Sat Apr 28 13:48:53
Aeros
Then you would lose the bombers.

Seb
Not that old (that would be 1980s tech) Block iiis would be the oldest ones deployed.

Imagery suggests 7 hits in Shinshar. Publically available stuff.

We know the US is lying. The Russian claims suggest mere adequate performance given every advantage the Syrian air defenses had. I listed the 13 points I had in the other thread.
Seb
Member
Sat Apr 28 15:07:11
jergul:

Confused, are you saying the scalp system is incredibly old?

Lit's 90's/00's tech.

There were two separate sites at Shinshar

https://www.c4isrnet.com/intel-geoint/2018/04/17/how-imagery-satellites-captured-the-missile-strikes-in-syria/

I haven't found imagery better than this, and I might be getting the scale very badly wrong, but guessing the road width is about 8 meters

Have you got anything better?

Based on this 14 hits doesn't seem inconsistent with the damage. The storage site seems to have lost three largish buildings and two underground/partially buried storage sites.

The buried bunker on the second site looks to have been completely destroyed - implying multiple hits (not inconsistent with six hits, probably inconsistent with less than three I'd have thought).

Seven hits seems to be the very, very minimum that this could have been done with just looking at the buildings destroyed. Looking at the first image you need at least one for the three buildings and one each for the impact marks on the road which appears to be covering a berm or semi buried arms dump (I think I see the opening to the south of the road but not clear - it's also possible they missed their targets or were coming in low and hit the berm).

I don't think two scalp warheads could have done that much damage to a buried bunker, I think I see two distinct impact marks though.

So a very minimum 7, but based on what I think is the scale, it seems implausible that one missile with a 450kg was enough to completely obliterate each of the three buildings and only two on the bunker.

I would guess it's entirely plausible the bunker was hit by six, each of the big buildings in the storage site by three, and then I think I see enough impact marks to account for the rest (two aforementioned on the road to the north, another two on the road running west.
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Apr 28 15:10:21
"did Syria shoot down 71 missiles"

Nope. Next.
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Apr 28 15:12:23
It looks like a few failed for mechanical reasons (expected). There is a chance syria could have shot down a few... but their ground based weapons could never fight off terrain skimmers in any significant numbers.
State Department
Member
Sat Apr 28 15:15:12
They shot down 200 out of 105 missiles.
jergul
large member
Sat Apr 28 16:18:05
Seb
90s to early noughts is incredibly old.

I am taking your post to mean that the Russian claim is in fact possibly true.

I would word it more strongly and state that it is plausibly true (I believe it to be the best effort of their analysists. Being as accurate as possible in the face of ludicrous american claims has its own rewards).

Sammy
Russia is only claiming Syria shot down 22 of 105 and most of those in close proximity to activated air defense positions.

The claim is in the ball-park of plausible.
Seb
Member
Sat Apr 28 16:22:14
jergul:

"90s to early noughts is incredibly old."
Not really - given this is fairly mature underlying technologies.

Is it really plausible that seven missile strikes destroyed three building entirely, left thee to four craters, and collapsed an underground bunker entirely?

That strikes me as staggeringly implausible.
jergul
large member
Sat Apr 28 16:49:09
Seb
In comparative terms you would be looking forward to upgrading from win95 to winME. Yay.

Incredibly old and beyond the shelf-life of even factory sealed delivery systems.

Russians observed 7 hits on 3 structures. Which is plausible.

The bunker complex is at a different location and targeted seperately.

What are the craters you are referring to? Misses that would not be counted amongst the 7 hits, or craters from the 7 (or whatever) hits?

What purpose does it serve Russia to overstate the number of missing missiles (those neither shot down by air defenses, nor that hit targets)?
jergul
large member
Sat Apr 28 16:57:51
http://www...G_Cruise_Missiles#.WuTuFZe-mUk

Yah, I know this stuff.
Seb
Member
Sat Apr 28 17:03:50
jergul:

That's the service date, it's not the manufacture date so shelf life is probably not the metric.

e.g. The naval version dates from 2015

"Russians observed 7 hits on 3 structures. Which is plausible."

