Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

US NAVY attacks Syrian Airbase with Tomahawks

Discussion in 'Greater Asia & Middle East' started by Ankit Kumar 001, Apr 7, 2017.

  1. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,357
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Or a 112 cruise missiles assuming every S400 missiles takes out a cruise missile which is highly unlikely.
    [​IMG]
    S-400 Triumf launch vehicle
    Type Mobile surface-to-air missile system
    Place of origin Russia
    Service history
    In service
    28 April 2007[1]
    Used by Russia
    Production history
    Designer
    Almaz/Antei Concern of Air Defence (PVO Kontsern)
    Manufacturer Fakel Machine-Building Design Bureau
    Unit cost $400 million per fire unit (division) that consists of 8 launchers, 112 missiles, command and support vehicles
    No. built
    152+ (in 2015, there were 152 launchers deployed in 19 divisions[2])
    Specifications
    Operational
    range

    400 km (40N6 missile)
    250 km (48N6 missile)
    120 km (9M96E2 missile)
    40 km (9M96E missile)
     
  2. YarS

    YarS Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2017
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    326
    Country Flag:
    Russian Federation
    And if this source will tell you, that Russians eat hedgehogs - will you believe?



    We'll see, what potential future customers will say about "Patriot" after our strike on Al-Riyad.

    My personal opinion, that potential future customers can send few regiments of volonteers just for gathering information.
    Friends, what tell Indian laws about mercenaries and volonteers?
     
  3. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,357
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Then come the stealthy cruise missiles.

    The Air Force's Stealth Cruise Missile Just Got Even More Stealthy
    [​IMG]
    Andrew Tarantola

    12
    [​IMG]

    In order to keep its pilots out of enemy cross-hairs but still be able to deliver devastating strikes against hardened bunkers, the USAF has spent the better part of two decades developing a family of long-range, semi-autonomous cruise missiles called the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile. And the latest JASSM progeny now can hit targets more than twice as far as its predecessors.

    These stealth subsonic cruise missiles measure 14 feet long with a Teledyne turbojet engine, and are shaped to minimize their radar cross sections. Each is packed with a 1,000-pound conventional warhead and can be carried by a variety of US aircraft including the B-2A Spirit stealth bomber, B-1B Lancer, B-52H Stratofortress, F-15E Strike Eagle, and F-16 Falcon. The missile's onboard GPS provides navigation from launch until its final approach of the target, up to 230 miles away, whereupon its infrared seeker takes over.

    The US Air Force began developing the AGM-158 JASSM line back in 1995, though the program has been beset by a number of near-cancellations since then due to performance and design issues. However, the Air Force has used the lessons learned from these setbacks to steadily improve the JASSM line, culminating in the newest iteration: the JASSM-ER (extended range).




    The JASSM-ER can travel 575 miles to its target—more than 2.5 times farther than the JASSM—thanks to a larger fuel tank and more efficient turbofan engine. Plus, it has been electronically hardened to withstand GPS jamming signals. Other improvements, including a submunition dispenser, had been considered but were ultimately left out of the ER design. Still, the two variants share more than 70 percent of the same hardware, which helps reduce production costs.

    The JASSM-ER officially entered service in April of this year and was approved for full-rate production earlier this month. In all, the USAF reportedly plans to purchase 2,400 of the $700,000 JASSMs and nearly 3,000 of the ER variants, each costing around $1.32 million apiece, throughout the missile line's production cycle—which is expected to last throughout the 2020s. By then, presumably, the USAF will have developed an even more efficient means of blowing buildings up from the other side of the horizon. [Wiki - Lockheed - DID - Missile Threat]

    submunition dispenses mean if even one gets thru they can take out a division of Sams.
     
    Sancho likes this.
  4. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,357
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Country Flag:
    United States


    One of these on a cruise missile could take out a division of Sams.
     
  5. layman

    layman Aurignacian STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,024
    Likes Received:
    3,042
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Then please address the source than to the one who posted that is forum ethics...
     
