What was accomplished in attacking Al Shayrat airbase?

I'm putting this in the military subforum because I have zero military knowledge myself (aside from whatever I learned reading Tom Clancy in high school) and want someone in the know to answer a question regarding the missile strike on Syria's airbase. I'm seeing multiple conflicting reports and viewpoints on the aftermath of the strike:

1)We completely annihilated that airbase's ability to repair and refuel jets, thus rendering it ineffective for future strikes.
2)No. A cafeteria, 6 already-broken planes, some fuel units, and a training room were destroyed. Planes are taking off from that airfield just fine and are currently still attacking civilians.
3)We didn't crater their runways because why bother? Runways are easy to repair.
4)What's the point in attacking the airfield if you can't even crater the runways, thus interrupting the takeoff of planes? As one twitter person said: "[FONT=&quot]I really wonder what the Navy folks launching those missiles thought about the targeting instructions they were given."

I'd like a consolidated tactical military perspective on the strike, and not a discussion on the "symbolic message" that may have been communicated. In fact, I'd like to avoid politics altogether for this topic. [/FONT]

Cardinal said:

I'm putting this in the military subforum because I have zero military knowledge myself (aside from whatever I learned reading Tom Clancy in high school) and want someone in the know to answer a question regarding the missile strike on Syria's airbase. I'm seeing multiple conflicting reports and viewpoints on the aftermath of the strike:

1)We completely annihilated that airbase's ability to repair and refuel jets, thus rendering it ineffective for future strikes.
2)No. A cafeteria, 6 already-broken planes, some fuel units, and a training room were destroyed. Planes are taking off from that airfield just fine and are currently still attacking civilians.
3)We didn't crater their runways because why bother? Runways are easy to repair.
4)What's the point in attacking the airfield if you can't even crater the runways, thus interrupting the takeoff of planes? As one twitter person said: "[FONT=&quot]I really wonder what the Navy folks launching those missiles thought about the targeting instructions they were given."

I'd like a consolidated tactical military perspective on the strike, and not a discussion on the "symbolic message" that may have been communicated. In fact, I'd like to avoid politics altogether for this topic. [/FONT]

Click to expand...

I dunno if it is possible to give a tactical answer, as the decision was most likely strategic. It was meant not to inflict real harm, but to show a willingness and capability to do so. Tactically, there is no battle with Syria we are involved in, so no tactics. In a real battle, with actual tactics, a single strike is not how things are done except to deny usage of the airfield for a period of time to allow our operations to be unmolested for that time. However, in such a situation, a completely different type of strike would have been done(cluster ammunition to crater the runway, denying its use for an admittedly short time. If the goal was to take out the airfield, or inflict significant damage, a single strike is not going to be used. You use cruise missiles to soften up and deny usage of the airfield while strike aircraft come in to attack the defenses, followed by larger strike aircraft the inflict massive damage(this is somewhat simplified and idealized, but roughly how it is done).

So basically, you ask the wrong question. The message was the goal, not destruction. When we do destruction, we do it up good. Our military is very very good at destroying things.

Cardinal said:

I'm putting this in the military subforum because I have zero military knowledge myself (aside from whatever I learned reading Tom Clancy in high school) and want someone in the know to answer a question regarding the missile strike on Syria's airbase. I'm seeing multiple conflicting reports and viewpoints on the aftermath of the strike:

1)We completely annihilated that airbase's ability to repair and refuel jets, thus rendering it ineffective for future strikes.
2)No. A cafeteria, 6 already-broken planes, some fuel units, and a training room were destroyed. Planes are taking off from that airfield just fine and are currently still attacking civilians.
3)We didn't crater their runways because why bother? Runways are easy to repair.
4)What's the point in attacking the airfield if you can't even crater the runways, thus interrupting the takeoff of planes? As one twitter person said: "[FONT="]I really wonder what the Navy folks launching those missiles thought about the targeting instructions they were given."

I'd like a consolidated tactical military perspective on the strike, and not a discussion on the "symbolic message" that may have been communicated. In fact, I'd like to avoid politics altogether for this topic. [/FONT]

Click to expand...

