• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was the missile strike on syria a success

was the attack a success

  • yes

    Votes: 13 35.1%

  • no

    Votes: 9 24.3%

  • other

    Votes: 15 40.5%
  • Total voters
    37
beerftw

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
19,711
Reaction score
5,946
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
was it a success, I have seen varying reports, from the bulk of us and allied missiles shot down by 1950s-60s soviet anti aircraft guns and missiles, to a us general who claims none were shot down, to the pentagon saying targets were hit and refusing to mention them being shot down, and syria and russia claiming around 70% were shot down by syrian air defense alone not mentioning how many missiles and anti aircraft gun rounds it took to do so. There is also debate whether the 3 targets hit were even of value to syria or russia, or if they even did anything other than a symbolic strike.

Russia claims quite a few were struck down by syrian air defense inclusing s-75 s-125 and s-200 missiles, as well as anti aircraft guns. I can believe they did given the us response was to overwhelm air defense with a very large amount of missiles, like they were cinfident even the antique systems would have a high success rate. However the russian s-400 system and s-300 system can link backwards to even 1950's soviet missile systems, allowing them to use modern radar and guidance on older systems. My guess would be if russia was correct on the number, russian s-400 systems used their radar and guidence to compensate for the older systems technological shortcomings by linking them to syrias defence systems.

Russia is also talking about sending the s-300 system to syria amid the attack, which would bring them from 1950s and 1960s tech to 1980s and 1990s tech in terms of missile defense.
 
beerftw said:
was it a success, I have seen varying reports, from the bulk of us and allied missiles shot down by 1950s-60s soviet anti aircraft guns and missiles, to a us general who claims none were shot down, to the pentagon saying targets were hit and refusing to mention them being shot down, and syria and russia claiming around 70% were shot down by syrian air defense alone not mentioning how many missiles and anti aircraft gun rounds it took to do so. There is also debate whether the 3 targets hit were even of value to syria or russia, or if they even did anything other than a symbolic strike.

Russia claims quite a few were struck down by syrian air defense inclusing s-75 s-125 and s-200 missiles, as well as anti aircraft guns. I can believe they did given the us response was to overwhelm air defense with a very large amount of missiles, like they were cinfident even the antique systems would have a high success rate. However the russian s-400 system and s-300 system can link backwards to even 1950's soviet missile systems, allowing them to use modern radar and guidance on older systems. My guess would be if russia was correct on the number, russian s-400 systems used their radar and guidence to compensate for the older systems technological shortcomings by linking them to syrias defence systems.

Russia is also talking about sending the s-300 system to syria amid the attack, which would bring them from 1950s and 1960s tech to 1980s and 1990s tech in terms of missile defense.
Click to expand...

Did they hit the targets? Then, yes, they were successful.

What the post strike observation shows will be interesting as it wasn't only Tomahawks this time.
 
Fledermaus said:
Did they hit the targets? Then, yes, they were successful.

What the post strike observation shows will be interesting as it wasn't only Tomahawks this time.
Click to expand...

Which missiles were stuck down if true would be interesting, as tomohawks can actually be easily shot down close range due to their slower speeds, but specialize in flying below radar except maybe l band, which even if l band tracked them they would not be able to strike the tomohawks until they get close due to the fact l and can not target anything short of multiple synced systems and even then it;s accuracy would be sketchy. The other missiles used would be easier to detect than a tomohawk but would also move much faster, so they would be harder to shoot down when seen but give a bigger window to shoot them down.


As said in the above post even if russia and syria were 100% truthfull, they never mention how many missiles per missile were used, just stating 40 missiles combined with anti aircraft machine guns, which questions the success rate, was it 1to 1? 2 to 1? 4 to one?
 
beerftw said:
Which missiles were stuck down if true would be interesting, as tomohawks can actually be easily shot down close range due to their slower speeds, but specialize in flying below radar except maybe l band, which even if l band tracked them they would not be able to strike the tomohawks until they get close due to the fact l and can not target anything short of multiple synced systems and even then it;s accuracy would be sketchy. The other missiles used would be easier to detect than a tomohawk but would also move much faster, so they would be harder to shoot down when seen but give a bigger window to shoot them down.