  6. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,357
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Country Flag:
    United States
    US strike wiped out fifth of Assad air force, Mattis says
    [​IMG]
    Thomas Watkins with Ella Ide in Lucca
    AFPApril 10, 2017
    [​IMG]
    Washington (AFP) - The US strike on a Syrian air base destroyed a fifth of the Damascus regime's remaining warplanes, Pentagon chief Jim Mattis said Monday as Washington fired a fresh salvo of warnings at President Bashar al-Assad.

    The public assessment of Friday's missile strike and the forceful rhetoric came as G7 ministers met in Italy to send a "clear and coordinated" message to Russia over its support for Damascus.

    The United States on Friday blasted 59 Tomahawk missiles at the Shayrat air base near Homs, which the Pentagon said Assad's jets had used to launch a deadly chemical attack on rebel-held Idlib province.

    "The United States will not passively stand by while Assad murders innocent people with chemical weapons, which are prohibited by international law and which were declared destroyed," Mattis said in a statement, noting that 20 percent of Assad's "operational" aircraft were destroyed.

    "The Syrian government would be ill-advised ever again to use chemical weapons," he added.

    Mattis's warning came as White House spokesman Sean Spicer appeared to lower the threshold for new US action against Assad to include barrel bombs, a crude yet hugely destructive weapon of choice for the Syrian leader.

    "If you gas a baby or drop a barrel bomb onto innocent people, you will see a response from" President Donald Trump, Spicer said.

    But US officials later walked back Spicer's remarks.

    "Nothing has changed in our posture," a senior administration official said.

    "As the president has repeatedly made clear, he will not be telegraphing his military responses," the official said.

    Trump discussed Syria during separate telephone calls Monday with British Prime Minister Theresa May and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

    May and Merkel "expressed support for the action of the United States and agreed with President Trump on the importance of holding Syrian President Bashar al-Assad accountable," the White House said in a statement.

    Downing Street said Trump and May had "agreed that a window of opportunity now exists in which to persuade Russia that its alliance with Assad is no longer in its strategic interest."

    The two leaders were looking to US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's trip to Moscow this week as an opportunity to lay the groundwork for a "lasting political settlement," May's office said.

    - 'Toxic' Assad -

    At the outset of the G7 gathering in the Tuscan city of Lucca, Britain's Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson described Assad as "toxic," and said it was "time for (Russian President) Vladimir Putin to face the truth about the tyrant he is propping up."

    Tillerson also attended the meeting at the 15th century Ducal Palace, along with foreign ministers from Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan.

    The annual two-day meeting had initially been expected to focus on talks with Tillerson about hotspots like Libya, Iran and Ukraine.

    But the agenda is now likely to be dominated by last week's suspected chemical weapons attack that killed at least 87 civilians.

    Washington's missile strike was the first time it had intervened directly against the regime of Assad, who is fighting a civil war with the backing of Russia and Iran.

    Several rounds of UN-backed peace talks have failed to end the conflict, which has killed more than 320,000 people since March 2011.

    - 'End Assad support' -

    Iran and North Korea have slammed Washington's retaliation and put it on a direct diplomatic collision course with Moscow, where Tillerson heads Tuesday for talks with Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov.

    Johnson on Monday called on Moscow to do "everything possible to bring about a political settlement in Syria and work with the rest of the international community to ensure that the shocking events of the last week are never repeated."

    French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said the pressing task for the G7 was to "find a political solution, a political transition" in Syria, particularly if the West wanted to triumph over the Islamic State group.

    - 'Crime against innocents' -

    Italy arranged a last-minute meeting for Tuesday between the G7 ministers and their counterparts from Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

    Italian media said the aim was "to avert a dangerous military escalation."

    Japan's Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida said he told Tillerson that Tokyo supports the US in its push to "deter the spread and use of chemical weapons," and discussed the pressing North Korean nuclear threat.


    Japan hopes the strong US response on Syria will also put pressure on Pyongyang, which is showing signs of preparing for its sixth nuclear test and more test-firings of ballistic missiles.

