US attacks on Syria

[Agiel]

If it's that easy to distinguish aircraft there wouldn't be friendly fire incidents, would there. It's just not that easy, except in theory.

 

 

 

For fighter aircraft perhaps it doesn't have the speed and acuity that is preferable, but as I've elaborated before with ground-based platforms processing power is not an issue and could easily have distinguished between aircraft types. Translation: There likely never was an aircraft anywhere close to MH-17 as the Bill Sweetman article points out (who by the way is one of _the_ military aerospace authorities out there). The point we've been driving home both here and in the "alternative facts" thread the playbook of the Kremlin and their imitators has been to lie early, lie often, lie fast. Muddy the waters and you can get away with anything, convince your base of anything, as This Modern World so aptly put it (props to Raithe):

 

 

Speaking of which, the first professional independent BDA came in from Imagesat International came in (for some reason over the weekend visiting the site got you to a 403 Forbidden, but it's back up now):

 

http://www.imagesatintl.com/us-strike-syria/

 

In short, it perforates the Russian MoD's claims that only 23 missiles hit the target, and that in fact 58 hit the facility on at least 44 separate DMPIs (also mentioning that there were overkill allowances on certain targets, likely on high-priority targets like the CW storage facilities, just as I have said before). As for the total damage it caveats that the warheads might not have been sufficient for certain targets, but just as I posted before seemingly cosmetic damage to something like a hardened shelter is not necessarily indicative of whether or not whatever was inside would have survived intact. And as has been brought up total efficacy may have been mitigated by the fact that they were warned of the strike in advance, probably in order to leave avenues of de-escalation open. Now why would the Russian MoD try to downplay the Tomahawk strike? Well Putin has to appear as an outwardly strong leader to maintain his power base and has built an image of not backing down. That Russian forces could not, or as some are suspecting, did not do anything to try and intercept the missiles if it were in their ability for political reasons, somewhat damages that image of Putin (and in light of the possible four Kalibr missiles of 26 the Caspian fleet launched back in October of '15 that malfunctioned, it probably pays to depict Western systems as clunkers).

Edited April 11, 2017 by Agiel

[Zoraptor]

 

If it's that easy to distinguish aircraft there wouldn't be friendly fire incidents, would there. It's just not that easy, except in theory.

 

For fighter aircraft perhaps it doesn't have the speed and acuity that is preferable, but as I've elaborated before with ground-based platforms processing power is not an issue and could easily have distinguished between aircraft types.

 

Oh ffs, the friendly fire incidents in 2003 were from ground based Patriot missile batteries and very well publicised. So much for reliable radar only identification from the late 80s onwards.

 

The point we've been driving home both here and in the "alternative facts" thread the playbook of the Kremlin and their imitators has been to lie early, lie often, lie fast.

What, like DoD officials tweeting that their launch targets included the runway at Shayrat then claiming that was never the aim when it was shown undamaged the next day? Like Mattis claiming the runway is of trivial use when Syrian airplanes- clearly armed- have been using it since a few hours after the air strikes? Like him claiming that 20% of Syria's planes were destroyed? Flim flam razzle dazzle yes indeedy.

 

http://www.imagesatintl.com/us-strike-syria/

Has been available from April 7, and is the source for 16 targets being hit because they only show 16 targets hit. The rest is 28 circles drawn at a kilometer level scale which could show literally anything and for which there isn't any purpose in not zooming in unless they're on a 1996 server that can only handle five MB level pngs.

 

They're also claiming more targets hit  in more areas than the fricking US DoD itself does.

[Gromnir]

"If it's that easy to distinguish aircraft there wouldn't be friendly fire incidents, would there. It's just not that easy, except in theory."

 

'cause when a highly complex weapon system fails a handful of times after many thousands o' hours o' use, it must be 'cause the weapon system is incapable o' distinguishing friend from foe and not 'cause o' user error, or isolated technical malfunctions or some complete unforeseen set o' unique circumstances.  the most dependable modern weapon systems are not 100% effective, and sadly when they fail, the consequences is gonna often be tragic and devastating.  even if in theory and in practice a weapon is nigh infallible, the universe will spit forth an exception. so point out a limited number o' times a weapon failed is hardly some kinda proof o' the insufficiency o' the technology in question.

