Syria Tomahawk Strike

>>33737190
Surprising nobody west of Ukraine

>>33737190
I don't think russsia ever claim to shoot down one

>>33737190
Whats up with the grid pattern of tracks between the runways/taxiways? Lawnmower tracks?

>>33737372
Russia claimed only 23 hit the base and the rest (36) were shot down. Turns out it was a complete lie like always.

>>33739547
i thought they missed

>>33737190
>So almost 3 weeks after the strike the Russians finally admit that not a single Tomahawk was actually shot down.


Bump for reality

>>33739632
Mattis claims 58 of 59 Tomahawks either had direct impact or close enough to destroy their targets:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politics/syria-mattis-trump-strike-damage/

With pictures:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/07/syria-missile-attack-satellite-photos-show-major-damage-to-airfields.html

>>33739843
>cnn
>fox news

anon...

>>33739992
>direct quotes attributed to both Mattis and the DoD
>photographic evidence even a moron could figure out
>also found (both quotes and pictures/video), with 30 seconds on google, on at least three dozen other sources

Are you always a contrarian, illogical, childish fuck or did you just sit on your daddy's dildo too hard this morning?

File: Strangelove is pleased.jpg (104KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1024x768px

>>33740088

>>33739547
"According to the Russian defense ministry, the combat effectiveness of the attack was extremely low, only 23 missiles hit the base, and it did not know where the other 36 landed."

No shot down anything, why lie like this anon? It's two clicks away.

>>33740139
>>33739547
I'm really not sure why anyone takes what the MoD says RE: bomb damage assessments and weapons effectiveness seriously anymore. It's almost never even touching actual reality.

I'm beginning to wonder if even they know where the line between realistic assessment and public consumption bullshit lies anymore.

>>33740169
It's not for me to say, I simply refuted the claim that Russia said it shot down 36 missiles. I just thought it was funny that he spoke of lies but ended up lying himself.

>>33737190
Vatnik shills BTFO yet again

>>33740200
It is interesting that they didn't even bother claiming they'd shot any down, even though they had advance warning of the attack. How many S-300 systems do they have in country now?

>>33740215
Maybe they just didn't try to in the first place?

>>33737190
They have never claimed they shot down any Tomahawks or aimed to do so, lying imbecile shitposter.

>>33740234
Why wouldn't they? I mean, I understand choosing not to destroy manned aircraft to avoid direct casualties and retaliation, but why the fuck do you let unmanned cruise missiles directly strike your ally's base, one where you've got dozens of your own personnel?

So they shoot them down. What then? They get a huge PR victory, thumb their nose at the US more and get a shit ton more diplomatic currency with Assad and others like him. Meanwhile, the US doesn't do a damn thing other than roll another strike package in and destroy the base with B-2s and standoff PGMs, along with that one SAM system you used to eat their tomahawks.

There's literally zero tactical or political reason NOT to shoot them down. The only conclusion I can reach is that they were unable to shoot them down, in spite of having advance warning and heavy air defenses in the region.

>>33740281
Unless they try to shoot them down and fail.

>>33740377
>Unless they try to shoot them down and fail.
Right. Which leads us right back to "unable to shoot them down".

Politically, they would only need to shoot about a dozen of the 59 down to claim a victory and proceed to geo-political dickwaving, considering the regional disparity in forces. They've got at least two S-300 batteries in country plus their own and Syrian S-200s and air to air assets. If they can't manage to thin out such an attack by 1/6th with advance warning, then paper tiger ain't even in it.

>>33740418
>implying s-300 has country wide range
Are you retarded?

>>33740457
>>implying s-300 has country wide range
The current S-300 systems are supposedly capable of networked OTH targeting against airborne threats using air and other ground assets, and it has a max range of 200km depending on variant and missile.

Assuming one is deployed at the Tartus naval base, that covers nearly a third of the country by itself (including almost all the Assad-controlled areas), and that coverage includes Shayrat with an 80+km margin. There is zero reason to believe, based on Russian MoD claims, that the single S-300 system at Tartus alone would have had difficulty in engaging those Tomahawks effectively if a single Russian AWACS asset had been aloft (remember, they had advance warning).

Are you incapable of doing any actual research?

>>33740457
It's called an IADS for a reason, dipshit. It's supposedly one of the only Russian technological and numerical advantages over the US. Go read a fucking book.

File: 1472509028588.jpg (169KB, 1200x677px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1200x677px

>>33740457
Nigga what, S-300s are basically theater level AA.
Also
>Using long range AA against relatively slow cruise missiles
>>33740281
>>33740418
You do realize there are more things going on behind the scenes right? The Russians all left before SHTF for a reason.
Pantsirs and Buks are wholly capable of taking down cruise missiles. Pantsirs are tested against Klubs which are faster, if not, similar in performance to Tomahawks.

>>33740281
>Why wouldn't they?
Because it would be an attack against the US, imbecile.
>So they shoot them down. What then? They get a huge PR victory
No, imbecile, they get a huge geopolitical tension out of fucking nowhere with literally nothing to gain out of it.
>There's literally zero tactical or political reason NOT to shoot them down
Yes there is, imbecile. Fuck off to /pol, /vg or whatever shithole you crawled from.
>>33740418
>Which leads us right back to "unable to shoot them down".
No, imbecile, it leads us back you your shitposting lying ass making up things.
>They've got at least two S-300 batteries in country
That are stationed at Russian bases and are there to cover Russian bases, not to fulfil wet dreams of some clueless faggot manchild from /pol.

>>33740786
>The Russians all left before SHTF for a reason.
There were reportedly several dozen Russian personnel in their barracks on the Shayrat base during the attack, which is why the target selection was so careful to leave those out of the CEP damage radius on the warheads. It's also why Syrian barracks were left intact, and the strike caused few casualties for so many munitions, the Syrian barracks being adjacent to the Russian ones.

>>33740899
aight, didn't know that

>>33740811
>Because it would be an attack against the US, imbecile.
Protecting against a US attack against a declared ally. Perfectly legal and justifiable in geopolitical terms.

>they get a huge geopolitical tension out of fucking nowhere
They've been using excuses and rhetoric to keep geopolitical tension and posturing elevated with both Syria, Ukraine and the Baltic for years now, anon.

>Yes there is, imbecile.
Then provide one which isn't retarded.

>No, imbecile, it leads us back you your shitposting lying ass making up things.
I demonstrated at the most basic level the simple fact that they had both political reason and supposed tactical capability to do it. You've provided zero credible reasons to the contrary. Produce an actual argument or fuck off.

>That are stationed at Russian bases and are there to cover Russian bases
They cover almost the entire country and are stated both implicitly and explicitly to include Syrian assets in their coverage against US/NATO aggression as part of their mission to support Assad as an ally.

>>33740936
>Perfectly legal and justifiable in geopolitical terms.
>Protecting an ally who, according to the media and certain politicians, used sarin.

>stated both implicitly and explicitly to include Syrian assets in their coverage against US/NATO aggression as part of their mission to support Assad as an ally.
http://www.politico.eu/article/russia-says-support-for-syria-not-unconditional/

>>33740968
>>Protecting an ally who, according to the media and certain politicians, used sarin.
This is different from the previous two years how? This is neither the first chemical attack nor the first chance Russia has had to bail out and stop support after such an attack.

>http://www.politico.eu/article/russia-says-support-for-syria-not-unconditional/
A mid-level diplomat stated support is not unconditional. Wow. Welcome to baby's first foray into diplo-talk and geopolitical hedging.

If you're claiming Russia approved the US strike and provided clear corridors to target, then kindly produce either Russian or US statements to that effect, which are made public in literally EVERY other such incident. If the strike had Russian approval, why did the Russians claim it failed?

>>33737190
>>33739547
The MoD never claimed they were shot down.

>>33741029
The difference is that the tomahawk strike was intended to be a response for the chemical attacks. There is no doubt that chemical weapons were used, and most people are pointing fingers at Assad. Russians had previously assisted in the disposal of chemical weapon caches in the possession of the SAA and has never stood by the use of CW. By defending against the strike, the media and opposing politicians would frame the Russians for defending the use of CW.

>If you're claiming Russia approved the US strike and provided clear corridors to target, then kindly produce either Russian or US statements to that effect, which are made public in literally EVERY other such incident. If the strike had Russian approval, why did the Russians claim it failed?
I'm not, I'm saying there's more going behind the scenes that you or I would know of.

>>33738186

Probably just roads for transit across the base man.

