S-400 Threat

originally posted by: RadioRobert
I'm surprised they even have them there at all seeing as how all the older systems accounted for 71 missiles...

What do you mean by that? Did the S-200 count 71 missiles?

a reply to: RadioRobert

I assume your talking about how many Tomahawks where not taken out. Taking out a cruise is much different that a air to ground. Just sayin

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Whoisjohngalt

It is true. Syria have given the number and location.

If it were true we would have seen a hell of a lot interception footage and wreckage on the the ground.

a reply to: Forensick

No. Dont you read any news at all?

Syria have other assets then just the S-200

a reply to: mightmight

I guess you were shown that there were 103 hits on target.... Right 🤔

originally posted by: spy66
According to Syria they downed 71 out of 103 missiles tracked.

That figure is disputed. The absence of video evidence all over Russian propaganda sites, like rt.com, would tend to indicate that the 105 missiles were unhindered.

a reply to: spy66

Are you aware of just how old that “system” is? It is definitely not out of the realm of possibilities for Syria to own such a system. Even if they owned such a system this is not WW2 dude.

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: RadioRobert
I'm surprised they even have them there at all seeing as how all the older systems accounted for 71 missiles...

What do you mean by that? Did the S-200 count 71 missiles?

A S-200 Does not have have the capability of taking on a cruise missile bro. Just no.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

yes, syrias systems are old, but they have been upgraded by the russians for about a year and a half now.
Syria defended them self. Russia did not use their system to help out.

The upgrades could be enough to make Syria air defence capable of taking out cruise missiles... You cant leave that out of the equation.

Last year we shot 59 missiles at them, they could have made adjustments sinse last year to make them more capable this year.... And with russian help

originally posted by: mightmight

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Whoisjohngalt

It is true. Syria have given the number and location.

If it were true we would have seen a hell of a lot interception footage and wreckage on the the ground.

I don't have a cookie, but here's a medal

a reply to: spy66

www.independent.co.uk...

So many conflicting reports. Syria/Russia claiming near 70% success rate with a 1950’s system (S200?), seems unlikely. 100% success rate for interceptions at 4 unidentified military bases (were these target - Russian presence so doubt it).

France claiming 100% success and USA also claiming high success and that Syria launched 40 missiles after the raids were already complete

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Summary below gives nice overview of what was used and speculated the tomahawks may have been used for the less heavily defended targets.

theaviationist.com... -us/

a reply to: spy66

Well I can in the simple fact that the S-400 And any earlier model used would have been met with the all mighty force of the US forces. The Russians were smart and pool the S-300 off line along with older models. No point in risking human life over this.

a reply to: DrBobH

I know we have denied that Syria brought down any of our missiles. The american general said that all our missiles hit their targets.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

I guess that is why we dident target anything russian or Iranian inside Syria. We wouldent want to put them to shame.... Yeah thats it😂😂

I'm skeptical that all the coalition missiles but their targets, too, if it makes you feel better.

a reply to: Forensick

Huge discussion on the S300/S400 and tactics employed against them

www.ausairpower.net...

Considering it’s 1/2 the price of THAAD it seems a good system.

Isn’t this an anti-aircraft device rather than anti- missile? Coildn’t you just swamp it with cruise missiles? 100 tomahawks would be cheaper than losing one F22

The purpose of the attack was singularly to destroy the alleged chemical weapons facilities.

Attacking Russian facilities would have been met with a Russian response and escalate the situation, potentially to the point where it could get out of control.

The Syrian Government has essentially "won" the conflict, so attacking other Syrian military capabilities could simply prolong the war. That's why I think an attacks on an air-field would be ill-advised. Airfields are probably better defended as well.

The attack allows the west to destroy the alleged chemical weapons facilities, whilst saving face by responding as the "red-line" was crossed. It also allows Trump to act strong to Russia in the face of claims of Russian interference in the US election. Simultaneously it doesn't jeopardize core Russian or Syrian interests and does not risk prolonging the civil war, at most it makes Russia look a bit weak because they claimed they were going to destroy the platforms used to launch the missile and the bots/trolls were stating beforehand that any strike would risk WW3. The next time military strikes supposedly might cause WW3, we should keep this in mind. Striking at night also allows Syrian casualties at these facilities to be minimized.

Overall, not a bad strike without a lot of political fall-out, as long as the chemical weapons were actually used by Syria (I haven't looked into this, not trying to cast doubt or push a certain view).

If the Syrian air defenses were stronger, the strike would likely rely more on the stealthy JASSM and less on Tomahawks, with more Electronic Warfare and decoy support. Some SEAD could have been possible, but I doubt it would be preferable, certainly not against any Russian personnel, plus there's the issue of telling whether it's a Syrian SAM site or a Russian SAM site.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Allaroundyou

yes, syrias systems are old, but they have been upgraded by the russians for about a year and a half now.
Syria defended them self. Russia did not use their system to help out.

The upgrades could be enough to make Syria air defence capable of taking out cruise missiles... You cant leave that out of the equation.

Last year we shot 59 missiles at them, they could have made adjustments sinse last year to make them more capable this year.... And with russian help

Yes you can even the s 400 isn't going to take out cruise missiles unless they fly right over it. Theres this thing called physics and it limits how low radar can see at a distance. But truth be told the only evidence that the s 400 isn't the x200 with some upgrades is Russian claims on how awesome it is. Russia constantly lies on weapons effectiveness and capabilities. The truth is Syria shows Russian air defences can be defeated. Here was a Pentagon release telling you how effective jamming is. Think about this Russia was warned before the strike and the x400 was shown ineffective. Think about this if Russia racked up major kills orders for there systems would have been through the roof. So either they couldn't get locks or don't care if they make arms sales which do you think is more likely?


The Assad Regime fired 40 defensive missiles at thin air in a failed attempt to save the three Syrian chemical weapons sites destroyed by allied air strikes, the Pentagon said.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

a reply to: dragonridr

Yes you can even the s 400 isn't going to take out cruise missiles unless they fly right over it.

Yup, the only way the S-400 by itself can shoot down low-flying cruise missiles is if they fly within the radio horizon of it. Shooting down low-flying cruise missiles over the radar horizon is still possible, if the system is cued by another radar in an Integrated Air Defense System (IADS). To avoid successful cruise missile strikes, potential targets need to be covered by radar down to low altitude(or the cruise missile flight path must be), with information datalinked to the S-400. You would also need to allow time for the S-400's missiles to reach the cruise missile before they reach their targets.

Aside: The S-400 is unlikely going to be successful operating stand-alone, it must be part of an IADS. Just like a single tactical fighter cannot take on an entire IADS. Again I don't think this reflects poorly on the S-400, it doesn't reflect much of anything on the S-400 at all. You can't stop 105 stealthy low-flying cruise missiles hitting a target dozens of kilometers from the S-400, with the S-400.

Those reasons are why a good defense against low flying cruise missiles is with systems such as the Pantsir-S1 or 42S6 Morfeym. These should be located close to potential targets. These systems probably also protect S-400 sites themselves. You use the S-400 to deny the airspace to most aircraft and some ballistic missiles and use these other systems (distributed near potential targets) to take out the low flying cruise missiles or aircraft.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Forensick

No. Dont you read any news at all?

Syria have other assets then just the S-200

Yes I do read news, but not ALL news, how is my reading the news (or not reading it) topical?

Instead of a throwaway post, why don't you just tell us about the other assets and their integration in the topic because it adds more to the topic than smart arse swipes.