 

'course cherry picking the exceptions rather than recognizing the innumerable times a weapon worked as expected is ridiculous backwards kinda reasoning, and is exact the kinda thing we see from rt and russian source, so, thanks for illustrating. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps is unsurprising russians would claim US cruise missile inaccuracy.  sure, tomahawk cruise missiles ain't the ideal option for taking out an airbase, but such weapons has been shown to be dependable and accurate over the decades in which they has been utilized.  the ordinary observer might question a source which claimed such uncharacteristic inaccuracy.  nevertheless, russian media rare endeavours to be reasonable or plausible.  goal is to offer an alternative narrative to help fuel belief that no official source can be trusted.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Gromnir

[Katphood]

I guess a war with N.Korea is inevitable at this point: http://www.reuters.com/article/uk-china-northkorea-coal-exclusive-idUKKBN17D0DA?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

[BruceVC]

"

 

'course cherry picking the exceptions rather than recognizing the innumerable times a weapon worked as expected is ridiculous backwards kinda reasoning, and is exact the kinda thing we see from rt and russian source, so, thanks for illustrating. 

 

 

 I cannot support this anymore than just saying ....QFT

 

The Russian propaganda and spin doctoring become more and more incredulous as time goes on. Their current strategy doesnt even have a modicum of believability or real effort

 

This is how Russia deals with accusations of war crimes or any accusation of bad behavior

 

Russia was suppose to supervise and ensure that Assad destroyed all chemical weapons after the first " Obama red line " was crossed , the fact that he  used them now highlights how they failed dismally in achieving this. What was the Russian response

 

" the USA  bombed Syria under false pretext " ....????

 

 

Okay that means anything  

 

But what really makes me laugh is how badly many people, including Putin, misread the Trump victory. All there interfering in the election and dissemination of fake news  was to achieve a Trump victory  because Russia wants sanctions dropped or reduced...and guess what ? Russia is in no better economic position than before, ostensibly you can argue the Trump presidency is more "anti-Russian " and has been equally if not more publically critical of Russia and its illegal antics like the annexing of Crimea 

 

Putin can reverse the sanctions and restore his country's economy if they simply become a more reasonable and positive  contributor  in the global arena, first step is they need to  stop thinking they can carve up any country they want and recreate their own geographical borders  which leads to understandable sanctions  ...but hey thats just my opinion 

[BruceVC]

I guess a war with N.Korea is inevitable at this point: http://www.reuters.com/article/uk-china-northkorea-coal-exclusive-idUKKBN17D0DA?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

Not at all, by reducing their economic supply-line this may lead to NK  realizing they cannot sustain there aggressive and jingoistic policies 

 

China is the only reason there economy isnt in complete collapse so this is a good punitive financial measure

[Zoraptor]

"If it's that easy to distinguish aircraft there wouldn't be friendly fire incidents, would there. It's just not that easy, except in theory."

 

'cause when a highly complex weapon system fails a handful of times after many thousands o' hours o' use, it must be 'cause the weapon system is incapable o' distinguishing friend from foe

 

Well yeah, it is, by definition. That's what friendly fire is. (1) The patriot system friendly fire failure was specifically labelled as not being caused by (avoidable) operator error, but by a complicated system. (2) Many thousands of hours? The whole war lasted less than a thousand, and (3) that in a conflict in which the number of sorties actually flown by Iraq was... zero. There'd have been less losses if he operators had actually been incompetent and been asleep the entire time.

 

So, if radar is capable, alone, of identifying aircraft reliably why not cut the complication and just use radar? Because it isn't capable of doing it, alone, it isn't capable of doing it with absolute reliability even when combined with IFF transponders and all other factors. Your and Agiel's entire argument is that it cannot have been a wrong attribution because such systems are accurate when it's asterisking obvious that it can be a wrong attribution.

[Zoraptor]

 

Russia was suppose to supervise and ensure that Assad destroyed all chemical weapons after the first " Obama red line " was crossed , the fact that he  used them now highlights how they failed dismally in achieving this.

 

 

OPCW was, actually, since they're a theoretically neutral party unlike the US or Russia. They even got a Nobel Prize for it.

[Katphood]

China deploys 150,000 troops to the North Korean border

[Gromnir]

Your and Agiel's entire argument is that it cannot have been a wrong attribution because such systems are accurate when it's asterisking obvious that it can be a wrong attribution.

 

you keep misrepresenting.  sure the system can be wrong.  there is the possibility o' a malfunction or user error with any complex system.  the possibility o' singular errors does not preclude the possibility o' a weapon system working as advertised virtual every time it is used, and such systems has been many times in both testing and actual battlefield conditions.