Ok and we can see at least 4 other impact sites, which tallies then. Depends on what was intended to be targeted which isn't clear.

It looks to me like there is some kind of berm structure that at least two of the craters were targeting - typically the kind of structure you would use to isolate a munitions store. It's possible those are misses, it's possible they just don't count for structures. The Russians have an interest in downplaying.

The other two appear to be around a junction. It looks like there was some stuff there (plant?) but none of the images are high enough resolution for me to see what.

"What purpose does it serve Russia to overstate the number of missing missiles (those neither shot down by air defenses, nor that hit targets)?"

Syria has largely been protected from air raids for years on the grounds that "it's highly defended from the air, it would be far too costly for us to intervene" - that has been a consistent line or argument from those in the west opposing interventions.

I should think the rationale for overstating missing and shot down missiles is therefore obvious.



jergul
large member
Sat Apr 28 17:33:22
Correction. Russia revised it down from 72 to 66.

So, the claim is:

22 hits
66 intercepted
28 lost for other reasons.

These are not ludicrous, but are not consistent with what I otherwise know.

28 lost is reasonable if we assume missiles at the end of or past their shelf lives.

Expected failure rates for new tomahawks is 15%. Or about half of the 28. Increase this for old missiles and assume some ecm and it makes 28 plausible.

66 intercepted does not mesh. I would expect 3 SAMs per downed missile to be correct. Or about 45. I think Russia is overselling the successrate.

This would in turn mean it is underselling the number of missile hits by the equivalent amount. Which is possible if a conservative counting method was used.

But there still is not enough targets to justify 105 missiles, but assuming claims that airbases were targeted is correct, we would then have to accept that 100% of those missiles were shot down (compared to 50% a year ago).

Agh, why can't everyone just tell us the truth?

Jergulmath estimate

28 missiles AWOL (28 reported by Russia)
45 missiles intercepted (66 reported by Russia)
32 missiles hit target (22 reported by Russia)

In sum: Russia spun the numbers to make them look better. The US is lying outright because rule by tweet dictates that is must be so.
jergul
large member
Sat Apr 28 17:37:46
Seb
Yawn@you not understanding logistics.

It might serve Russia to overstate shooting down missiles, but if it is going to lie, then why lie on AWOL instead of just claiming they were shot down?

I would have thought you could have grasped that point as it was what I was asking.

Trump just proved intervention is too expensive. It costs 25 missiles a building.
Seb
Member
Sat Apr 28 17:41:35
jergul:

You think the logistics of 25 missiles a building are obvious to the general masses?

Interesting take. I think the problem here is you are not understanding propaganda.


"Your missiles are crap and fall from the sky" protects Russian allies where they don't have SAMs.
jergul
large member
Sat Apr 28 17:46:04
Moving forward, what we do know is the following:

1. The west actually has to upgrade its older missiles. It has been delaying modernization for too long.

2. Punitive strikes outside of a larger overall conflict are becoming less and less cost effective.

3. Syrian air defenses are not yet satisfactory (from a Syrian perspective).

Shit. This might mean war.
jergul
large member
Sat Apr 28 17:49:37
I just answered my own question. "Falling out of the sky" is better than "there are only two options: 1. Do nothing. 2. Full shock and awe".
murder
Member
Sun Apr 29 12:13:05

"yea they did. lmao"

People will believe anything. Meanwhile all targets were destroyed. lmao


jergul
large member
Sun Apr 29 13:44:41
Murder
5 buildings were destroyed at a cost of 105 cruise missiles. This we know for sure.

lmao indeed.
murder
Member
Mon Apr 30 17:54:58

We'll make more.

jergul
large member
Mon Apr 30 18:08:39
I highly recommend that. The ones you used don't work right.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Apr 30 20:27:17
Might as well use up the old ones. We know they are still good enough to embrass soviet air defenses, but eventually the rocket motors will crack and the turbines corrode. It will be too expensive just to keep the old ones turning on.

Why recycle em if you can shoot em at syris?
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Mon Apr 30 20:44:42

No.

jergul
large member
Tue May 01 02:21:27
Sammy
Correct. Except you showcase "soviet" air defenses and give syria good arguments for getting more and more and more and more air defense systems from Russia.

You did not actually kill any Syrians. You used 105 of them to destroy 5 buildings.

Israel has the same dilemma. It can bomb Syria until it no longer can.
murder
Member
Tue May 01 08:30:10

"Israel has the same dilemma. It can bomb Syria until it no longer can."

They always can. Which makes this thread amusing as hell. Syria owns a monthly subscription to getting bombed by Israel ... and you're here pretending that Syrian air defenses are anything more than a minor nuisance.

jergul
large member
Tue May 01 10:55:21
Murder
Are your pretending irregular Israeli bombings are anything other than a minor nuisance?

6 buildings here, an f-15 there. It is just such a minor nuisance all-round.
Seb
Member
Tue May 01 11:26:30
jergul:

I dunno, isn't T4 a Russian base protected by S400?
Seb
Member
Tue May 01 11:29:33
BTW, am enjoying the Israel leak on Iran's nuclear weapon programmes.

It doesn't really undermine the deal in my view, but weren't you assuring us all that there wasn't a weapons programme and centrifuging could be explained for civil needs and the missiles and warheads design as for conventional strike?

Looks pretty clear now how it all fit together, and looks very credible. The novel design - particularly multi-point channel detonation - looks very authentic.
jergul
large member
Tue May 01 11:38:15
Seb
No, t-4 is not protected by s-400ds. Nor was t-4 attacked this time round.

No, I was not. I was the fellow explaining that the NPT is not self-enforcing and incurs huge responsibilities on nuclear powers in terms of obligating them to transfer civilian nuclear technology.

Nuclear threshold means something. I was and am quite sure contingency plans exist to weaponize in short order. In the event of Iran being attacked for example.
jergul
large member
Tue May 01 11:42:18
On missile design I most spoke of standarization - missile of various types standarized to use common warheads with a 500 kg payload (a bit on the small side for early generation nuclear warheads, no?).

But nice straw-man, even if inadvertent.
jergul
large member
Tue May 01 11:44:08
Its not actually a leak if it is stuff that has been known for a long time btw.
murder
Member
Tue May 01 13:23:19

"Are your pretending irregular Israeli bombings are anything other than a minor nuisance?"

Yes. Having your nation (or what's left of it at this point) routinely mounted and humped in front of the entire world is in fact more than a nuisance.

jergul
large member
Tue May 01 14:22:40
Murder
Syrians have more important things to worry about and in general, being attacked by Israel is a badge of merit in the Arab world.

I sometimes wonder about Israeli decision-making in that sense. Bolstering Assad and justifying more arms transfers seems counterintuitive somehow.

=======

Looks like it was F-15s skirting air defenses around Damaskus (air defense for dummies - you consentrate and layer air defenses, not deploy it piecemeal. Imagining Syria has national airdefense coverage is simply incorrect).

6 buildings destroyed is a cheap price to pay the s-300 system.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue May 01 14:32:08
"routinely mounted and humped in front of the entire world "

Bahahaha
murder
Member
Tue May 01 15:49:19

"6 buildings destroyed is a cheap price to pay the s-300 system."

How many times is that nonsense going to get trotted out? They get bombed, noise is made about Russia selling them their new improved last generation air defense system ... and then they don't.

Over and over and over again.
Seb
Member
Tue May 01 15:54:40
jergul:

I seem to recall you telling us how making a nuclear weapon would break a fatwah.