As said in the above post even if russia and syria were 100% truthfull, they never mention how many missiles per missile were used, just stating 40 missiles combined with anti aircraft machine guns, which questions the success rate, was it 1to 1? 2 to 1? 4 to one?
Click to expand...

Probably much higher than 1-1... The "golden BB" air defense method.... ;) And I will bet the Syrians are claiming AA missiles that hit Syrian positions were "shot down" Tomahawks.
 
Some of the missiles were undoubtedly shot down. It's just a simple probability given the density of air defense systems around Damascus.

Whether or not they were a success is likely not to come forth quickly. These were fairly surgical strikes intended to limit a specific mechanism (the chemical capabilities) of the Syrian Government forces, and whether or not they were effective likely will take time to reveal.

I think it accomplished the goal the US is trying to assert; shaping the post-war situation in Syria since it's clear that we have no longer means of influencing the outcome of the conflict. However, it's a small victory in an otherwise poor strategic situation for the United States.
 
Tactically it was a success: they hit all their targets and remained below the accepted loss rate.

Strategically, we'll have to wait and see.
 
All manner of death before 'natural causes' is tragic. Why do people compartmentalize the method used for inflicting death and destruction? Death by chemical agent is terrible, but is it that different from bombs and bullets or jellied gasoline? How many of the 1/2 million deaths in the Syrian conflict are deaths by chemical agents? Estimates report that 5 million people have left the country and that there are upward of 6 million displaced inside the country. Supposedly there are less than 18 million people in the country. Why not outrage at the slaughter as a whole?
 
the attack was a success; why?

the attack succeeded in costing the US TAX PAYER about $350 million combined costs in operational costs & military ordinance costs.

very successful indeed.

MAGA
 
apdst said:
Tactically it was a success: they hit all their targets and remained below the accepted loss rate.

Strategically, we'll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure the US will divulge what if any was shot down. No sense in giving away information. You know China is on the edge of their chairs.

And I doubt Russia will give them the S300 because if they fail, no one will want to buy them.
 
chuckiechan said:
I’m not sure the US will divulge what if any was shot down. No sense in giving away information. You know China is on the edge of their chairs.

And I doubt Russia will give them the S300 because if they fail, no one will want to buy them.
Click to expand...

I was referring to casualties and unexpendable losses (aircraft, equipment, etc.).

The Tomahawks were gone when they left the launcher, whether they hit, missed, or were shot down.

I doubt an S-200 could shoot down a Tomahawk. They sure as hell won't have a 60% kill rate.
 
Part of what bugs me is even if the us hit all it's targets and russia was 100% true on missiles being shot down, this seems to not have the intended effect, russian air defense sales will likely skyrocket, and the syrian govt will just shrug off the american attack as there has been reports of syrians celebrating in the streets of demascus over most of the missiles being shot down.

This can not be a very good sales pitch for american weapons or nato as well, not just cruise missiles but even the aim9x sidewinder the us govt claims as 100% success rate has only hit around 30% of the time against even the most ancient aircraft going back to the 50's, and the patriot missile system was claimed at 100% success rate in desert strom, with video evidence showing it at around 10% success rate before upgrades, after upgrades it has been falry successful since the gulf war but only used in a tiny amount of conflicts mostly against scud missiles.
 
Rexedgar said:
All manner of death before 'natural causes' is tragic. Why do people compartmentalize the method used for inflicting death and destruction? Death by chemical agent is terrible, but is it that different from bombs and bullets or jellied gasoline? How many of the 1/2 million deaths in the Syrian conflict are deaths by chemical agents? Estimates report that 5 million people have left the country and that there are upward of 6 million displaced inside the country. Supposedly there are less than 18 million people in the country. Why not outrage at the slaughter as a whole?
Click to expand...

That's why we should land one million troops in the Sinai and march east until we get to the Indian border, civilizing the entire region.
 
apdst said:
I was referring to casualties and unexpendable losses (aircraft, equipment, etc.).

The Tomahawks were gone when they left the launcher, whether they hit, missed, or were shot down.

I doubt an S-200 could shoot down a Tomahawk. They sure as hell won't have a 60% kill rate.
Click to expand...