 

you somehow reverse the obvious conclusion.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Agiel]

Using an example for munitions, the rule of thumb is that a very reliable, dependable system will have a reliability of at least 95%. Even so, that 5% it doesn't work is very much a statistically significant eventuality. For military planners such probabilities are wholly acceptable (which is in part the tragedy of submunition weapons: Even if the detonation rate is 99%, well, there are at around 200 bomblets dispensed).

 

And given that the primary methods of NCTR include radar imaging (basically SAR mapping applied to aircraft scale) that would easily distinguish two types of aircraft that couldn't look more different and jet engine modulation that would easily discern a close air-support aircraft with high-bypass engines built for long loiter times and fuel economy from a fighter designed for sustained afterburner for high-speed intercepts and in furballs and the Russian MoD's initial claims suggests something that goes beyond a simple glitch in the system.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Agiel

[Wrath of Dagon]

US is sticking to its story: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2017/04/11/white-house-massive-evidence-shows-sarin-came-from-assad-planes/

[Zoraptor]

 

Your and Agiel's entire argument is that it cannot have been a wrong attribution because such systems are accurate when it's asterisking obvious that it can be a wrong attribution.

 

you keep misrepresenting.

 

 

That's called projection.

 

I'm saying they got the attribution wrong in one specific case. You have to show that the system used is consistently enough correct for an misattribution to be impossible, or for it not to have happened in that case. You can say that the system is perfect and has been since the 80s, but if it shoots down friendly planes it is not perfect and makes mistakes. End of Story.

 

US is sticking to its story: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2017/04/11/white-house-massive-evidence-shows-sarin-came-from-assad-planes/

 

At this point it's got more holes than a nice bit of gruyere.

 

(1) The radar track of the Su22 the DoD released is completely inconclusive. It doesn't actually show the Su22 over Khan Sheikoun at any point despite its caption, and at its closest point to the target it's flying in the wrong direction to hit KS with a dumb bomb. If it was dropping bombs from low altitude it is literally impossible for that aircraft to have hit the area specified. At 5000m to be above Manpads they'd have to be travelling at very least supersonic when dropping their bombs on any other vector shown as it requires ~8km momentum travel. There's no point flying supersonic at that altitude though, since you're above the AA ceiling anyway and might as well fly slower, be more accurate and save fuel and wear and tear. To be fair, the trace released by the DoD is utter crap and lacks basics such as a scale so I had to approximate distances on wikimapia, so there is some wiggle room. But not much.

 

(2) Witness statements include there being bleach/ chlorine (independently verified), ammonia (many), rotten eggs, almonds and spoiled food smells. Only one of those is consistent with Sarin; spoiled food, since organic amines are often used to stabilise it. The others are consistent with other chemicals and while there are some potential explanations such as people confusing bleach cleaner smell with ammonia cleaner smell since they have the same general purpose you'd be hard pressed to explain the others rationally. It's consistent with a chemical store being hit though; but you literally cannot bung all of those into a chemical warhead, you'd destroy the nerve agent. And eventually the warhead, you certainly wouldn't want to handle it or have it stuck to your plane.

 

(3) Nerve gas is not particularly hard to make, it's just hard to make so it lasts for years. If a country, or company, has the capability to make organophosphate insecticides- fly spray, commercial agricultural sprays etc- it can make nerve gas since they're the same thing with different specificities. You'll also get similar symptoms to Sarin if you gas yourself with chlorpyrifos and similar; they're less toxic, not non toxic. Should also be noted than the almond smell, cyanide, is a precursor for Tabun, as is notoriously 'rotten food smelling' dimethylamine. You will also, inevitably, get a bleach smell from chlorine or other bleach contributors (HCl) from synthesis, or precursors, of the other direct Tabun precursor, phosphonyl chloride. Hydrogen sulphide (rotten eggs) and most of those others can also be used in insecticide synthesis. It's plausible that they did hit a chemical store and had a mini Bhopal as a result.

 

(4) The focus of proof has been on proving that the CW weren't a hoax, not their source- that's been assertional and when not, at very best equivocal such as the radar trace. That's perhaps the oldest PR trick in the book, focus on something nobody actually disagrees with to discredit the stuff people do disagree with. The Syrian/ Russian story is not that there were no CW, only that they didn't use them and they came from a ground store.

 

(5) Yellowcake, aluminium tubes, mobile WMD labs, 45 minutes to bombs over London etc etc. Not a specific objection, more an example from history.

[Gromnir]

 

 

Your and Agiel's entire argument is that it cannot have been a wrong attribution because such systems are accurate when it's asterisking obvious that it can be a wrong attribution.

 

you keep misrepresenting.

