Posted on 04/15/2018 7:22:37 AM PDT by rktman
The Russian military has claimed that the Syrian air defences, whose most modern weapon is a three-decades-old Russian-supplied anti-aircraft system, shot down 71 of 103 missiles fired by the US and its allies, the UK and France, a claim denied by the Pentagon.
As further details began to emerge about the sites targeted by the US-led strikes, Col Gen Sergei Rudskoi of the Russian military said the strikes had not caused any casualties and that Syrian military facilities suffered only minor damage.
It was not possible to verify the claims. The most up-to-date system that Moscow has supplied to the Syrian regime is the short range Pantsir S-1, which has an anti-missile capability.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Full article at The Guardian:
The after-action BDA seems to indicate otherwise.
Military experts: do we believe this?
If true, this would make cruise missiles an even more expensive ordinance delivery method than previously thought.
You’ve got a fairly good case against state sponsored terrorists fabricating evidence, and then some idiot opens his mouth to say missiles were shot down and facilities only suffered minor damage.
If they lie about something easily verified through commercial satellite services, you kind of have to disbelieve the rest of the narrative.
When have the Russians ever told the truth?
The number keeps rising. Initially it was one third intercepted. At this rate it will soon exceed the number of missiles fired.
Sounds like the DNC should hire the Russians to help with their propaganda.
http://www.businessinsider.com/syria-strikes-before-and-after-photos-chemical-weapons-targets-2018-4
If the attack was so ineffective and innocuous, what do they have to complain about?
Yes, and if the existing defenses are this good there’s certainly no reason to be giving Syria any better ones.
Shhhhhh.. Hildabeast already tried working with them and it didn’t help her out too much.
Having spent an entire career in the military/industrial complex I can say with authority that if the losses were in excess of, say 15% there would be a slew of Requests For Information (RFI’s) flowing out of the Pentagon. This would have made the defense news in a big splash. Since this has not happened, I am pretty sure that loses were nowhere close to what the Russians claim. Also, it is likely that the raid was accompanied by some form of air defense suppression. If the raid was a resounding success the Russians would have egg on their face as they provided the defenses. Since it’s a war zone and the press can’t get independent verification of Russian claims the Russians can craft any story they want and then claim the American response is a lie.
Syrian air defences only started firing when it was over ,D’oh
Sounds like Russia just got a taste of reality in that their defenses are very defensive and are trying to claim otherwise.
If in fact they did what they said, shot down 71 missiles and that is their response limit, we just need to send in 72 drones. This will expire their defense capability then send in the real ones.
If I may ask if this has been during the height of the Cold War say during the 60s early 70s would the Soviets have done a better job taking down the missiles of the time or is it just not possible really
“If I may ask if this has been during the height of the Cold War say during the 60s early 70s would the Soviets have done a better job taking down the missiles of the time or is it just not possible really”
There are too many variables involved to answer that question. No comparable weapons existed at that time.
LOL
I'm going to call BS on that based on general principles. Cruise missiles - with their relatively small size and low altitude flight paths - are one of the more difficult targets to intercept. You want me to believe an air defense system, based on older tech was nearly 70% effective against modern cruise missiles, some of which incorporate stealth tech? BS.
...Syrian military facilities suffered only minor damage...
Truth as a carefully crafted lie. As I understand it the targets were sites involved in chemical weapons design, manufacture, and storage. You could say they were part of the commercial industry in Syria. Like someone hitting a Boeing or Northrop Grumman factory here, but not say Vandenberg Air Force Base or Norfolk Naval Base.
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.