>>33741101
>The difference is that the tomahawk strike was intended to be a response for the chemical attacks.
After previous attacks the Russians vigorously opposed US retaliatory action, like after the Homs attack or the August 13, 2013 attack (which killed 1,400 fucking people with Sarin), or the Chlorine attacks starting in 2014. After every single one of these events, Russia continued to exert influence to prevent retaliatory strikes. This argument line is a complete non-starter. For instance:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/how-obamas-chemical-weapons-deal-fell-apart/522549/
>At Russia’s insistence, the deal did not allow for the use of force or the automatic imposition of sanctions even in the event of Syrian violations
>Russia offered to broker a deal, thus safeguarding Assad’s political longevity and thwarting American and European public calls on Assad to step aside
>All the while Russia shielded the Assad regime against any punitive measures at the United Nations.

After this most recent one, here are some of the more choice Russian responses, from denial that chemical weapons were even purposefully used:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/05/us-russia-trade-claims-on-chemical-weapons-in-syria.html
>Russia's military insisted that the chemicals were dispersed when Syrian warplanes bombed a facility where rebels were building chemical weapons.
to threatening (with their good buddies, Iran. Seriously, what the fuck, Russia?) counter-strikes if any "red lines" are crossed again after the tomahawk strike:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-iran-us-america-syria-red-lines-respond-with-force-aggressor-air-strikes-war-latest-a7675031.html
>“What America waged in an aggression on Syria is a crossing of red lines. From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well,” the group’s joint command centre said.

>>33741101
see >>33741219
Your argument is full of holes, yet you remain full of shit. Truly the Vatnik defies the laws of physics.

>>33740811

I think saying it would qualify as an attack against the United States is too strong a word. Russia could have just argued they had personnel in the area and simply weren't willing to risk casualties.

>>33741229
>Vatnik
When have I praised Russian actions and why did you reply my post only to refer me to a post that directly responded to me? Are you retarded?
>>33741219
Aight you got me. So you tell me why they didn't shoot them down? They were notified in advance of a cruise missile strike; CIWS systems are capable and the Russians have theater wide radar coverage.

>>33741451
>So you tell me why they didn't shoot them down?
As I said before, I believe it was because the capabilities they claim, specifically OTH networked detection/launch/terminal guidance for the S-300 and other systems, is presently still being developed and is undeployed in the field. I also believe their reported intercept rates and G2A munitions pK are significantly on the "optimistic" side, and actually attempting intercept would have revealed this discrepancy to even half asleep military intelligence officers around the world, including the people to whom they are trying to sell these systems. It would also reveal just how vulnerable they might be to such strikes in the Ukraine conflict.

Not attempting to intercept at all was the only option to preserve concrete intelligence on their actual capabilities in this area. Remember also that the US has working S-300 examples, which they regularly train with and against, so much of the above would not come as a surprise and may have aided in path planning for that Tomahawk strike.

>They were notified in advance of a cruise missile strike; CIWS systems are capable and the Russians have theater wide radar coverage.
Again, the question is how capable. No one has yet seen the S-300 or Russian CIWS systems in an actual combat environment. While their capabilities can only be assumed, Russia can continue selling them based on claimed capabilities. Once their actual capabilities are demonstrated against US equipment with Russian operators, there would be no question. The sales hit in IADS equipment they took after Desert Storm would happen all over again, but with some of their most recent systems and no monkey model excuse.

>>33739547
They never claimed to have shot them down, and its not as if the strikes were not coordinated with the Russians.

>>33741608
>and its not as if the strikes were not coordinated with the Russians.
Proofs.
Especially since they turned right around and threatened retaliation if it ever happened again.

>>33741081
>https://www.rt.com/news/383858-syria-us-strike-inefficient/
>"The Russian Defense Ministry says the US missile strike on a Syrian airfield wasn't very effective, with only 23 out of 59 Tomahawk missiles reaching their target. The locations of the remaining 36 missiles’ impact is now unknown, the ministry added."
Proof left on their own propaganda website, of all places.

V A T N I K S A R E O V E R

>>33737190
How the fuck do you even shoot down tomahawk?
Arn't those things going 500mph and like 100ft above the ground?

Tomahawk are cold war junk, no one cares if it hits or not, it can't even dent the Russian military.

>>33742124
>How the fuck do you even shoot down tomahawk?
Any modern ground to air missile, radar guided and some infra red (depending on intercept geometry) A2A missile or CIWS gun mount should be able to make that intercept with better than a .5 pK. AMRAAM could do it with upwards of a .9 pK and favorable geometry. An SM-6 or SM-2ER could do it through a remote sensor (F-35, AWACS, remote AEGIS system, etc.) over the horizon 100+nmi away with a .9 pK or better. These numbers are publicly tested and proven, and only start getting heavily degraded with extensive and equally modern EW and decoy use.

