Syrian War: News #17

It seems obvious that the US account of the attack stretches credulity. Some hero made the graphic below illustrating 76 impacts on the three buildings of the Barzeh research facility.  I wonder what that would work out as, a missile for every 3-6 sq. meters?




How does that square with what is seen following the attacks? Not to well, I'd say.







Somehow they're bullshitting about what was targeted and their level success in doing so. That's not in any way surprising.

Just because pantsir and buk were designed with the intent to deal with cruise missiles doesn’t mean that in practice they actually will. Same with AEGIS or CWIS from the American side as for as intercepting ASHMs.

Cruise missiles fly really low. You have to have radars in the right locations and even than operators only have a few seconds to react before a firing solution is no longer available due to curvature of the earth/terrain.

Which is why a successful land based only solution to a cruise missile attack doesn’t seem realistic.
USSR was extremely vulnerable to cruise missiles before MIG 31 because Soviet Airborne radar was shit and couldn’t differentiate between CM and ground clutter.

You need to have awacs flying. Russia only has like what 1 A50 in Syria? When America strikes Russia typically hunkers down and hides in their bases.

I doubt the A50 was even airborne. Too much to risk.

The above series of photos proves the claims to be utter lies. Unless most of those 73 missiles failed even though they reached
the target, there is way too much standing building structure. With 73 missiles the whole area should have been a rubble strewn
parking lot. In fact there would have been a progressive refinement of the ruble into smaller pieces. A very expensive way to
make aggregate.

If i had to describe the situation in a Legal metaphor.
This situation is like a Prosecutor presenting seemingly solid evidence from Satellites to the Jury and the Defense making little effort to defend his client and does nothing but present circumstantial claims.

Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.

If these strikes continue . Even at present rate of hitting targets . Then it will not be long , before they will make a significant impact on Syrian war against the separatists . If defence only tactic is to be used . Then soon Syrian infrastructure like dams and water and power and ports will be out of action . It only takes a few hit by missiles . Because of their accuracy .

What Russia and Iran need to decide is if they are willing to loose war in Syria . Or risk direct confrontation with NATO . And this decision needs to happen quickly , as I said Syria will not withstand many more hits like this . Even with brave action by it's AD . I don't think that they will withdraw . And they need to show unity . And also have a plan . Time is short . A warning shot across their ships or one or two aircraft being shot down , needs to be next move .........

AlfaT8 wrote:If i had to describe the situation in a Legal metaphor.
This situation is like a Prosecutor presenting seemingly solid  evidence from Satellites to the Jury and the Defense making little effort to defend his client and does nothing but present circumstantial claims.

Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.

You need to give more context in your posts.

If I take it as critical of my post, then I say BS. My logic is based on physics and not legalism. Frankly, the legal system is a stupid joke where
judges are incompetent in a lot of cases on which they rule on. One such judge is from Canada. During and after the gang rape of Serbia by
NATO in 1999, she was pimping the notion that anonymous "witness" testimony is all that counts. One does not need physical evidence. For her
"let's go back to medieval times" rubbish she was rewarded with an appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. Anyone with a functional brain
would realize that during wars and in a lot of other circumstances, "witness" testimony is worth jack since it is nothing more than tribal partisanship. The only evidence that is not biased is physical evidence. The Canadian mass media even had interviews with Albanians admitting that they lied
for the cause.

So these US generals and yaps can claim whatever they want. The only truth is the one on the ground in the form of dead bodies and rubble.

nomadski wrote:If these strikes continue . Even at present rate of hitting targets . Then it will not be long , before they will make a significant impact on Syrian war against the separatists . If defence only tactic is to be used . Then soon Syrian infrastructure  like dams and water and power and ports will be out of action . It only takes a few hit by missiles . Because of their accuracy .

What Russia and Iran need to decide is if they are willing to loose war in Syria . Or risk direct confrontation with NATO .  And this decision needs to happen quickly , as I said Syria will not withstand many more hits like this . Even with brave action by it's AD . I don't think that they will withdraw . And they need to show unity . And also have a plan . Time is short . A warning shot across their ships or one or two aircraft being shot down , needs to be next move .........

You need to take a valium. None of the targets hit in 2017 and 2018 mattered. None. When NATO starts attacking critical
infrastructure, then let's talk about what Russia and Iran must do. For now it looks like NATO has lost the cockiness it had back
in 1999. Striking water treatment plants and dams will not look good to the world. They clearly paint all their targets as supposedly
chemical weapons related.

Mindless_drone wrote:Just because pantsir and buk were designed with the intent to deal with cruise missiles doesn’t mean that in practice they actually will. Same with AEGIS or CWIS from the American side as for as intercepting ASHMs.  

Cruise missiles fly really low. You have to have radars in the right locations and even than operators only have a few seconds to react before a firing solution is no longer available due to curvature of the earth/terrain.

Which is why a successful land based only solution to a cruise missile attack doesn’t seem realistic.
USSR was extremely vulnerable to cruise missiles before MIG 31 because Soviet Airborne radar was shit and couldn’t differentiate between CM and ground clutter.

You need to have awacs flying. Russia only has like what 1 A50 in Syria? When America strikes Russia typically hunkers down and hides in their bases.

I doubt the A50 was even airborne. Too much to risk.

No you don't need awacs, as long as you know the trajectories and the expected time of the operation. Command and control is NATO's major Achilles heel.

Trophies of the Syrian army in East Kalamun

Tanks T-72, T-55, T-62, ZSU 23-4 Shilka, etc.














ATGM TOW and ATGM for ATGM HJ-8






It looks like a self-made launcher with which the militants fired the captured Syrian copies of Zelzal-2 toward Damascus.






























https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3168528.html

@kvs

I said IF .....( and this is likely in liberation of east Syria ) . But in order to react , then a plan is needed . Only a few days ago , they were talking about how to survive a nuke war on Russia TV . And Russian nuclear bombers had reportedly flown to Iran . And a hot line was set up between Moscow and Washington .....

It is strange . It is like an anti- climax . Nobody wants to talk about how a few days ago we came close to war . I feel that this eventuality is being suppressed by people . And not even people , but world leaders and also our leaders . It is too much to take in . Too much to think about . At best there is a meeting of generals . Who talk about defeating terror ideology . At worst there is the idea that Trump will never permit war ! I think it is Stockholm syndrome !

The time to plan is now . That is all I say .............What is overall plan againsf NATO ? Does putin have one ? Does khamenei have one ? now where is my vallium. ............

Mindless_drone wrote:Just because pantsir and buk were designed with the intent to deal with cruise missiles doesn’t mean that in practice they actually will. Same with AEGIS or CWIS from the American side as for as intercepting ASHMs.  

Cruise missiles fly really low. You have to have radars in the right locations and even than operators only have a few seconds to react before a firing solution is no longer available due to curvature of the earth/terrain.

Which is why a successful land based only solution to a cruise missile attack doesn’t seem realistic.
USSR was extremely vulnerable to cruise missiles before MIG 31 because Soviet Airborne radar was shit and couldn’t differentiate between CM and ground clutter.

You need to have awacs flying. Russia only has like what 1 A50 in Syria? When America strikes Russia typically hunkers down and hides in their bases.

I doubt the A50 was even airborne. Too much to risk.

Again mr. Fake Russian.
Subsonics missiles is nothing to be scared about by any modern military...
Specially because they flight in a linear path , a  straight Line and if you have airforce in the air,
and Combat planes and satellites monitoring when the warships start launching missiles , then it will be
very easy to know the direction the missiles will come.. and enter Syria.. So air defenses located in that
area will be told , exactly the time the missiles will fly over there positions.. So where is the science
in blowing out a super slow missile with an air defense ? or anti air direct fire?

as i told before.. if you know where the missile will enter , then is easy as 1 2 3 to intercept them...
for Russia that is... NATO gave plenty of warning to RUssia was going to attack..and Russian airforce
were flying withing strike distance of American ,UK and French warships.. So it will have been IMPOSSIBLE
for NATO to launch a missile and take Russia military by "surprise" when ALL positions of American warships
were known and submarines too..  

The only thing Very low only your intelligence . Those cruise missiles i have seen videos of them flying over IRAQ
urban zones and they need to evade buildings ,so needs to fly high.. so they dont crash on a 3-4 level building...
So those missiles will be seen even before they enter in Syria.. So NATO cruise missiles don't have anything to bypass
Russia airdefenses other than launching them in very big numbers ,(wait what they did) and hope that Syria don't have enough missiles to intercept all of them.. Only the biggest idiots will believe NATO story ,that "they did not intended"
to destroy Syria military bases.. (when this is exactly what Trump did last year in Homs) than launched 50+ missiles
and the base was running few hour later..     So you claim Russia have no evidence of intercepting any missile...
so the evidence is the bases operating withing hours and no runways damaged..  and this was last year..attack.
This year we are supposed to believe that NATO did not intended to Hit the same military airport..they ALREADY FAILED to destroy last year..    and now NATO claims not intended to hit Syria airbases ..   and that
NATO dropped 76 missiles against an empty building ,that was NOT operating and was hit by Terrorist artillery
years ago.

Intercepting A missile designed in the 80s is not anything to brag about.. the hard reality is that NATO is an outdated
military , that is very good propaganda but not so good in performance.. and its a force only designed to fight
third world nations but again and again proven outdated military in real combat against capable enemies...

So show us the proof that NATO military attacks in Syria was a success ... the research center hit ,was already hit
by previous years.. by terrorist artillery and by Israel airforce too.. So NATO bombed an abandoned facility that
was empty and was already destroyed partially by the terrorist ,years before.. so NATO bombed a building in an area
with not many defenses ,since there was nothing of strategic value for them to defend there. on top that the building
was already abandoned ,had nothing since was already destroyed ,so they hit an already destroyed civlian building..in a civilian zone not heavily defended by Syria airdefenses...    

So history repeats itself.. Just like nobody told serbians.. American F-117 was "Stealth" ,and could not be
intercepted.. now we have the same Bullshit again. this time with NATO cruise missiles... Omg so low they fly
they kill ants..

Cruise missiles can only fly low on the sea , and on totally Flat desert zones.. Unfortunately for you
Pantsirs can intercept any object  flying 5 meters above ground.. so not even in the sea or in a flat desert ,
those outdated french and US airforce missiles will have a chance to evade a pantsir air defense system.. in an
even fight.. You will need to launch lots and lots of them to overwhelm defenses ,specially for Syria that don't have
deep layers of air defense to counter perfectly mass scale attacks for its geographical limitations. But this is not a technology limitation but geographic one.. SO for NATO to compensate their abysmal performance of their missiles
will need to use many hundreds next time... 200 -300..


according to some social media read that Lavrov told will be showing evidence of all the 71 intercepted missiles of US,UK and France .So my question is .. what will you do when Russia shows many intercepted missiles evidence ? will you apologize to everyone and just go back to your cave? and stop giving us your opinions on anything ,since you are wrong on everything.

The same was told About IRAN capture of BOEING most advanced "stealth" drone.. Oh nooo the trolls claimed,that can't be true.. Since NATO is too POWERFUL.. for IRAN... and Obama denied it.. until then IRAN shows a video
with US more advanced stealth drone , with very little damages..

Reality for the trolls will always be hard to accept.. they have been brainwashed morons all their lives ,by western
propaganda and when face reality they will always be in denial.. takes time but eventually they will accept reality.

kvs wrote:You need to give more context in your posts.

If I take it as critical of my post, then I say BS.   My logic is based on physics and not legalism.   Frankly, the legal system is a stupid joke where
judges are incompetent in a lot of cases on which they rule on.   One such judge is from Canada.   During and after the gang rape of Serbia by
NATO in 1999, she was pimping the notion that anonymous "witness" testimony is all that counts.   One does not need physical evidence.   For her
"let's go back to medieval times" rubbish she was rewarded with an appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada.   Anyone with a functional brain
would realize that during wars and in a lot of other circumstances, "witness" testimony is worth jack since it is nothing more than tribal partisanship.    The only evidence that is not biased is physical evidence.    The Canadian mass media even had interviews with Albanians admitting that they lied
for the cause.