The s-200 was designed for bomber formations moving slow not jet fighters or missiles, the s-25 s-75 and s-125 were designed more for those tasks, even though all 3 of those are older than the s-200. The s-300 combined the short medium and long range capabilities of the older systems into a single battery, and the s-400 system is part of the pantsir system, which combines all of that and anti aircraft guns into a single system.

The reports seem to show the s-200 was hardly used and more the s-75 and the s-125 were used from the 1950s-1960s which have had plenty of success against american as well as soviet equipment. During vietnam after the f-4 was shot down by 1950's anti aircraft systems, americans made it a goal to wipe out other s-75 missile batteries before they went operational because they were extremely effective even if considered crude.
 
beerftw said:
The s-200 was designed for bomber formations moving slow not jet fighters or missiles, the s-25 s-75 and s-125 were designed more for those tasks, even though all 3 of those are older than the s-200. The s-300 combined the short medium and long range capabilities of the older systems into a single battery, and the s-400 system is part of the pantsir system, which combines all of that and anti aircraft guns into a single system.

The reports seem to show the s-200 was hardly used and more the s-75 and the s-125 were used from the 1950s-1960s which have had plenty of success against american as well as soviet equipment. During vietnam after the f-4 was shot down by 1950's anti aircraft systems, americans made it a goal to wipe out other s-75 missile batteries before they went operational because they were extremely effective even if considered crude.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that they achieved a 60% kill rate with any missile. Hitting a missile with a missile is like hitting a bullet with a bullet.

The Patriot, an actual anti-missile missile system didn't score 60% during Desert Shield. I can't see 1950's, 1960's missile tech doing what 1980's tech couldn't do.

We already know that Russian and Syrian estimates are going to be wildly inflated. We also know that U.S. command personel are going to slightly deflate the estimates. The difference being, it's too easy for the American media to find out that U.S. commanders are full of ****, where as the Russians and the Syrians can get away with whatever version of events they choose to tell.
 
If the mission pissed off the liberals then yes,it was a success
 
What were the goals of the tri-power missile strike? Nobody has been clear on that as far as I can see. If one of the goals was to blow stuff up, then yes. If a goal was to save Syrian lives then no; the civil war will continue in its full barbarity and callous disregard for human life. If a goal was to dissuade the Bashar al-Assad Regime from using chemical weapons then the jury is still out but if you believe recent allegations of chemical use by the Arab Syrian Army are true then the last missile strike was a failure and thus this one may be a failure too. If the goal was a to do something, anything to allay the frustration felt by Western powers at the real and alleged crimes of the Assad Regime, then probably yes, feathers have been smoothed out. If the goal was to set the ground for a widening of the Syrian Civil War into an effort to expel Iran or Turkey or both from Syria, then no it was not a success ..... yet. If the goal was to intimidate Russia and Iran from support of the Assad Regime, then the strike was probably not a success. So pick your goal and evaluate your outcome accordingly.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
apdst said:
I'm not convinced that they achieved a 60% kill rate with any missile. Hitting a missile with a missile is like hitting a bullet with a bullet.

The Patriot, an actual anti-missile missile system didn't score 60% during Desert Shield. I can't see 1950's, 1960's missile tech doing what 1980's tech couldn't do.

We already know that Russian and Syrian estimates are going to be wildly inflated. We also know that U.S. command personel are going to slightly deflate the estimates. The difference being, it's too easy for the American media to find out that U.S. commanders are full of ****, where as the Russians and the Syrians can get away with whatever version of events they choose to tell.
Click to expand...

The american high fail rate during desert storm and desert shield though was due to them being untested leading to programming errors as well as them never being designed initially to combat scud missiles despite the fact our enemies usually like to use scud missiles. America also stopped the one for one ratio and america and it's allies jumped from one missile to 2-4 missiles launched and gained much higher success. The russians had already been doing the multi missle launch since the 50's, they simply knew the limitations of their missiles and compensated to increase their ratio.


The russians had missile defense tech decades before americans did, it is not a stretch that russians have long mastered it while we were barely toying with it in the 1980s, despite all that syria only claims 40 were launched and no ratio given, my guess would be 2-4 missiles launched per cruise missile, with the rest being handled by 20 mm anti aircraft guns.
 