File: Screenshot_2016-05-06-21-53-01-1-1.png (267KB, 846x782px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 846x782px

>>33742143
>it can't even dent the Russian military.
>Loses 50% of their air defense
>Can't shoot down a single tomahawk

>>33740936
>against a declared ally
When did the US attacked a member of CSTO?
>They've been using excuses and rhetoric to keep geopolitical tension and posturing elevated with both Syria, Ukraine and the Baltic for years now, anon.
I'm sure that's what CNN tells you.
>Then provide one which isn't retarded.
I just gave you one, dumbass. Saving a couple of MiG-23 at the expense of tensions rising to the peak is retarded and pointless.
>I demonstrated at the most basic level the simple fact that they had both political reason and supposed tactical capability to do it
All you said was "hurr durr they could so they should have and cince they did not it means they could not". It's full retard tier. Their aim there is to help Syrians fight terrorists, not to protect Assad's ass from everything. SAM systems are there specifically to cover Russian bases and forces, which is why they sit at their bases and don't move with SAA.
>explicitly to include Syrian assets in their coverage against US/NATO aggression as part of their mission to support Assad as an ally
Then why won't they put them in Damascus not protect the region from IAF, dummy?
>>33740968
>according to the media and certain politicians
Meaningless. Everyone understands it was a terrorist attack, IIRC using artillery shells. The fact that western propaganda keeps pushing their narrative that SAA for no reason whatsoever decided to use chemical weapons out of nowhere is laughable and pathetic.
>>33741326
Some anon posted a quote from the US doctrine or something like that that specifies an attack against US weaponry as a direct attack against the US.
>>33742065
You do realise that the very quote you posted proves they do not and have never claimed they shot anything down or ever intended to, imbecile? Fucking brainwashed rednecks, Jesus Christ.

>>33742576
>Meaningless. Everyone understands it was a terrorist attack, IIRC using artillery shells. The fact that western propaganda keeps pushing their narrative that SAA for no reason whatsoever decided to use chemical weapons out of nowhere is laughable and pathetic.
The Russian mind, ladies and gentlemen. In spite of demonstrated and repeated willingness and capability to deploy and use chemical weapons without regard to civilian casualties, SYRIA DIN DU NUFFIN is still the battle cry.

I really am about tired of this level of retardation.

>Some anon posted a quote from the US doctrine or something like that that specifies an attack against US weaponry as a direct attack against the US.
Do please post this quote. I can find it nowhere, and it certainly departs from my understanding of both US doctrine and international law. Claiming an existential attack upon sovereign territory because a cruise missile was shot down is diplomatically retarded, absolutely untenable from an international law perspective and tactically insane. The only policy even close to this involves foreign embassy property and military naval vessels, or "pennanted shipping" in older parlance. Produce your proofs, vatnik.

Some days I really do wonder about /k/. Why even comment if you're truly this ignorant about international conflict law and diplomacy?

>>33742715
The brainwashed American mind: CNN says so, therefore it is true.
>Do please post this quote
Couldn't care less, I'm not _that_ interested in the US military. IIRC the quote even specifically said about shooting down missiles qualifying as an attack as well, though I'm not sure about such concreteness.
>Why even comment if you're truly this ignorant
Indeed, better stop shitposting and return to /pol, /vg or whatever shithole you crawled from. There was and is zero evidence they ever tried or intended to stop this strike.

File: snimok_ekrana_2017-04-11_v_21.03.09_615x368.png (339KB, 615x368px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 615x368px

>>33740215
>It is interesting that they didn't even bother claiming they'd shot any down, even though they had advance warning of the attack. How many S-300 systems do they have in country now?
Only Tartus has a battery each of S-300PMU2, and S-300V4 and Khmeimim, a battery of S-400. Those would have 40-70 km range to horizon, but even then the strikes were routed well south of Tartus- no way they can intercept them. And besides the stated goal of the deployment is to defend the Russian air and naval bases, not protect SAA. They prevent NATO from enforcing a NFZ, not without suffering massive losses in men and material especially when you can't do a tomahawk strikes since actual Pantsirs are guarding those.

>>33744685
>Only Tartus has a battery each of S-300PMU2, and S-300V4 and Khmeimim, a battery of S-400. Those would have 40-70 km range to horizon, but even then the strikes were routed well south of Tartus- no way they can intercept them.
See >>33740578
Shayrat is less than 120km from Tartus. All those systems have a 200km range, and are supposedly network capable of remote OTH targeting and terminal guidance.