 

 

That's called projection.

 

hardly.  is somebody being willful obtuse, but not Gromnir.  yeah, somehow tomahawk missiles, whatever their shortcomings, became uncharacteristic inaccurate during the attack on the syrian airbase.  similar, to watch you tie self in knots regarding the capacity o' radar to identify aircraft is actual baffling?  why?  you didn't actual seem to have a relevant point.  is no doubt unintentional illustrative o' our observation 'bout russian need to create an alternative narrative, but is baffling nevertheless.   

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

 

hardly.  is somebody being willful obtuse,[..] you didn't actual seem to have a relevant point.

 

P R O J E C T I O N.

 

And FTR, nobody is saying that the Tomahawks are inaccurate in the usual sense, nobody. The ones that arrived seem to have hit the targets they were aimed at, though some may have been aimed at targets that were moved. Once they get off the ocean and can use terrain scanning, inertia and GPS they were clearly accurate. The question at hand is how many got the chance to be accurate. Pretty easy to prove damage conclusively and it was done for 16 targets, but not for 44. Provide evidence of those extra 28 targets at the same resolution/ scale as the others and it'd all have been fine, don't, and you will face questions why you haven't.

[Gromnir]

 

 

hardly.  is somebody being willful obtuse,[..] you didn't actual seem to have a relevant point.

 

P R O J E C T I O N.

 

And FTR, nobody is saying that the Tomahawks are inaccurate in the usual sense, nobody. The ones that arrived seem to have hit the targets they were aimed at, though some may have been aimed at targets that were moved. Once they get off the ocean and can use terrain scanning, inertia and GPS they were clearly accurate. The question at hand is how many got the chance to be accurate. Pretty easy to prove damage conclusively and it was done for 16 targets, but not for 44. Provide evidence of those extra 28 targets at the same resolution/ scale as the others and it'd all have been fine, don't, and you will face questions why you haven't.

 

hypocrisy.

 

too relevant?  perhaps you is simple random posting words.

 

kumquat.

 

oh, and not inaccurate "in the usual sense,"  (HA!) but claims that so few managed to reach targets and effective deliver their payloads.  perhaps you prefer reliable or dependable as adjectives? have 59 launched and have so few reach and deliver ordinance is a rather unique outcome. 

 

...

 

okie dokie.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited April 12, 2017 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

A shot on goal that is saved by a goalkeeper is still accurate, even if it doesn't end up in goal. You seem not to know the definition of accurate. Not a surprise given your general ignorance on most issues.

 

There's been no proof offered of 59 hits, the goalposts have been moved (runway targeting to no runway targeting), the base is still in use and has been since 6 hours after the strike for arming and refueling, and while metre resolution images of some damage has been released most of that claimed has not despite it being trivial to do so. He who asserts, proves, and the US has so far done lots of asserting, and almost no proving.

[Gromnir]

you are being utter ridiculous.  the runway weren't a target 'cause the kinda damage a tomahawk could do to a runway would be minimal.  use an extreme expensive weapon to make a relative small hole in a runway the syrians could repair w/o much effort? *snort* hell, the tomahawk, as Gromnir has already stated, were not an ideal weapon for disabling an air base, so telling us the air base were operational a short time after the airstrike ain't even a zor attempt for a shot on goal.  such an observation 'bout base functionality hardly lends credence to the notion fewer missiles than claimed reached targets.  on the positive side, you are being consistent inexplicable with the non responses. 

 

got a highly accurate (*chuckle*), reliable and efficient weapon system which russia claims missed targets.  russia asserted less than half of 59 tomahawks reached target? russia supports claim o' inaccurate weapons with grainy drone video even gifted1 would mock if the drone were a christmas gift his kids got via amazon, but that don't bother zor much.

 

on the positive side, we ain't getting more o' your ridiculous radar expertise. still have no idea where that kick were aimed.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Agiel]

Typically if runways are hit with high-explosive ordinance it is to prevent immediate use of it (i.e. aircraft scrambling to intercept or to evade destruction) as simply cratering it means it can be cemented over and operational again in a few hours (one point Trump actually got right, even if he probably asked a military aide why as he was tweeting it out). It's why whenever we see FLIR footage of OCA operations it's aircraft on the tarmac, shelters, repair facilities etc that are being hit. The closest historical precedent for an attack like this (punitive strike on a military airfield) was Operation Eldorado Canyon and while there were plenty of military aircraft and facilities destroyed I see no reference to any effort being made to long-term disabling Tripoli and Benina airfields. For permanent destruction of runways as was the case with ODS and OIF specifically designed air-dropped anti-runway bombs like the Matra Durandal (which not only crater the runway but also displace the earth underneath the concrete) are used.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Agiel

[Katphood]

Be scared everyone:

 

[Zoraptor]

you are being utter ridiculous.  the runway weren't a target 'cause the kinda damage a tomahawk could do to a runway would be minimal. 

