US Strikes Syria

a reply to: penroc3

Didn't know it was available for civilian use. If you found it on a website, my guess is the it cost at least.....
*Cough cough* Arm.....*cough*...Legs...


Edit: ok found it... thanks for linking.
www.x20.org...

And it will not give a price. They want your email info and a captcha Check. But the average scopes they have are around $5K.

a reply to: Barnalby

Probably something along the lines of the -180.

a reply to: Zaphod58

what's your opinion on Russia withdrawing their safe sky agreement?

Is it to shoot down our TLAM's, drones or god forbid or manned aircraft

a reply to: penroc3

Just like our strike, it's mostly symbolic IMO. They had to do something in retaliation, and they don't want to escalate the situation. They'll go to the UN, and in a month or two quietly reactivate the hotline.

I wonder if Assad turned on all his air defences, and the Russian ones to try and understand wtf was going on, whilst a couple of Sentinels dutifully vacuumed up all the EW info.

We would have a pretty damn good target list now to knock out his entire air defence capability tonight and have pretty much air dominance.

B2's being loaded as we type?

a reply to: Forensick

Probably not. Indications are that this was a one time thing.

why didn't they crater the runway? Why did they leave 9 migs intact? Something's off.

a reply to: MAVERICKANDGOOSE

Tomahawks are not ground penetrators. Not the right tool for destroying runways. You need bombs for that. For a really good job, this kind:
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Phage

This one is a joint UK/US bomblet/shaped charged anti-runway. The Durandal looks nasty and a bit more effective.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MAVERICKANDGOOSE

Tomahawks are not ground penetrators. Not the right tool for destroying runways. You need bombs for that. For a really good job, this kind:
www.youtube.com...

Thx for the clarification.
This doesn't appear to be a very well coordinated attack.

a reply to: MAVERICKANDGOOSE

It was more of a message than a serious attack. If it had been serious they would have used different weapons. This was telling people to stop using chemical weapons.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MAVERICKANDGOOSE

It was more of a message than a serious attack. If it had been serious they would have used different weapons. This was telling people to stop using chemical weapons.

What would they have used in a serious attack?

a reply to: D8Tee

Tomahawks to open with, stealth aircraft with JASSM to take out defenses, and then either a follow on strike with stealth aircraft with JDAMs, or a heavily escorted non-stealth package with JDAMs. But there would have been a heavy aircraft strike, with long range bombers from the US and Guam involved.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm seeing conflicting reports about the strike, did some of the cruise missiles get shot down do you think?

a reply to: D8Tee

Probably a few, a few probably crashed on their own, and there was redundant targeting as well.

a reply to: Zaphod58

They sauf almost half got shot down? i wonder why they weren't jamming, maybe they were letting them light the missiles up with there radars so if need be they know where to strike.

looks to be that is the reason the safe sky agreement was rescinded

what ELINT platform would you use?

i would say 170 or maybe if i was feeling fancy the 180

a reply to: penroc3

They've had problems, especially with older missiles with their ECM and ghosting capabilities. My suspicion is they killed two birds with one stone, and got rid of a bunch of oder missiles at the same time.

I'm skeptical of the half were shot down claim. I'm sure some were, and some failed, but the only claims I've seen of half shot down were from Syrian sites. They also claimed to have shot down Israeli aircraft that hit them too.

Brits did it better..

a reply to: Zaphod58

I hear there really might have been a shoot down

And not a TLAM

Nm