    "We agreed that the role of China is extremely important. Japan and the United States will jointly call on China to play a bigger role," Kishida told reporters after meeting Tillerson in Lucca.

    Meanwhile, the leaders of southern EU nations said Monday the US missile strike on the Syrian air base was "understandable."

    "The strike launched by the United States on Shayrat Airfield in Syria had the understandable intention to prevent and deter the spread and use of chemical weapons and was limited and focused on this objective," they said in a joint statement after a summit in Madrid.
     
    Sancho and layman like this.
  7. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,357
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Country Flag:
    United States
    A practical guide for avoiding fallacies on Syria
    Shadi HamidSaturday, April 8, 2017
    Markaz
    The basic contours of the Syria debate have changed very little, writes Shadi Hamid, despite more than five years of brutal civil war. The same perceptions and misperceptions about intervention dominate today. Here’s a practical guide for navigating the key sticking points in this latest iteration of the Syria debate. This piece originally appeared on The Atlantic.

    It’s remarkable just how little the basic contours of the Syria debate have changed, despite more than five years of brutal civil war. The same perceptions and misperceptions about intervention dominate today. In some ways, they are even worse now because of the distorting figure of President Donald Trump. Is it possible to separate one’s feelings about the man from the recognition that he is, whether we like it or not, our commander-in-chief?

    Author
    [​IMG]
    Shadi Hamid
    Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy, U.S. Relations with the Islamic World
    Twitter shadihamid


    With this dilemma in mind, here’s a practical guide for navigating the key sticking points in this latest iteration of the Syria debate, from the perspective of someone who has called for direct intervention against Bashar Assad since early on the conflict.

    Military action does not equal regime change. The two, understandably, have become conflated because of the Iraq war. But military action can help, rather than undermine, diplomatic efforts. It is abundantly clear that the Assad regime will not negotiate in good faith or make any significant concessions on its own. We’ve hoped for that since the earliest Arab League efforts in 2011. The credible threat of force (or its use) is the only thing that is likely to change Assad’s calculus. If his survival isn’t at stake, he has little reason to negotiate much of anything.

    Not everything is Iraq. There is the danger of seeing airstrikes as a low-risk catch-all solution, a kind of military pixie-dust. At the same time, though, not everything is an Iraq-style invasion. America has any number of choices in between these two models of engagement. In Bosnia, air power forced the Serbs to the negotiating table, eventually leading to the Dayton Accords (a key example of military action in the service of diplomacy). Similarly, Moammar Gadhafi’s regime showed an openness to talks only after the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, with Qaddafi envoys engaging in cease-fire talks within weeks.




    The fallacy of anti-interventionism. The presumption is that not acting is neutral. But it’s not. “Do no harm” can do tremendous harm. In the case of Syria, it has. Deciding not to act in the face of war crimes is a very conscious decision. Just as we judge the consequences of intervention, we must be willing to judge the consequences of non-intervention.

    Got a better idea? Those who oppose intervention have reasonable objections, especially considering Trump’s apparent lack of thought to a broader strategic vision in Syria (this is my biggest concern). But those who oppose the use of force have never explained what exactly their alternative is. Refusing to intervene against Assad has been U.S. policy since 2011 and the results have proven disastrous, with spillover effects, including massive refugee flows, threatening not just the Middle East but also the very future of the European project. In the policymaking or business world, if a policy consistently fails for half a decade, we would presumably ask its proponents to explain why we should continue to stay the course.

    Does Vladimir Putin ever ask, “But what will the U.S. do?”

    “Prove it.” Quite understandably, critics of intervention ask its proponents to explain why intervention would be preferable. Over the years, those calling for airstrikes, safe zones, and no-fly and no-drive zones have laid out any number of proposals. But can they prove that their preferred policy course would lead to better outcomes? No, they cannot, but that’s an unrealistic standard that could just as easily be applied to Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, or Kuwait in the lead-up to (actual or potential) interventions in those countries. To apply this standard to policy debates basically means blocking any discussion of alternative options. No one has ever argued that military intervention is risk-free. It entails risks, just as not intervening in the face of a chemical weapons attack also entails risks.



    “What will Russia do?” This question has become a common one, but its starting assumptions are suspect. What it translates into is a requirement for preemptive U.S. de-escalation, since the Russians are always likely to react negatively to the use of force against any state actor. It is never made clear why Russia shouldn’t consider the consequences of its own escalations. Does Vladimir Putin ever ask, “But what will the U.S. do?” The United States is the superpower, and not the other way around, and it’s unlikely that Russia will provoke a military confrontation with a superior military force—assuming it knows U.S. threats of military force are credible, which it presumably now knows.

    The “imperfect vessel” argument. Trump is, to put it gently, an imperfect vessel, who has rarely, if ever, expressed concern for human rights abuses by Arab dictators (instead, he’s effusively praised them). Always concerned with optics, Trump may believe in “doing something” just for the sake of doing something, without giving thought to broader strategic objectives such as ending the civil war and pressuring the Assad regime to make real concessions to the opposition. But as the prominent Trump critic Jennifer Rubin has argued, the logical conclusion of the “imperfect vessel” argument is that, as long as Trump is president, the United States must avoid all military options that involve nuance and complexity (and every single military operation involves nuance and complexity). This is not quite realistic, since there are at least some military operations, including defensive ones, which the vast majority of Americans would support, no matter who the president was.

    These considerations do not mean that intervention, whatever form it takes, is right or that it will succeed. But we should at least be clear about what we are—and aren’t—debating.
     
    layman and Sancho like this.
  8. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,357
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Country Flag:
    United States
    The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis. Dante Alighieri
     
  9. Immanuel

    Immanuel 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2012
    Messages:
    359
    Likes Received:
    133
    Most cruise missiles won't even penetrate the EW barrier let alone actually find the target. Any of those T-hawks or JASSMS that get through are easy meat for Pantsirs protecting the S-400 as well.
     
  10. YarS

    YarS Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2017
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    326
    Country Flag:
    Russian Federation
    Bla-bla-bla... Usual proveless chatter.
     
  11. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,357
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Country Flag:
    United States
    EW barrier, is that something like the magic French Spectra? As long as Russia sells Sams to other countries we are going to be able to counter the systems and even if we do not US industry hires the same people that build them.
     
  12. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,357
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Country Flag:
    United States
    A division of S400s contains 112 missiles and costs 400 million. If even one cruise missiles gets thru loaded with subammunition its going to take out the 8 launchers and support vehicles.. then there are stealthy drones with glide bombs. The only reason Russia builds Sams is to sell them to third world countries.
     
  13. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,357
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Crunch Time For Army Missile Defense Network, IBCS By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on April 10, 2017 at 5:10 PM
    9 Comments
    96Shares
    [​IMG]

    The Army’s Indirect Fire Protection Capability will be the first weapon built to work with the new IBCS command-and-control network.

    WASHINGTON: Northrop Grumman‘s IBCS network could revolutionize how the Army does air and missile defense, if they can get the software to stop crashing. Since Pentagon testers found in February 2016 that the system had to abort, on average, every six to eight hours, the program has worked hard to make the software “more robust,” said Northrop manager Rob Jassey.

    Now, “we are ready to have a full-up Soldier Check-Out Event (SCOE) that they can look at the tremendous improvement in reliability,” Jassey told me confidently. “The user interface has been completely (redone).” That test will come late summer and early fall, in time to influence the critical “Milestone C” decision to start production, originally scheduled for November ’16 but now expected this year.

    [​IMG]
    simplified (yes, really) overview of the IBCS command-and-control network for air and missile defense.


    The software is so hard because IBCS is extremely complex. (Even the name is a nested acronym for IAMD Battle Command System, IAMD meaning Integrated Air and Missile Defense). It’s meant to replace seven separate command-and-control systems used by today’s Army with a new paradigm for air and missile defense. Instead of each weapons system requiring its own dedicated radar and command posts — e.g. a Patriot radar feeds data to a Patriot command post, which gives orders to a Patriot launcher — IBCS is designed to draw data from every sensor, fuse the disparate information into a single picture that’s more than the sum of its parts, and provide targets to any launcher.