This is not "plans to weaponise a short notice", this is a well advanced and component tested bomb design.
Seb
Member
Tue May 01 16:03:08
Ah yes, that's right, that nuclear weapons would be unconstitutional. That was it.

http://www...hread?id=politics&thread=24679

"The centrifuges are a proliferation issue if Iran uses them in nuclear weapons production. A trust issue before that point. Belated reporting a facility under construction is not a huge deal. That was never intended to be a secret facility and we both knew they were going to build new plants for new generation centrifuges. The convert ones would actually be hard to find."

etc.

Sam Adams
Member
Tue May 01 16:51:52
"and then they don't. "

Even if they did... what value would it add? A battery of big old sams? Lol. Big old russian sams is one of the great scams of the worlds arms markets. When have those ever worked? Other than 777s?
jergul
large member
Wed May 02 01:52:48
Seb
They would break a fatwah (executive order) unless the fatwah was changed.

Weaponizing on short notice presumes that actual blueprints have been researched at some point previously.

As to the quote. Indeed. Deploying nuclear weapons was not and is not Iran's preferred option.

Straw man seb. Poor showing as per your norm.

Sammy
They work every day. Air defenses are access denial tools. But full functionality would be in terms of combined operations. Shut down airfields with other types of weapons, isolate border areas by destroying key infrastructure, then pushing forward to re-establish sovereignity over occupied areas. For example.

Israel is whining about Iranian deployment in Syria for a reason you know.

Seb
Member
Wed May 02 02:51:30
Jergul:

I think that just shows you were being disingenuous at the time. Iran did have a nuclear weapons programme, which would of course be in breach of the NPT; and the sanctions etc. that ultimately led to them signing the Obama era deal were exactly right.
jergul
large member
Wed May 02 04:01:35
Seb
I was and am perfectly aware of what nuclear threshold status means. It means it is too late to attack the country because doing so will cause nuclear profilation.

Don't even think about attacking Iran, bro. Neither directly or by rabid proxy.

Iran did not and still does not have a programme that would irrevocably lead to nuclear weapons if completed. Ie a nuclear weapons progamme.

The disingenious claim is simply another one of the random ad-homs you toss out.
Seb
Member
Wed May 02 05:18:59
Jergul:

That definition of a nuclear weapons programme is incompatible with the npt.
Itvwpuld be true for any weapons programme arguably, up to the point of putting the fuse into the warhead atop the missile.

Essentially you at arguing that Iran didn't have a nuclear weapons programme because they hadn't decided to deploy the weapon they were very ckearly developing!

Disingenuous is exactly the right term!
jergul
large member
Wed May 02 05:40:43
Seb
The NPT is not self-enforcing, so within that framework, a nuclear power would be justified in say withold peaceful nuclear technology until a country ended is weaponization research.

Essentially, I am arguing that a voluntary treaty that is not self-enforcing has very little in the way of limitations.

The important part of non-profilation is not that countries not have the know-how, but rather that they refrain from producing and deploying nuclear weapons.

This is highly relevant in terms of nuclear disarmament. The UK etc are supposed to get rid of their arsenals, that research still has taken place is along a similar vein incompatible with the NPT.

Threshold status means something. Iran can produce nuclear weapons if it wants to, just as any country can produce nuclear weapons if it wants to and put the effort into doing so.

The disingenious bit here is pretending the NPT is anything other that a voluntary agreement aimed at limiting weapons profilation and increasing civilian nuclear use.

jergul
large member
Wed May 02 05:51:42
The NPT is a treaty aimed at limiting the manufacture and direct and indirect ownership of nuclear devices.

That non-nuclear powers can always weaponize at any point is one of the safeguards that keeps existing nuclear powers in check (don't do stupid shit against non-nuclear powers or you will trigger a global nuclear arms race).
jergul
large member
Wed May 02 05:55:30
In sum: The current Iranian deal is far beyond what limitations a country could reasonably be expected to adopt within the NPT framework.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share