If 59 cruise missiles can't destroy a runway, then I'd say they're pretty damn useless. Isn't the whole purpose of a first-strike weapon to incapacitate enemy military infrastructure like a runway? LOL.
“I’d say they’re pretty damn useless. Isn’t the whole purpose of a first-strike weapon to incapacitate enemy military infrastructure like a runway? LOL”
Stop pretending you know anything about military issues. They didn’t try to hit the runway and they can’t do it with this cruise missile. They destroyed over $600 million worth of military hardware and sent a strong message.
“Simply put, Soviet engineers designed planes that were meant to be used more roughly than American ones. At its height, the U.S.S.R’s territory covered over 8 million square miles (versus the U.S. at 3.8 million), much of it undeveloped and without proper landing strips. With that in mind, Soviet engineers designed aircraft meant for rougher landings. For instance, the Ilyushin Il-76 cargo plane was explicitly designed to take off and land on unpaved runways. While the Flanker was never meant to land on a rough patch of grass somewhere in the taiga, it was designed to be able to use “austere” runways and take a licking and keep on ticking.”
http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a18021/su-27-landing-no-landing-gear-video/