What was accomplished? This thread, and what it isn't about, that's what was accomplished. At about a mil each, 60 Tomahawks were a bargain.
Buy Raytheon stock. This could go on for awhile.

To send a message. Whether more will follow is the real question.

what was accomplished? tRump deflected attention away from that which concerns him; being found to be putin's parter in election crime

Redress said:

I dunno if it is possible to give a tactical answer, as the decision was most likely strategic. It was meant not to inflict real harm, but to show a willingness and capability to do so. Tactically, there is no battle with Syria we are involved in, so no tactics. In a real battle, with actual tactics, a single strike is not how things are done except to deny usage of the airfield for a period of time to allow our operations to be unmolested for that time. However, in such a situation, a completely different type of strike would have been done(cluster ammunition to crater the runway, denying its use for an admittedly short time. If the goal was to take out the airfield, or inflict significant damage, a single strike is not going to be used. You use cruise missiles to soften up and deny usage of the airfield while strike aircraft come in to attack the defenses, followed by larger strike aircraft the inflict massive damage(this is somewhat simplified and idealized, but roughly how it is done).

So basically, you ask the wrong question. The message was the goal, not destruction. When we do destruction, we do it up good. Our military is very very good at destroying things.

Click to expand...

That's exactly the kind of detailed and educational response I was looking for. Thanks.

I do have to wonder how effective the message can be when you specifically state that the attack is a "one-off."

Redress said:

I dunno if it is possible to give a tactical answer, as the decision was most likely strategic. It was meant not to inflict real harm, but to show a willingness and capability to do so. Tactically, there is no battle with Syria we are involved in, so no tactics. In a real battle, with actual tactics, a single strike is not how things are done except to deny usage of the airfield for a period of time to allow our operations to be unmolested for that time. However, in such a situation, a completely different type of strike would have been done(cluster ammunition to crater the runway, denying its use for an admittedly short time. If the goal was to take out the airfield, or inflict significant damage, a single strike is not going to be used. You use cruise missiles to soften up and deny usage of the airfield while strike aircraft come in to attack the defenses, followed by larger strike aircraft the inflict massive damage(this is somewhat simplified and idealized, but roughly how it is done).

So basically, you ask the wrong question. The message was the goal, not destruction. When we do destruction, we do it up good. Our military is very very good at destroying things.

Click to expand...

What an informative answer. TY.

MaggieD said:

What an informative answer. TY.

Click to expand...

Yeah, seriously.

justabubba said:

what was accomplished? tRump deflected attention away from that which concerns him; being found to be putin's parter in election crime

View attachment 67216126

Click to expand...

So then you don't think a thoughtful spanking was called for? You think we should have just waxed on indignant about nerve gas being used? You must be real popular right about now.

Cardinal said:

...

Click to expand...

Redress said:

... It was meant not to inflict real harm, but to show a willingness and capability to do so. ...

Click to expand...

This. This is what was done and why it was done, right there, in one sentence.

Redress said:

When we do destruction, we do it up good. Our military is very very good at destroying things.

Click to expand...

Another extremely poignant statement that's very helpful in understanding the topic of this thread, and why we need to look at this action differently than we would otherwise.

Our military is the best in the world at killing people and blowing things up, or as Redress said, "destroying things" which encompasses both. That was not what was done here.

As I said in another thread, this was what I called Very Loud Diplomacy. We gave the Russians a one hour notice and told them to let the Syrians know to move their people out as well. If this was a strike meant to accomplish a military objective rather than a diplomatic one, there would not have been a notice given, and there would have been dead people and burned out aircraft and buildings, as well as craters where massive warheads had impacted the runways and the surrounding support infrastructure.

Now, that's not to say that Trump or the US as a whole has a strategy to deal with Syria going forward. Because we don't, IMHO. We haven't had a strategy to deal with Syria since the Assad family took over - for decades.

The reason? Russia.

Russia uses Syria as their only warm water port that can't be put out of service by simply mining or otherwise closing the Bosphorus Straight, and the Russians have 7 military airfields that support the RuAF and Russian Army as a forward base of operations (since they don't have but one piece of crap aircraft carrier) to project their power in the Middle East. There's no way in hell that Russia will let that end.

Russia would turn Syria into the next North Georgia, or Crimea, or Eastern Ukraine, and annex the country into the Russian Federation before they let Assad fall to anyone that would potentially kick them out of Syria.

MaggieD said:

So then you don't think a thoughtful spanking was called for? You think we should have just waxed on indignant about nerve gas being used? You must be real popular right about now.

Click to expand...

Did a spanking happen and I missed it?

Redress said:

I dunno if it is possible to give a tactical answer, as the decision was most likely strategic. It was meant not to inflict real harm, but to show a willingness and capability to do so. Tactically, there is no battle with Syria we are involved in, so no tactics. In a real battle, with actual tactics, a single strike is not how things are done except to deny usage of the airfield for a period of time to allow our operations to be unmolested for that time. However, in such a situation, a completely different type of strike would have been done(cluster ammunition to crater the runway, denying its use for an admittedly short time. If the goal was to take out the airfield, or inflict significant damage, a single strike is not going to be used. You use cruise missiles to soften up and deny usage of the airfield while strike aircraft come in to attack the defenses, followed by larger strike aircraft the inflict massive damage(this is somewhat simplified and idealized, but roughly how it is done).

So basically, you ask the wrong question. The message was the goal, not destruction. When we do destruction, we do it up good. Our military is very very good at destroying things.

Click to expand...

I think it boils down to what the West will tolerate.
The west will tolerate barrel bombs, hosp attacked, cities cleansed, but using chemical weapons will result in retaliation.
Every other weapon is permitted.

Cardinal said:

I do have to wonder how effective the message can be when you specifically state that the attack is a "one-off."

Click to expand...

He also had a stated hands off policy for Syria. What I think this does is show that there are limits, that we will not intervene in Syria, but if things reach a point where we feel it is necessary, we will, and we can do it with ease. That we reportedly took out bunkers with the strikes suggests to me that we wanted to show that we can destroy even those places that are supposedly designed to not be destroyed. We picked a target with minimal chance of civilian casualties, but that shows we can and will hit what we want, when we want. The goal is to keep Syria from pushing our nonintervention policy too far. It is like giving a misbehaving child a short time out. Not meant to punish, but to show that we will punish if pushed.

I do not like Trump. This does not change that. But I have to give credit where it is due, and this strike was well formulated and executed. It remains to be seen if we will need to do more, and what that more might consist of. The problem with this strike is that there are probably limits to what we will do even if Syria continues to act contrary to our wishes, and Syria is well aware of that. That does not mean the strike was not worth doing, but there is a real limit to what that kind of diplomacy is capable of.

Cardinal said:

I'm putting this in the military subforum because I have zero military knowledge myself (aside from whatever I learned reading Tom Clancy in high school) and want someone in the know to answer a question regarding the missile strike on Syria's airbase. I'm seeing multiple conflicting reports and viewpoints on the aftermath of the strike:

1)We completely annihilated that airbase's ability to repair and refuel jets, thus rendering it ineffective for future strikes.
2)No. A cafeteria, 6 already-broken planes, some fuel units, and a training room were destroyed. Planes are taking off from that airfield just fine and are currently still attacking civilians.
3)We didn't crater their runways because why bother? Runways are easy to repair.
4)What's the point in attacking the airfield if you can't even crater the runways, thus interrupting the takeoff of planes? As one twitter person said: "[FONT="]I really wonder what the Navy folks launching those missiles thought about the targeting instructions they were given."

I'd like a consolidated tactical military perspective on the strike, and not a discussion on the "symbolic message" that may have been communicated. In fact, I'd like to avoid politics altogether for this topic. [/FONT]

Click to expand...

Canadian Bacon.

Cardinal said:

That's exactly the kind of detailed and educational response I was looking for. Thanks.

I do have to wonder how effective the message can be when you specifically state that the attack is a "one-off."

Click to expand...

Indeed. Thanks Redress.

MaggieD said:

So then you don't think a thoughtful spanking was called for? You think we should have just waxed on indignant about nerve gas being used? You must be real popular right about now.

Click to expand...

