HOW TRUMP UNLEASHED MEDITERRANEAN ARSENAL ON ASSAD

[randomradio]

Why No Russian or Syrian Radars able to detect the in-coming Cruise Missiles ?
@Quwa @Blue Marlin @gambit @vostok ?

Try this...

http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

More likely they can detect the launch and detect the flight path but the time is too short to do anything about it.

Just because I see something does not mean I can shoot them down before the missile has impacted on its target.

Intercepting a Missile is like intercepting an aircraft, while the missile is already in motion, for you have to intercept it, you need to go from Zero (At ground state) to the state of the incoming missile, that takes time, and when you have to intercept a missile travelling at 550 mph, at a distant of only 100-150 mile, a brief calculation will see you have about 10-15 minutes from launch to target to make the intercept.

Coupling with you don't really know where the missile is coming from until it launches, the reaction time plus interception time would make it almost impossible to intercept a missile.

The actual answer is the Russians did not activate the S-300/400 batteries in order to prevent escalation. NATO and the Russians had entered into an agreement that the SAMs will be used against NATO only if Russian targets were attacked. Syrian targets were fair game.

Plus the Americans had already informed the Russians that the targets were Syrian.

It was all politics, not technical.

idiots think the s400 is the god of all missiles systems, thing is it depends on the job. objects 10000ft+ would be seen on the s400's radar and a salvo of missiles will be launched to intercept the hostile missile/object. missile systems such as morpheus/morfey, tor and panstir-s1. these are short range missiles which are designed to engage low altitude aircraft and missiles. they have a short range about 25km max which is because that how far the horizon goes(depending on the height

cruise missiles fly at about 1000ft and as low as 30ft when near it target so the s400 engaging it is out of the question.

the s400 is always accompanied by short range missiles as self defence thats it. now was the s400 or the any standalone short range missile at the base that was attacked? most likely no. hence the attack

The S-400 has two missiles which are dedicated to bring down low flying aircraft and terrain hugging cruise missiles.

The smaller batteries are present as a counter to saturation attacks.

so there is some thing fishy here, if S-400, S-300 was unable to detect or counter in a short period of time, then Pakistani Cruise missile will be able to strike deep inside India with out giving them enough time to counter them.

i am new here need experts advice on this.

That argument isn't correct. The Russians did not activate their defences.

Plus, India has a lot more surveillance capabilities and aircraft than the Russians have in Syria.

So if I input 100 meters for cruise missile altitude and 10 meters for radar elevation, the best radar distance is 54 km. Not enough detection distance to do any good.

You mean to say CMD on ships are useless?

 

[Penguin]

If there were S400 placed there and still if Tomahawks have managed to hit all the targets than it's big worry for India also us that Air Defence systems are pretty much useless against good cruise missiles

S-400 is at Latakia, which is 140km from Homs.

 

[randomradio]

S-400 is at Latakia, which is 140km from Homs.

Plus the terrain between Latakia and Homs is hilly.

There is a S-300 battery at Tartus. But even Tartus is 80Km away, well out of range of the S-300's CMD capabilities, and separated by hills.

But we don't know what path the missiles took in the first place.

 

[Penguin]

Plus the terrain between Latakia and Homs is hilly.

There is a S-300 battery at Tartus. But even Tartus is 80Km away, well out of range of the S-300's CMD capabilities, and separated by hills.

But we don't know what path the missiles took in the first place.

There may also still be S-300 equipped navy ships out along the coast off the ports of Tartus and/or Latakia.

The above graphic is centered on Tartus. Homs is just abolut 76 km from Tartus. The 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from 2 US destroyers some 240km away (from the target) in the Mediterranean Sea.

There is roughly 240-75=165km of flight path that could have been over the sea, where there is no place to hide but to go low. Unless you choose to fire from the the Northern edge of the Israeli coast and have your missiles fly overland (over Lebanon and/or Syria to Homs) and approach Homs from the South-East

 

[randomradio]

There may also still be S-300 equipped navy ships out along the coast.

Plus the Su-30 and 35s. They will most likely have scrambled some jets.

 

[Penguin]

You're welcome.

And I bid you all good luck in trying to ID the system. I've given my take (not Pantsir, most probably an Iranian modified missile carrier), but will now back out of the discussion and let the good people of PDF do some detective work.

There can well have been such missile launchers (artillery rockets, ballistic missiles) on the airbase, aking advantage of the cover of aircraft shelters.

 

[jhungary]

The actual answer is the Russians did not activate the S-300/400 batteries in order to prevent escalation. NATO and the Russians had entered into an agreement that the SAMs will be used against NATO only if Russian targets were attacked. Syrian targets were fair game.

Plus the Americans had already informed the Russians that the targets were Syrian.

It was all politics, not technical.



The S-400 has two missiles which are dedicated to bring down low flying aircraft and terrain hugging cruise missiles.

The smaller batteries are present as a counter to saturation attacks.



That argument isn't correct. The Russians did not activate their defences.

Plus, India has a lot more surveillance capabilities and aircraft than the Russians have in Syria.



You mean to say CMD on ships are useless?

Don't really care if you think did they activate the S400, in practical sense, they cannot intercept because of the physical limitation. Unless you are claiming Russia Radar on S-400 operation out of this world's physics, it cannot happen even if they turn on the radar.

 

[BATMAN]

Can some military specialist highlight the damage done?
What I see a is.. 2 runways in perfect order!
I doubt US missiles were inaccurate in construction... what ever the reason would be, ground result is Assad still have airfield in operational order.
What's going on and why any of commentator failed to see this obvious sighting?

This seems to be an empty hanger, seems Assad had vacated airbase before attack.
Was he informed in advance? or was he shrewd enough to guess what's coming?

After looking at above two pictures which I quoted... this man below looks to me a complete JackAxx

 

[randomradio]

Don't really care if you think did they activate the S400, in practical sense, they cannot intercept because of the physical limitation. Unless you are claiming Russia Radar on S-400 operation out of this world's physics, it cannot happen even if they turn on the radar.

Are you referring to this part of your statement?
Intercepting a Missile is like intercepting an aircraft, while the missile is already in motion, for you have to intercept it, you need to go from Zero (At ground state) to the state of the incoming missile, that takes time, and when you have to intercept a missile travelling at 550 mph, at a distant of only 100-150 mile, a brief calculation will see you have about 10-15 minutes from launch to target to make the intercept.

Are you saying a missile cannot be intercepted if it is fired from less than 150 miles away and the transit time is only <15 min?

Can you please clarify if the SAM is the target or are you talking about a particularly unique scenario?

The above graphic is centered on Tartus. Homs is just abolut 76 km from Tartus. The 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from 2 US destroyers some 240km away (from the target) in the Mediterranean Sea.

There is roughly 240-75=165km of flight path that could have been over the sea, where there is no place to hide but to go low. Unless you choose to fire from the the Northern edge of the Israeli coast and have your missiles fly overland (over Lebanon and/or Syria to Homs) and approach Homs from the South-East

Syria doesn't have sophisticated enough CMD that can track and destroy terrain hugging missiles. They may want to invest in some now.

 

[HeinzG]

The airfield remains operational is the biggest evidence...........
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/09/syrian-governor-confirms-air-base-operating-again.html

But US targeted the airfield facilities and hangers instead of the actual airfield. Isn't it? AFAIK air operations from the airport has dropped considerably according to some reports.

Finally, there is only one way to gauge the effectiveness of the missile strike on Shayrat—the number of sorties the Syrian air force is launching from the base compared to before.

Monitoring with help of first-hand sources, who provided information of condition of anonymity, and social media— including the Sentry Syria service—leaves no doubts as to the effectiveness of the U.S. strike. In the days before the missile strike, the Syrian air force conducted between 10 and 20 take-offs by MiG-23s and Su-22s from Shayrat every day.

Since the Tomahawks wrecked Shayrat, this number dropped to between three and six take-offs by Su-22s only. Even four days since the attack, not one of the MiG-23s or L-39s formerly based at Shayrat has been seen again.

https://warisboring.com/flights-from-syrian-base-fell-sharply-after-u-s-strike/

 

[jhungary]

Are you referring to this part of your statement?
Intercepting a Missile is like intercepting an aircraft, while the missile is already in motion, for you have to intercept it, you need to go from Zero (At ground state) to the state of the incoming missile, that takes time, and when you have to intercept a missile travelling at 550 mph, at a distant of only 100-150 mile, a brief calculation will see you have about 10-15 minutes from launch to target to make the intercept.

Are you saying a missile cannot be intercepted if it is fired from less than 150 miles away and the transit time is only <15 min?

Can you please clarify if the SAM is the target or are you talking about a particularly unique scenario?



Syria doesn't have sophisticated enough CMD that can track and destroy terrain hugging missiles. They may want to invest in some now.

The command and communication alone would require more than 10 minutes for a missile to launch a missile The missile is launched as a salvo, which mean 59 missile is launched at once, from the time the local commander have to track a missile launch to telling his subordinate that a missile is launched and to prepare an intercept solution would have to last for 5 to 10 minutes and verify this is an actual launch. Then you will need to activate the missile battery. And then finally the missile fired to intercept the incoming tomahawk.

Missile needs priming, especially when you were attacked out of the blue, you don't just fire your missile when you see someone else firing at yours. By the way, 150 mile is pretty generous, the curvature of the earth would mean S400 will only be able to see the missile at around 70 mile when they are near the radar. It was shown with the calculation above.

 

[randomradio]

The command and communication alone would require more than 10 minutes for a missile to launch a missile The missile is launched as a salvo, which mean 59 missile is launched at once, from the time the local commander have to track a missile launch to telling his subordinate that a missile is launched and to prepare an intercept solution would have to last for 5 to 10 minutes and verify this is an actual launch. Then you will need to activate the missile battery. And then finally the missile fired to intercept the incoming tomahawk.

Missile needs priming, especially when you were attacked out of the blue, you don't just fire your missile when you see someone else firing at yours. By the way, 150 mile is pretty generous, the curvature of the earth would mean S400 will only be able to see the missile at around 70 mile when they are near the radar. It was shown with the calculation above.

Okay, I wanted to figure out whether you were talking about the radar horizon or the reaction time of the system.

When it comes to radar horizon, you have overestimated the S-400's capabilities. Simple physics says a truck mounted radar won't have more than 30Km detection against a terrain hugging missile. CMD almost always happens at very low ranges.

As for reaction time, you have completely underestimated the S-400's capabilities. Since interception happens at low ranges, the reaction time of the system has to be extremely fast. The S-400's reaction time is just 10 seconds. It means the entire process from detection to firing an interceptor is just 10 seconds. And there is no man in the loop, it is fully automated.

http://www.deagel.com/Artillery-Systems/S-400_a000371001.aspx
Reaction Time: 10 second

Note that I am talking about very small ranges of less than 30Km, that's after surprise is achieved. At these distances, a Tomahawk will give you only 1 min 40 secs to react, a Brahmos will give you 30 secs and Zircon will give you 15 seconds.

 

[jhungary]

Okay, I wanted to figure out whether you were talking about the radar horizon or the reaction time of the system.

When it comes to radar horizon, you have overestimated the S-400's capabilities. Simple physics says a truck mounted radar won't have more than 30Km detection against a terrain hugging missile. CMD almost always happens at very low ranges.

As for reaction time, you have completely underestimated the S-400's capabilities. Since interception happens at low ranges, the reaction time of the system has to be extremely fast. The S-400's reaction time is just 10 seconds. It means the entire process from detection to firing an interceptor is just 10 seconds. And there is no man in the loop, it is fully automated.

http://www.deagel.com/Artillery-Systems/S-400_a000371001.aspx
Reaction Time: 10 second

Note that I am talking about very small ranges of less than 30Km, that's after surprise is achieved. At these distances, a Tomahawk will give you only 1 min 40 secs to react, a Brahmos will give you 30 secs and Zircon will give you 15 seconds.

I am not talking about the reaction time of a missile. Rather the procedure to react to an attacks.

The actual interception is to be very close to this TV depiction

The above is a segment of video from the Military TV show "The Last Ship" it was a fictional account, but mostly correct depiction of how BMD intercept Ballistic Missile.

The problem coming from the launch (sudden launch) and the missile egress state, from the time of Ballistic Missile Launch, the missle going up and outward, where the ground intercept is at zero state, (In the movie case, it take 1 minute 24 to react to a missile, without verifying the missile location, destination and direct, all of which important to calculate an intercepting course.) That is before the BMD missile have to chase down the Ballistic missile.

 

[randomradio]

I am not talking about the reaction time of a missile. Rather the procedure to react to an attacks.

The actual interception is to be very close to this TV depiction

The above is a segment of video from the Military TV show "The Last Ship" it was a fictional account, but mostly correct depiction of how BMD intercept Ballistic Missile.

The problem coming from the launch (sudden launch) and the missile egress state, from the time of Ballistic Missile Launch, the missle going up and outward, where the ground intercept is at zero state, (In the movie case, it take 1 minute 24 to react to a missile, without verifying the missile location, destination and direct, all of which important to calculate an intercepting course.) That is before the BMD missile have to chase down the Ballistic missile.

CMD is a terminal defence system. It can only protect your own location and a little bit around you. And it can be fully automated, depending on the target. Tomahawk will give you enough time to launch interceptors in waves, while also having a man in the loop, Brahmos and Zircon won't. That's why CMDs are generally fully automatic.

BMD is entirely different and requires a lengthy process with a man in the loop, like in the video. But the technology for what they attempted to do in the video doesn't exist yet. And when such a tech does come into existence, then BMs will become obsolete. So it's pointless to talk about.

 

[Penguin]

Can some military specialist highlight the damage done?
What I see a is.. 2 runways in perfect order!
I doubt US missiles were inaccurate in construction... what ever the reason would be, ground result is Assad still have airfield in operational order.
What's going on and why any of commentator failed to see this obvious sighting?

The American missiles targeted Syrian fighter jets “and other infrastructure” at the base, according to a senior military official who spoke to The New York Times. The Washington Post reports that the missiles zeroed in on “air defenses, aircraft, hangars, and fuel.” But Russian assets, stationed at al-Shayrat since at least late 2015, were reportedly avoided in the strike. The base was to be “used by Russian warplanes in operations around the [ISIS]-held city of Palmyra.” and just last month, Russia sent a handful of its new attack helicopters there.
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna.../what-is-al-shayrat-military-airfield/522249/

Runways weren't targeted.

This seems to be an empty hanger, seems Assad had vacated airbase before attack.
Was he informed in advance? or was he shrewd enough to guess what's coming?

After looking at above two pictures which I quoted... this man below looks to me a complete JackAxx

[/QUOTE]

The US airstrike on Syria's Shayrat airbase Friday destroyed about 20% of the Syrian government's operational aircraft, Secretary of Defense James Mattis claimed in a statement Monday.
"The Syrian government has lost the ability to refuel or rearm aircraft at Shayrat airfield and at this point, use of the runway is of idle military interest," Mattis said, describing the strike as a "measured response."
US officials originally said 58 of the 59 missiles fired Friday had "severely degraded or destroyed" their original target, including 20 planes which they said were taken out in the strike. On Friday, Russia's Defense Ministry said in a statement only 23 of the US missiles made it to the airbase, blowing up just six MiG-23 planes.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politics/syria-mattis-trump-strike-damage/

The release follows earlier comments issued by the U.S. military's Central Command spokesperson Colonel John Thomas, who said that more than 20 Syrian jets had been destroyed at Sharyat airfield, near the city of Homs, Agence France Presse reports. According to Thomas, the U.S. had tried to avoid hitting runways in order to convey that the military action was a reaction to the suspected chemical attack rather than indicative of future involvement in Syria's civil war.The Syrian military had reported significant damage but Russian defense said only six Syrian warplanes were destroyed, according to the BBC.
http://time.com/4734059/syria-missile-strike-warplanes-destoryed/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...strike-fuel-syria-civil-war-article-1.3029925

http://www.dw.com/en/us-missile-strike-on-syria-a-violation-of-international-law/a-38389950

See also http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/syria-air-strikes-dramatic-footage-shows-aftermath-of-missile-strike-a3510026.html

Above tail looks more like Su-22 than Mig-23 to me, which leads me to doubt the Russian claim only 6 Mig-23 were destroyed.

Polish AF Su-22

Another Su-22

Mig-23

Side by side

Mig-21 rear

https://sputniknews.com/world/201704071052417658-us-syria-russia-china/