 

TLAM-D can target a runway fine, since it's cluster based. Would also have the advantage of hitting the aircraft parked on berms as well like the MiG23s that were just sitting there, chillin', after the attack. Mostly though it's kind of embarrassing- and would obviously be so- having it back in action a few hours later. At least that way claims that the runway's existence is trivial anyway can be somewhat supported instead of having multiple videos of obviously armed sukhois taking off and landing.

 

In any case original claims made were that it was hit and out of action, the story only changed later. Indeed, there's clearly been some... 'retconning', shall we say, going on from the press to clean up the mess, the claim that the runway was targeted has been edited out of some articles eg this one though you can find quotes from the article in original form elsewhere (sanity warning, neogaf).

[Gromnir]

 

you are being utter ridiculous.  the runway weren't a target 'cause the kinda damage a tomahawk could do to a runway would be minimal. 

 

TLAM-D can target a runway fine, since it's cluster based. Would also have the advantage of hitting the aircraft parked on berms as well like the MiG23s that were just sitting there, chillin', after the attack. Mostly though it's kind of embarrassing- and would obviously be so- having it back in action a few hours later. At least that way claims that the runway's existence is trivial anyway can be somewhat supported instead of having multiple videos of obviously armed sukhois taking off and landing.

 

In any case original claims made were that it was hit and out of action, the story only changed later. Indeed, there's clearly been some... 'retconning', shall we say, going on from the press to clean up the mess, the claim that the runway was targeted has been edited out of some articles eg this one though you can find quotes from the article in original form elsewhere (sanity warning, neogaf).

 

according to janes 2015-16, the ceb (combined effects bomblets) is no longer in use. the tlam-d is a fragmentation weapon for taking out soft targets. 

 

tomahawk is long range, extreme reliable, accurate, and don't put US personnel in any kinda danger.  use tomahawk also allows for greater flexibility o' proportional response.  go in and glass the airbase with b-2s and then what does one do when syria or russia do something additional stoopid?  the air base attack were a dramatic message. 59 tomahawks coulda' just as easily been targeting locations o' syrian (or russian) military personnel and as with air base which had warning, the syrians and russians woulda' had no way to stop 'em. 

 

what is with you and and the pointless tangents?  radar identifications and now nbc reports regarding targeting of runway?  so what?  why is nbc reporting o' targeting o' runways significant?   even if the runway were targeted, the damage would be easily fixed in short order, so again, no surprise the base were useable in a relative short period o' time.  

 

HA! Good Fun

[Agiel]

Ninja'd by Gromnir. I would add that destruction of munitions storage and repair facilities might also have the effect of severely impacting aircraft turnaround. Strike craft taking off the next day? Probably already pre-flighted, and upon landing are doomed to languish on the tarmac for weeks due to need of deep maintenance. 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Agiel

[Katphood]

China's Xi calls for peaceful resolution of North Korea tensions in call with Trump

[Zoraptor]

 

according to janes 2015-16, the ceb (combined effects bomblets) is no longer in use. the tlam-d is a fragmentation weapon for taking out soft targets.

 

ceb are still in use, at least according to... the US Navy. Think I'll go with them, thanks. To whit: "Block III TLAM-D - conventional submunitions dispenser with combined effect bomblets." Updated, April 10 2017, so it's not an abandoned page- cunningly titled 'US Navy Tomahawk fact file', so easy to miss- either. This is a forum for reasoned discussion and analysis of the facts, please don't post any more fake news/ alternative facts designed to muddy the waters with flim flam razzle dazzle, they're tiresome to correct.

 

And in any case, frag bomblets take out parked aircraft absolutely fine. Those six MiG23s parked by the runway would have made a nice satellite image when destroyed, not so nice when they're just sitting there happy as Larry early next morning. Way more efficient too than 3 tomahawks per shelter or whatever the current claim is to get to58 tomahawks arriving.

 

(Ironic really. If this were any other subject at all you and Agiel would be ridiculing Trump and his administration's penchant for fake news/ alternative facts, but because the failure is embarrassing to the image of the US military you're staunchly defending him)

Edited April 12, 2017 by Zoraptor