    The network will even include radars that weren’t designed to provide sufficiently precise data for the system’s targeting, most notably the Sentinel early-warning radar. That adds “hundreds” of new sensors, said Jassey. The hard part is that also requires upgrading all those hundreds of additional sensors to report data they originally didn’t.

    [​IMG]
    Army soldiers maintain a Sentinel radar system.

    In fact, every system currently in Army service requires some kind upgrade before it can talk to IBCS. Physically, it’s not a big deal. “In the Sentinel, it turns out to be just a card that slips into the (existing) computer rack,” he said; on some systems, “it’s a little box sitting on the launcher that hosts the card.” But it requires writing — and testing, and rewriting — software for a host of different systems by a host of different manufacturers. (Future Army systems will be IBCS-compliant from the start, as might even some Air Force or Navy ones).

    “This is not child’s play,” Jassey acknowledged. “The government, as the lead system integrator, is doing yeoman’s work to bring together an enterprise like that.”

    Because the government, not Northrop or some other contractor, is the lead integrator, “the government owns the entire architecture. There’s not a proprietary stitch in it,” Jassey said. “A lot of people didn’t believe we could do fire control using an open systems approach…. We spent a good chunk of change building a prototype tactical operations center (to) prove the basic constructs.”

    Once IBCS is in place, however, the government-owned open architecture makes it easier to upgrade any component, without having to go back to the original manufacturer of proprietary systems. What’s more, the Army won’t need to buy a complete set of sensor, shooter, and command post every time it wants a new capability. Instead, it can just buy a new radar or a new weapon as desired and plug it into IBCS. The Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) program, for example, is basically just developing a missile launcher that will rely on IBCS for command-and-control and for targeting data.

    As a retired Army air defender himself, Jassey says this model will reduce redundant spending. “When I wore a green suit, what I wanted was to stop spending so much money on command and control systems that were not talking to each other,” he said. The Army also won’t have to train troops to operate multiple different command-and-control systems: Once you’ve learned IBCS, you can use it with anything.

    [​IMG]
    Rob Jassey

    Of course, IBCS has to work first. Simulations and laboratory tests can only go partway in testing such complexity, Jassey said, which is why field tests in realistic conditions with real soldiers are vital. “We’ve had soldiers on it, hammering on it,” he said. “We’ve been running long-duration runs both here and in the government system integration lab, (and) by long duration I mean covering days, to make sure the software stays running solid.”

    Contrast that “days” to the frequent failures reported last year by the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation‘s annual (DOT&E) report: “(IBCS) demonstrated poor system reliability, with 6 to 8 hours of Mean Time Between System Abort (MTBSA) compared to the (Army) entrance criteria of 31 hours MTBSA. (It) demonstrated a 6 percent likelihood that it could operate for 72 hours without experiencing a failure that would result in system abort. The warfighter requirement is a 90 percent likelihood…. The EOC (Engagement Operations Center) demonstrated an average operating time of up to 16 hours without a failure that results in ineffective operations; this is significant when compared to the minimum requirement to operate for up to 446 hours.”

    Those figures come from the February 2016 Limited User Test (LUT), said Jassey, the first time IBCS in all its complexity was employed in field conditions. “That was the first time anyone had seen it all together,” he said. They learned a lot from the LUT, he said, and “the improvements are enormous,” Jassey said. Now IBCS is ready for a Soldier Check-Out Event — testing the software, but not firing live weapons — set to start sometime late this summer, he told me: “We’re waiting with baited breath.”
     
  14. Dagger

    Dagger 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    518
    Country Flag:
    India
    Here is an older one:
    INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
     
  15. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,357
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Country Flag:
    United States
    In some countrys your guilty until you can prove you are innocent.
     

Share This Page