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 ...
So drop a few nukes and see if we care that they “knock” them down.
most of the missiles only had 1000lbs of explosives this time.
Recalling Baghdad 1992...
“I hear a jet!” (Shoot like hell for 2 minutes)
“I don’t heat a jet anymore, we shot it down!!”
Uh, No.
However, there was the one, little play...
The Russians should also point out that LA outscored the Cubs in the World Series and Hillary got more popular votes than Trump.
It depends on whether the cost, to the Russians, of shooting them down is comparable to the cost of our missiles. The Russian GDP is $1.5 trillion. The US GDP is $19 trillion. If we force them to spend money, they lose. If they force us to spend American lives (as they did in Vietnam), then we lose.
You know how we can tell?
They blew up.
Just in case you've been missing Baghdad Bob.
Has any news organization post before and after satellite pictures of the targets?
“It’s merely a flesh wound!” (Monty Python)
“Syrian air defenses only started firing when it was over ,D’oh”
same thing happened in Baghdad ... remember the videos of the massive amount of WWII-style AA steel being hurled into the sky over Baghdad after the B-1s flew by, only to fall tens of thousands of feet below and behind the “targets”?
I don’t know these facilities/targets but I’d be highly suspicious if the bulk of their operation took place above ground.
Cruise Missile is horribly cost IN-effective unless equipped with nuclear ordinance.
Very accurate though. Im sure the cost of not killing innocent bystanders (non-existent) and inducing excessive collateral damage (how can this be bad when you are trying to destroy something?) figured in to the decision.
Or equip our missiles with “blip enhancers” and when the SAM’s get close, turn them off.
On the Russian radars it would look like a “kill”.
I’ve been wondering, just what was the duration of our attack? I would think that we could time it such that all attacking missiles arrived within a few seconds of each other.
No, it was 105-0 https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3647535/posts?page=32#32
about 10 min
Whenever we use missiles in such a strike, we factor in a certain percentage of failures/intercepts.
From the article Here:
Nineteen missiles fired outside Syrian airspace by two B-1B bombers targeted the Barzah Research and Development Center located in the greater Damascus area. Those Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missiles, or JASSMs,
Tracking a pre-planned route from launch to target using Global Positioning Satellites and an internal navigation system, the missile is designed to strike with a 1,000-pound penetrating warhead.
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.