We dont know yet.

Trump says he is happy.

Assad is happy.

Putin is happy.

When everyone is happy that is a good deal, right?
 
apdst said:
I'm not convinced that they achieved a 60% kill rate with any missile. Hitting a missile with a missile is like hitting a bullet with a bullet.

The Patriot, an actual anti-missile missile system didn't score 60% during Desert Shield. I can't see 1950's, 1960's missile tech doing what 1980's tech couldn't do.
Click to expand...

beerftw said:
The s-200 was designed for bomber formations moving slow not jet fighters or missiles, the s-25 s-75 and s-125 were designed more for those tasks, even though all 3 of those are older than the s-200. The s-300 combined the short medium and long range capabilities of the older systems into a single battery, and the s-400 system is part of the pantsir system, which combines all of that and anti aircraft guns into a single system.

The reports seem to show the s-200 was hardly used and more the s-75 and the s-125 were used from the 1950s-1960s which have had plenty of success against american as well as soviet equipment. During vietnam after the f-4 was shot down by 1950's anti aircraft systems, americans made it a goal to wipe out other s-75 missile batteries before they went operational because they were extremely effective even if considered crude.
Click to expand...

It's going to depend a lot on the quality of the crews handling the systems. The biggest weakness of the Tomahawk is that it's subsonic, whereas a lot of Soviet/Russian gear was designed to intercept supersonic missiles. Given proper warning (via long rage over the horizon radar) it's certainly within the capabilities of the air defense systems themselves to shoot down a Tomahawk. What really matters is whether the Syrian crews running these systems are trained enough to properly identify, track, and target the Tomahawks as they appear on their radar.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
It's going to depend a lot on the quality of the crews handling the systems. The biggest weakness of the Tomahawk is that it's subsonic, whereas a lot of Soviet/Russian gear was designed to intercept supersonic missiles. Given proper warning (via long rage over the horizon radar) it's certainly within the capabilities of the air defense systems themselves to shoot down a Tomahawk. What really matters is whether the Syrian crews running these systems are trained enough to properly identify, track, and target the Tomahawks as they appear on their radar.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt they can easily track tomohawks but I do doubt they can target them short of close range, at which anti aircraft guns would be beyond sufficient over missiles. Keep in mind russia can link it's s-400 to the older systems even if the s-400 never fired, my guess is they used the s-400 to augment the old systems to do far more than they were designed to.
 
Rexedgar said:
All manner of death before 'natural causes' is tragic. Why do people compartmentalize the method used for inflicting death and destruction? Death by chemical agent is terrible, but is it that different from bombs and bullets or jellied gasoline? How many of the 1/2 million deaths in the Syrian conflict are deaths by chemical agents? Estimates report that 5 million people have left the country and that there are upward of 6 million displaced inside the country. Supposedly there are less than 18 million people in the country. Why not outrage at the slaughter as a whole?
Click to expand...

I get the argument that chemical weapons are banned and their use is against every international law, but you are right, the deaths of a few dozen people brought about the outrage of the world, but the deaths of the other 500,000 has been largely ignored. Essentially, Syria was just flagged for Unsportsmanlike Conduct, penalized 15 yards and instructed to get back to slaughtering inocents the right way.
 
In another thread, they were saying "it was all bluster, and just abandoned buildings were bombed." So, IDK, because the person that posted that, DID NOT GIVE SOURCES. I learned long ago, that this forum does not tolerate no sources. Why wouldn't someone not want to spend the time to look up sources, and/or post wherever you heard something?
 
Rosie1 said:
In another thread, they were saying "it was all bluster, and just abandoned buildings were bombed." So, IDK, because the person that posted that, DID NOT GIVE SOURCES. I learned long ago, that this forum does not tolerate no sources. Why wouldn't someone not want to spend the time to look up sources, and/or post wherever you heard something?
Click to expand...

It was said on many msm and non msm that nothing of interest was damaged, but that is just speculation as no one knows for sure other than nato or the russian and syrian govt, and i doubt either would tell the whole truth on the matter.
 
It was a strategic blunder because it made the possibility of WWIII more likely. Time to GTFO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom