Can anybody tell me something about last US attack on Syria?

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Tomahawk.html#specs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)

Hi, I'm captain unhelpful. Here's a wiki article.

The Tomahawk Missile, the same kind as you've shown in your picture, is manufactured by Raytheon.

Guidance can vary, but many US warheads use GPS guidance when attacking structures, esp bases and airfields.

Warhead/load was likely a unitary conventional high explosive warhead, or if Trump was feeling particularly frisky, it would have been cluster munitions. However, cluster munitions are bad for cleanup, so likely just normal high explosives.

The Block IV missile, in your photo, has a turbofan arrangement as its main propulsion.

As for fuel, being a turbofan, it uses normal enriched jet fuel.

>>33606693
Nice try ISIS, I ain't telling you shit

>>33606693
G-g-guys I'm a real American, patriotism and handburger are great things. Send blueprints for science fair thanked you

File: 1491863191875.jpg (342KB, 1200x1190px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1200x1190px

>>33606693
Note the concrete hangar, armored against bombs with all that rebar and shit.

Now look how effortlessly the Tomahawk punched through it and made the plane into a smouldering pile of burnt metal and russian hopes.

>>33606693
The Tomahawks were probably either TLAM-C or TLAM-E variants. Multiple guidance sensors are used, including inertial navigation, GPS for cruise, and DSMAC (Digital Scene Matching) using an onboard camera for terminal guidance (which, although not necessarily required to perform a strike, was almost certainly used judging by the accuracy of the hits). Some variants of the Tomahawk use TERCOM (TERrain COntour Matching) radar guidance to allow low, terrain-hugging flight without relying on GPS, but the Tomahawks in question probably didn't have this feature. The warhead was most certainly a unitary conventional warhead (as opposed to the cluster warhead of the TLAM-D, or the nuclear warhead of other variants). All operational variants of the Tomahawk use a Williams F107 turbofan engine for cruise (which burns ordinary JP-8 jet fuel), and are launched using a small solid-fueled (APCP, judging by the smoke trail) rocket booster which separates after propellant is expended.

As you probably know, the Tomahawk is a very expensive missile. A large chunk of the cost is attributable to the turbofan engine. Turbine engines have moving parts which, due to the temperatures involved, must be machined from expensive nickel superalloys. Rocket engines (such as the booster stage), ramjets and pulsejets tend to be far cheaper. Another factor in some variants is the TERCOM/anti-ship radar - radar seekers tend to be very expensive, for reasons I don't fully understand. This shouldn't be a factor for GPS-guided TLAMs, however. If the INS is a mechanical PIGA-based system, and not a solid-state system which is often used in shorter-duration applications, it too may contribute significantly to cost. Finally I suspect a lot of the cost is simply due to the higher standards set for nuclear delivery platforms (which the Tomahawk served as for some time), and considerable gouging for the newer non-nuclear, GPS-guided variants, which really have no right to cost what they do.

Can one of you Russian bros get me some scrap from the strike? A nice souvenir? I'll PayPal you.

File: gaza rooster.jpg (983KB, 3456x2304px) Image search: [Google]

983KB, 3456x2304px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ

>>33607042

a Tomahawk costs more than a shitty old Flogger

>>33606972
>handburger
brb, am dying of laughter...

>>33607042
I read that Tomahawks can fly into gaps and spaces.
Some defense dude saying it could fly through a window if they wanted.

In that case, it could just fly into a gap and not punch through a bunker.

>>33607153
>Tomahawks can fly into gaps and spaces.
>it could just fly into a gap

Is the average 4chan user actually this retarded?

File: kpjye89rdaucp2xey6qi.jpg (65KB, 800x633px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 800x633px

>>33607160
>brb gotta punch the guy through the window

Well they already can...

>>33607160
The video said they are very accurate.
As it it could fly through a large hanger door.
Sry if my poor grammar hurt your feelings.

File: rtn_190419.jpg (41KB, 480x327px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x327px

>>33607160

>>33606693
the mostly all hit on average nearly a metric ton of explosive in each, they are old and relatively slow but low flying.

S400 air defense is a turkey as is s300

File: took'er jobs.jpg (451KB, 1200x600px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 1200x600px

>>33607191
>raytheon_gets_pissed_at_general_atomics.jpg

>>33607224
Have s300 or s400 ever had solid hit Chances on US Jets?

I know the USA haven't lost many jets in the past 40yrs

>>33607289
Neither of those would do shit to a B-2A.

>>33606693
It knows where it is by knowing where it isn't.

>>33607143
When the US can and does outspend everyone else by hundreds of billions of dollars cost ratios have a lot less meaning.

>>33607143
Replacing a single tomahawk in the US inventory is a drop in the ocean, replacing a Flogger in Assad's inventory is impossible

>>33607423
Solid point

>>33607307
>Neither of those would do shit to a B-2A.

This is no longer the 90's.

>>33607143
>$1.87M is more than a working fighter jet?!?

>>33607423
If the tomahawk even gets replaced, arent they going to be replaced with other stuff? Might as well just use what you have instead, disassembly probaly would cost more.

>>33607143
Nope actually. Even demilled Floggers on the civilian market are something like $3 million apiece, and they're secondhand.

That's also assuming that they'd be able to just buy another Flogger/Fitter to replace it. MiG-23 production ended in 1985, and Su-22 production ended in 1990. If the Syrians were to replace their losses, they'd have to get something newer, meaning they're either going with significantly decreased capabilities and a COIN plane or blowing at least $20 million on even a "budget" fighter like the JF-17.

>>33607289
That is because US has not engaged against S-300/variants yet. All they tried is simulated EW warfare and jamming it during friendly excercises (like in Slovakia, which inherited export versions (read- monkey models because they are nerfed compared to RDM versions) of S-300) with not so good results where only one french EW suite was being able to jam it to some extent.

Needless to say there has not been any direct action against working S-300 or newer by gen4 or gen5 planes so we don't know. What we know that US owns multiple russian radar stations for testing purposes and maybe that is why they are pushing stealth as a main feature.

DESU even S-125 did a good job on Balkan because it was being operated in a sensible manner. Can't expect that from sand-dindus even if you gave them the latest versions... so yeah.

>>33609686
or buy some refurbished one since there are still armies operating them and selling them.

>>33609753
The US has a working S300 battery in Nevada. Other NATO members bring their own S300s for training as well.

File: 1449404552121.png (305KB, 600x620px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 600x620px

>>33609753
>monkey model excuse

File: MiG-23BN.jpg (313KB, 1200x822px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 1200x822px

>>33609764
Good luck finding any in good condition that anyone's willing to sell. Current MiG-23 operators, complete with operational numbers, include such powerhouses as:
>Angola - 22
>Cuba - 24
>Congo - 2
>Ethiopia - 10
>Kazakhstan - 3
>Libya - 1
>Best Korea - 23
>Sudan - 3
>Zimbabwe - unknown

Syria has the largest Flogger fleet right now, and most operators are flying the Flogger only as trainers. Those that actually have significant fleets, like Cuba, Angola, and Best Korea, likely have the fleets in very poor condition with the end of Soviet support.

Fitters are little better - the only operator who's competent at all (others being Angola, Vietnam, and Yemen) is Poland, and they'd sooner part with their Fulcrums than their Fitters.

There really isn't any cheap option for replacement for the planes the SAAF lost.

>>33607064
So, while they look like Tomahawks from the 90's. They are far different and improved?

>>33606750
Thanks captain unhelpful, that was totally unnecessary.

>>33609753
Cyprus got a legit model in the late 2000s, I'm sure the S-300 code has been cracked by now.

>>33606693
It's an old missile and you can find it online.

>>33609907
That one is in Greece but at least I think it s in working condition. Not sure if they have used it in the exercises with the USAFE.

>>33607191
oh shi...

For Assad the six Su-22 and three MiG-23 that were destroyed were worth their weight in gold.

>>33611725
>For Assad the six Su-22 and three MiG-23 that were destroyed were worth their weight in gold.

Can't he just push shit out of helicopters or get the russkies to do a run or him?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (146KB, 1622x1080px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1622x1080px

>>33611754
>>Can't he just push shit out of helicopters
he sure can!

>>33611754
Loss of equipment is additional strain on surviving resources. Russians also don't want to be doing Assad's dirty work in case of some accident happens.