By what legitimate authority are we A Thoughtful Spanker? Why should blood and treasure be spent spanking others?

Do you really believe that we right all wrongs in the world? By what authority?

Redress said:

IIt was meant not to inflict real harm, but to show a willingness and capability to do so.

Click to expand...

Do you think there is any nation on earth which doubted the capacity of the U.S. military to inflict harm, but no longer does because of this cruise missile attack? It was no secret that the U.S., from the sea, can deliver dozens or even hundreds of 1,000 lb. bombs to precise points as far as 1,000 miles away. I suspect these isolated, pinprick attacks, which other Presidents have also ordered, succeed mainly in making the U.S. look less serious as a threat.

matchlight said:

Do you think there is any nation on earth which doubted the capacity of the U.S. military to inflict harm, but no longer does because of this cruise missile attack? It was no secret that the U.S., from the sea, can deliver dozens or even hundreds of 1,000 lb. bombs to precise points as far as 1,000 miles away. I suspect these isolated, pinprick attacks, which other Presidents have also ordered, succeed mainly in making the U.S. look less serious as a threat.

Click to expand...

Capacity- no one in their right mind would doubt the ability

Willingness- that is a different thing

Fledermaus said:

Capacity- no one in their right mind would doubt the ability

Willingness- that is a different thing

Click to expand...

And this shows that President Trump and the nation are willing to make fairly safe pinpricks. Not exactly the will demonstrated by President Kennedy and most Americans in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

matchlight said:

And this shows that President Trump and the nation are willing to make fairly safe pinpricks. Not exactly the will demonstrated by President Kennedy and most Americans in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Click to expand...

Definitely not in the Roosevelt, Truman mold.

This is more like implied malice to come.....

Cardinal said:

I'm putting this in the military subforum because I have zero military knowledge myself (aside from whatever I learned reading Tom Clancy in high school) and want someone in the know to answer a question regarding the missile strike on Syria's airbase. I'm seeing multiple conflicting reports and viewpoints on the aftermath of the strike:

1)We completely annihilated that airbase's ability to repair and refuel jets, thus rendering it ineffective for future strikes.
2)No. A cafeteria, 6 already-broken planes, some fuel units, and a training room were destroyed. Planes are taking off from that airfield just fine and are currently still attacking civilians.
3)We didn't crater their runways because why bother? Runways are easy to repair.
4)What's the point in attacking the airfield if you can't even crater the runways, thus interrupting the takeoff of planes? As one twitter person said: "[FONT="]I really wonder what the Navy folks launching those missiles thought about the targeting instructions they were given."

I'd like a consolidated tactical military perspective on the strike, and not a discussion on the "symbolic message" that may have been communicated. In fact, I'd like to avoid politics altogether for this topic. [/FONT]

Click to expand...

It was a clown show put on by our Chief Clown.

Syrian jets take off from air base hit by US - ABC News

matchlight said:

Do you think there is any nation on earth which doubted the capacity of the U.S. military to inflict harm, but no longer does because of this cruise missile attack? It was no secret that the U.S., from the sea, can deliver dozens or even hundreds of 1,000 lb. bombs to precise points as far as 1,000 miles away. I suspect these isolated, pinprick attacks, which other Presidents have also ordered, succeed mainly in making the U.S. look less serious as a threat.

Click to expand...

RT and others report that less than half the missiles launched reached their target. I cannot help but think there is some element of truth to that, if for no other reason the western media has not mentioned this story. Sure, maybe the Russians are making it up, but maybe they aren't.

Did the Russian system actually take down about half the launches?

Thoreau72 said:

RT and others report that less than half the missiles launched reached their target. I cannot help but think there is some element of truth to that, if for no other reason the western media has not mentioned this story. Sure, maybe the Russians are making it up, but maybe they aren't.

Did the Russian system actually take down about half the launches?

Click to expand...

Who are you kidding HD. It's pretty well known that you believe anything RT says. Hell you have demonstrated quite thoroughly that you believe anything without question that you feel is anti US.

Nothing was accomplished. Whatsoever.

Tanngrisnir said:

Nothing was accomplished. Whatsoever.

Click to expand...

:lamo