So these US generals and yaps can claim whatever they want.   The only truth is the one on the ground in the form of dead bodies and rubble.

Perhaps my response to Vann with respects to PR would be more contextual.

We know Syria's current Russian systems and a number of modernized Legacy systems are more than capable of handling some slow as F missiles.
Problem is, there's no proof coming out, and without it there is no case for the Russian systems on the PR front, while the U.S can simply point towards the damage they had inflicted as well as the previous 2017 Shayrat strikes, and many will conclude that the Russians are lying here too.

In short, at least the U.S has satellite footage confirming impact, while Russia has nothing.

Wonder why they never mentioned the venerable S-75 (SA-2) in the aftermath of the 14th april strike...it should be around in substantial numbers. Wasn't it part of that upgrade package like the other Soviet-built legacy SAMs or can it be considered as phased-out of service?

The S-75 was designed to shoot down high flying bombers and would not be suitable for shooting down cruise missiles... of course they used S-200s which are not suitable either... perhaps they just wanted to get rid of stocks of the S-200...

heck the Pantsirs fired meager 25 missiles and they operate quite a number (40 or so...that's a number to be reckoned with for a small country).

Indeed, the command guided Pantsir missile is relatively cheap and simple and can be produced in large numbers, yet is rather potent and accurate... they could have launched 25 missiles from three launch platforms so even if it was being fired from one battery of 6 vehicles that means there would still 35 missiles ready to fire on 4 vehicles.

In practise they were likely spread out over several batteries with large numbers of ready to fire missiles still available...

So what has to be done yet by Russia and Syria to create a full-fledged integrated multi-layered air-defense network? Adding a few S-300 batteries and more Buk-M2E and Pantsir-S1 of course but whats with the abundant AAA and ManPADs?

The main problem of air defence is what do you want to protect... considering they will have AD around air bases and the capital and Tartus extra systems around important command and communications hubs and HQs would also be important.

Actually integrating the air force into that air defence network would also be an important step with large long range radar with S-300 batteries and airborne radar like A-50U would seriously add performance capability... not to mention the ability to call in interceptors to also assist in tracking threats and targets.

Russia even have manpads [Verba]
that can are advertised as able to shutdown Cruise missiles..

Igla-S has a proximity fuse too so it can be used against small targets like cruise missiles too....

Just because pantsir and buk were designed with the intent to deal with cruise missiles doesn’t mean that in practice they actually will. Same with AEGIS or CWIS from the American side as for as intercepting ASHMs.

Do a search regarding Pantsir and you will see videos of the system shooting down targets over and over again...

The Buk we are talking about is the SA-17 version, not the older SA-11 model.

In short, at least the U.S has satellite footage confirming impact, while Russia has nothing.

They lie. What reason do you have to believe them?

Cruise missiles fly really low. You have to have radars in the right locations and even than operators only have a few seconds to react before a firing solution is no longer available due to curvature of the earth/terrain.

They had an A-50U in the air and S-400 and S-300V4 radars detecting incoming missile threats.

There was plenty of warning for these subsonic missiles.

A few seconds because of the curvature of the earth?

Please.

Which is why a successful land based only solution to a cruise missile attack doesn’t seem realistic.

Yet, they shot down 71 out of 103 missiles... go figure...

I guess AEGIS must be crap then... how could it possibly defend against missiles moving three times faster than these weapons?

USSR was extremely vulnerable to cruise missiles before MIG 31 because Soviet Airborne radar was shit and couldn’t differentiate between CM and ground clutter.

Funny you say that because the US and NATO countries still are extremely vulnerable to cruise missile attack...

You need to have awacs flying. Russia only has like what 1 A50 in Syria?

They had two and at least one was airborne managing the defence.

When America strikes Russia typically hunkers down and hides in their bases.

I doubt the A50 was even airborne. Too much to risk.

Genius... the US is firing cruise missiles against targets in Syria and you think the safest place for Russian A-50 aircraft is on the ground?

This situation is like a Prosecutor presenting seemingly solid evidence from Satellites to the Jury and the Defense making little effort to defend his client and does nothing but present circumstantial claims.

You seem to be confusing who is on trial here... just because the defendant identifies himself as judge jury and executioner, does not abrogate his guilt in this war crime... even if it was ineffective.

No you don't need awacs, as long as you know the trajectories and the expected time of the operation. Command and control is NATO's major Achilles heel.

You probably don't need AWACS but it makes it all a hell of a lot easier if you do use it.

AlfaT8 wrote:

kvs wrote:You need to give more context in your posts.

If I take it as critical of my post, then I say BS.   My logic is based on physics and not legalism.   Frankly, the legal system is a stupid joke where
judges are incompetent in a lot of cases on which they rule on.   One such judge is from Canada.   During and after the gang rape of Serbia by
NATO in 1999, she was pimping the notion that anonymous "witness" testimony is all that counts.   One does not need physical evidence.   For her
"let's go back to medieval times" rubbish she was rewarded with an appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada.   Anyone with a functional brain
would realize that during wars and in a lot of other circumstances, "witness" testimony is worth jack since it is nothing more than tribal partisanship.    The only evidence that is not biased is physical evidence.    The Canadian mass media even had interviews with Albanians admitting that they lied
for the cause.

So these US generals and yaps can claim whatever they want.   The only truth is the one on the ground in the form of dead bodies and rubble.

Perhaps my response to Vann with respects to PR would be more contextual.

We know Syria's current Russian systems and a number of modernized Legacy systems are more than capable of handling some slow as F missiles.
Problem is, there's no proof coming out, and without it there is no case for the Russian systems on the PR front, while the U.S can simply point towards the damage they had inflicted as well as the previous 2017 Shayrat strikes, and many will conclude that the Russians are lying here too.

In short, at least the U.S has satellite footage confirming impact, while Russia has nothing.

You are not some arbiter of the truth.   Nobody owes you proof.   The Pentagon knows that 70% of the NATO missiles failed to reach their targets
and that is all that Russia cares about.    Any effort by Russia and Syria to play your stupid proof game will be instantly shot down by NATO propagandists
as "fake" and "staged".   You have no process to suggest even what would impartially validate "evidence".   Some video of pieces of metal or
"radar" data means nothing.  

Anyone on this board who is claiming the Pentagon BS is credible, is certifiable.   None of their cruise missiles are maneuverable or fast.   Once they
are tagged they are done.   To claim that the ludicrous 73 missiles on three buildings requires proof to counteract the Pentagon claim is insane.  
BTW, you have no idea what circumstantial evidence is.   There is zero ambiguity in the fact that 73 x 1000 = 73000 pounds of high explosive
detonated in the confined area of these three buildings would not leave anything standing.   If you think that it is plausible that any concrete of
the thickness shown in the photos can survive this much explosive force you need to go back to school.

Also, all you "proof" seekers, why don't you prove first that the USA has ever launched 73 missiles at non-hardened targets before.

PS. The Pentagon has shown zero evidence proving their claims of only 3 targets with 73 missiles on one of them.
Stop spreading BS straw men and demanding others prove what amounts to obvious facts.

kvs wrote:You are not some arbiter of the truth.   Nobody owes you proof.   The Pentagon knows that 70% of the NATO missiles failed to reach their targets
and that is all that Russia cares about.    Any effort by Russia and Syria to play your stupid proof game will be instantly shot down by NATO propagandists
as "fake" and "staged".   You have no process to suggest even what would impartially validate "evidence".   Some video of pieces of metal or
"radar" data means nothing.  

Anyone on this board who is claiming the Pentagon BS is credible, is certifiable.   None of their cruise missiles are maneuverable or fast.   Once they
are tagged they are done.   To claim that the ludicrous 73 missiles on three buildings requires proof to counteract the Pentagon claim is insane.  
BTW, you have no idea what circumstantial evidence is.   There is zero ambiguity in the fact that 73 x 1000 = 73000 pounds of high explosive
detonated in the confined area of these three buildings would not leave anything standing.   If you think that it is plausible that any concrete of
the thickness shown in the photos can survive this much explosive force you need to go back to school.

Also, all you "proof" seekers, why don't you prove first that the USA has ever launched 73 missiles at non-hardened targets before.

PS. The Pentagon has shown zero evidence proving their claims of only 3 targets with 73 missiles on one of them.
Stop spreading BS straw men and demanding others prove what amounts to obvious facts.

"arbiter of the truth"???..... dude your taking this way to personal.

This isn't even really about what actually happened, this about the people trying to figure out what going on, and on one side we have footage of impact and on the other side you nothing but claims, if one wishes to convince people, then one needs to present a certain level of evidence, the U.S has presented their footage, while Russia only has claims, what is going to convince people more?

On top of that we have the 2017 bombing, according to the footage, it shows more destruction then Russian claims, further discrediting the Russian side.
People don't know much about explosive charges, they simply see what remains.

This is why """PR""" wise, this is a U.S victory.

GarryB wrote:

This situation is like a Prosecutor presenting seemingly solid evidence from Satellites to the Jury and the Defense making little effort to defend his client and does nothing but present circumstantial claims.

You seem to be confusing who is on trial here... just because the defendant identifies himself as judge jury and executioner, does not abrogate his guilt in this war crime... even if it was ineffective.

What???

No, the Jury is the public, the prosecutor is the States, and the Defense is the Russians/Syrians, the judge is no one really.

It's about what's gonna convince the Jury, and they normally go with the seemingly hard evidence.

WikiLeaks
‏Verified account @wikileaks
Apr 20

US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert yesterday: we "are very grateful for all the work the White Helmets continue to do.. on behalf of the US government and coalition forces.. I just exchanged emails with them the other day... peoples bills are still being paid..'


Following that I couldn't resist this one

Chapter OPCW: The substance that was poisoned by the Violins could be produced in any country!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhGLJ82rAFs

AlfaT8 wrote:

kvs wrote:You are not some arbiter of the truth.   Nobody owes you proof.   The Pentagon knows that 70% of the NATO missiles failed to reach their targets
and that is all that Russia cares about.    Any effort by Russia and Syria to play your stupid proof game will be instantly shot down by NATO propagandists
as "fake" and "staged".   You have no process to suggest even what would impartially validate "evidence".   Some video of pieces of metal or
"radar" data means nothing.  

Anyone on this board who is claiming the Pentagon BS is credible, is certifiable.   None of their cruise missiles are maneuverable or fast.   Once they
are tagged they are done.   To claim that the ludicrous 73 missiles on three buildings requires proof to counteract the Pentagon claim is insane.  
BTW, you have no idea what circumstantial evidence is.   There is zero ambiguity in the fact that 73 x 1000 = 73000 pounds of high explosive
detonated in the confined area of these three buildings would not leave anything standing.   If you think that it is plausible that any concrete of
the thickness shown in the photos can survive this much explosive force you need to go back to school.

Also, all you "proof" seekers, why don't you prove first that the USA has ever launched 73 missiles at non-hardened targets before.

PS.  The Pentagon has shown zero evidence proving their claims of only 3 targets with 73 missiles on one of them.
Stop spreading BS straw men and demanding others prove what amounts to obvious facts.

"arbiter of the truth"???..... dude your taking this way to personal.

This isn't even really about what actually happened, this about the people trying to figure out what going on, and on one side we have footage of impact and on the other side you nothing but claims, if one wishes to convince people, then one needs to present a certain level of  evidence, the U.S has presented their footage, while Russia only has claims, what is going to convince people more?

On top of that we have the 2017 bombing, according to the footage, it shows more destruction then Russian claims, further discrediting the Russian side.
People don't know much about explosive charges, they simply see what remains.

This is why """PR""" wise, this is a U.S victory.

2017 bombing? Of Shayrat? Shayrat by the words of the US itself was largely a symbolic act, the Airbase was reusable the very same afternoon. They double/tripple tapped much of the hangars taking out 9 planes, 6 of which were derelict. They hit 12 radar positions, missed 6 but took out the UXO area that is true.

In all 44 of 59 TLAM's were effective, 8 were off mark, 7 were redundant.

Now one thing, has anyone asked anything about those TLAM's? Seriously. No, albeit there was a gross miscue between what was claimed and what was achieved.

Back on April 2018, I already gave a beginning of answer, there it is very possible there was an attempt to hit more targets, simply based on what we can see, and what we can assess. As I said, we know that the Shishar target was probably triple covered because the results of the Shayrat strike. They were planning to fire 30 missiles for targets that needed 10. And they fired 29. About 10 were off mark, duds or redundant. Probably 3 were intercepted, because of the typical spread pattern. That leaves 17 shots for roughly 4 targets in Shinshar.

As easy as that.

PR wise, everyone has stopped talking about this, because none of the sides wants a proper BDA. Since both are BSing.

Curious layout.

Samir
‏ @obretix
10h10 hours ago

new military base under construction between Tell Baydar and Tell Tamr including an airstrip of about 1.5km http://wikimapia.org/#lat=36.706274&lon=40.512257&z=13&m=b …

It is on a plateau, and it will probably only serve V-22's and other rotorcraft.

They had to find a decent stretch over there.

AlfaT8 wrote:On top of that we have the 2017 bombing, according to the footage, it shows more destruction then Russian claims, further discrediting the Russian side.

What ? Russian MoD diffused UAV video of the AB just few dozen of minutes after the airstike where is possible to see very clearly even the thermal track of each of the exact 23 TLAM hits and also those generated, instead, by combustion of material present on the TARMAC (including that related to the famous photo of the two pile of material that had taken fire just outside an hit hangar that western PR operative in theirs desperate search for some prof of more missile hit attempted to sell as two TLAM hit !!!   ).

We are still in wait from those western PR professionals the satellite pics of all the targets hit OVER the exactly 23 hits accountable in the video diffused by the Federation's MoD, in particular the ammunition storages and western fuel storage   (as a personal note i can add,moreover, that operatives at MoD was perfectly aware of the precise number of 23 TLAM that would have reach ther area of Al Shayrat AB much before them was even only in the related sector; it was in facts the entire salvo delivered by the USS Porter that followed the soutern flight route.....).

About the last attack ,exactly as for the 2017 attack, all western professionals are perfectly aware of the authenticate "débâcle" of the 14 April attack, maybe even of historical importance for future CONOP od subsonic cruise missiles.

About the search for the remains of the downed cruise missiles anyone know that the immense efforts for find some of the missiles remains dispersed in area of dozen of km from each defended site (a Бук-М2Э battery commander have highlighted as all the inbound cruise missiles was destroyed at ranges varying from 26 km to 12 km from the defended AB) would encounter the counter argument by enemy PR operatives that would merely declare that those was the reamin of missiles that had reach theirs targets ,maybe also purposely transported to the area.

This is the main reason for which ,if Israel Iron Dome intercept several missiles or rockets shot from Gaza all what you see is usually at maximum an improvised video of the interception phase (not that any local belligerent would ever get the shameless face to declare that the all theirs rockets was in reality all aimed to the very few hit achieved, like done by some self-embarrassing western brass-hats ) the same is true for all US interceptions both in Afghanistan and Iraq and also for all the interceptions of the latest years by part of Federation's Панцирь-С.

In the meantime IAF have stopped since a very long time to enter in Syrian air space limiting to shot for Lebanese air space few targets and only after having collected, in particular using local HUMINT (in particular rebel terrorist groups present in those area)  important informations on the eventual presence of some of the few advanced SAM capable to reliably engage theirs stand-off missiles; the only time an IAF F-16 and an  F-15 attempted to actually enter the Syrian air space a very bad end followed.......that say something on the subject.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

kvs wrote:You are not some arbiter of the truth.   Nobody owes you proof.   The Pentagon knows that 70% of the NATO missiles failed to reach their targets
and that is all that Russia cares about.    Any effort by Russia and Syria to play your stupid proof game will be instantly shot down by NATO propagandists
as "fake" and "staged".   You have no process to suggest even what would impartially validate "evidence".   Some video of pieces of metal or
"radar" data means nothing.  

Anyone on this board who is claiming the Pentagon BS is credible, is certifiable.   None of their cruise missiles are maneuverable or fast.   Once they
are tagged they are done.   To claim that the ludicrous 73 missiles on three buildings requires proof to counteract the Pentagon claim is insane.  
BTW, you have no idea what circumstantial evidence is.   There is zero ambiguity in the fact that 73 x 1000 = 73000 pounds of high explosive
detonated in the confined area of these three buildings would not leave anything standing.   If you think that it is plausible that any concrete of
the thickness shown in the photos can survive this much explosive force you need to go back to school.

Also, all you "proof" seekers, why don't you prove first that the USA has ever launched 73 missiles at non-hardened targets before.

PS.  The Pentagon has shown zero evidence proving their claims of only 3 targets with 73 missiles on one of them.
Stop spreading BS straw men and demanding others prove what amounts to obvious facts.

"arbiter of the truth"???..... dude your taking this way to personal.

This isn't even really about what actually happened, this about the people trying to figure out what going on, and on one side we have footage of impact and on the other side you nothing but claims, if one wishes to convince people, then one needs to present a certain level of  evidence, the U.S has presented their footage, while Russia only has claims, what is going to convince people more?

On top of that we have the 2017 bombing, according to the footage, it shows more destruction then Russian claims, further discrediting the Russian side.
People don't know much about explosive charges, they simply see what remains.

This is why """PR""" wise, this is a U.S victory.

2017 bombing? Of Shayrat? Shayrat by the words of the US itself was largely a symbolic act, the Airbase was reusable the very same afternoon. They double/tripple tapped much of the hangars taking out 9 planes, 6 of which were derelict. They hit 12 radar positions, missed 6 but took out the UXO area that is true.

In all 44 of 59 TLAM's were effective, 8 were off mark, 7 were redundant.

Now one thing, has anyone asked anything about those TLAM's? Seriously. No, albeit there was a gross miscue between what was claimed and what was achieved.

Back on April 2018, I already gave a beginning of answer, there it is very possible there was an attempt to hit more targets, simply based on what we can see, and what we can assess. As I said, we know that the Shishar target was probably triple covered because the results of the Shayrat strike. They were planning to fire 30 missiles for targets that needed 10. And they fired 29. About 10 were off mark, duds or redundant. Probably 3 were intercepted, because of the typical spread pattern. That leaves 17 shots for roughly 4 targets in Shinshar.

As easy as that.

PR wise, everyone has stopped talking about this, because none of the sides wants a proper BDA. Since both are BSing.

BSing is what you are doing. The worst failure rate of the Tomahawk was 15% and that was from the 1999 Kosovo operation in
a terrain with a lot more relief than Syria. You claim it is 34.5% in 2018 without a shred of anything to back it up. I am quite sure
that in the real world the US improved the failure rate to under 10%, especially in Syria where it is probably under 5%. The rest of
your guessing is neither here nor there. Sending 73 cruise missiles at a cluster of three civilian university buildings is record breaking
overkill, or more plausibly pure BS from the self-anointed guiding lights of humanity.

The notion that Russia has not evolved the capacity to neutralize the Tomahawk is patent absurdity. To repeat, since it is clearly
not penetrating the skulls of intellectual giants here, these cruise missiles are subsonic and non-maneuverable. Russia can track
these dinosaurs from orbit. Yet people here are still going on about how Syrian 1950s radars would never detect them. Give
it a rest.