This is not a reasonable excuse.

>>33744685
Heck, see those green blobs? those are mountain ranges.
See this is why the MiG-31 is a thing: A four aircraft-flight formation of MiG-31s would screen a line 900 km wide and 150 km deep. That's a lot of searched area. With 8 missiles (4 BVRs and 4 WVRs) against non-maneuvering subsonics the exchange ratio is basically 1-1, so each flight can deal with ~32 cruise missiles.

>>33742871
>The brainwashed American mind: CNN says so, therefore it is true.

Oh shit, we're already down to the ad hominem and strawman stage of the slavic argument.

Many beets for you.

>>33742871
>The brainwashed American mind: CNN says so, therefore it is true.
Do you live in that same delusional world as the people who think that the Democrats are a factious party and the Republicans march in party-line lockstep, or have you just somehow missed the last 2+ years of American news culture?

>>33744767
>Shayrat is less than 120km from Tartus
radar horizon is a thing. even with masts it only comes to around 70 km to the horizon level. There's even mountains in between.
>. All those systems have a 200km range, and are supposedly network capable of remote OTH targeting and terminal guidance.
Not worth anything if there isn't a platform in the right place at the right time to provide targeting data.

>>33744825
>radar horizon is a thing. even with masts it only comes to around 70 km to the horizon level. There's even mountains in between.
Did you completely miss where I said >>33744767
>and are supposedly network capable of remote OTH targeting and terminal guidance.
or are you so ignorant of this topic that you are unaware of what that means?

>Not worth anything if there isn't a platform in the right place at the right time to provide targeting data.
Once more, it's called an IADS. What's the I stand for? Oh, right.

Also, are you suggesting that even with advance warning, the Russians were incapable of getting ANY sort of AWACS or even datalink-equipped tac asset up (like the MiG-31, which is supposedly built to help target IADS missiles remotely)? Because that would be an even sadder comment upon the state of Russian readiness and equipment.

what stage are vatniks at?

>>33744979
>or are you so ignorant of this topic that you are unaware of what that means?
I'm pretty sure that's my line but w/e.

>Did you completely miss where I said >>33744767
What part of 70 km range to the horizon did you not understand?

>Also, are you suggesting that even with advance warning, the Russians were incapable of getting ANY sort of AWACS or even datalink-equipped tac asset up (like the MiG-31, which is supposedly built to help target IADS missiles remotely)? Because that would be an even sadder comment upon the state of Russian readiness and equipment.
>And besides the stated goal of the deployment is to defend the Russian air and naval bases, not protect SAA.
There are no news of the Russians scrambling anything so who knows? The Russians supposedly knew they themselves wouldn't be targeted so there is no reason to have the IADS up and shooting down anything- they let everyone from the US, UK, Israel and even Turkey bomb brown people even with their IADS for quite some time now so no there is no reason for them to deviate from that pattern.

>>33745129
>I'm pretty sure that's my line but w/e.
You cited radar horizon limitations for systems supposedly capable of remote datalink targeting and terminal guidance over the horizon. While talking about why they didn't stop a strike they had warning of well in advance. Please, continue to dazzle us with your sheer analytical powers.

>What part of 70 km range to the horizon did you not understand?
Feel free to cite a single source suggesting the maximum range for theatre defense AAA missiles on the S-300PMU2, S-300V4 or S-400 are only 70km. Because I'm pretty sure that'd be news to the Russian MoD.

Meanwhile, in the real world:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/s-300pmu2.htm
>200km
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/s300v.htm
>S-300V4 improved version. It seems that this system is also called S-300VMD. It has a range of 300 km
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/s400_triumph.htm
>400km

>they let everyone from the US, UK, Israel and even Turkey bomb brown people even with their IADS for quite some time now so no there is no reason for them to deviate from that pattern.
Except for the small detail that we were striking their own allies, at a base where they actually had personnel, over an issue Russia has made strenuous diplomatic fights to ensure Syria is not punished for.

>>33745205
>You cited radar horizon limitations for systems supposedly capable of remote datalink targeting and terminal guidance over the horizon. While talking about why they didn't stop a strike they had warning of well in advance. Please, continue to dazzle us with your sheer analytical powers.
and those offboard targeting platforms are where? They couldn't even have the AWACS and MiG-31s taking off screaming and be there in 1 hour because, have you looked at a fucking map recently- Turkey and a host of other countries who have understandably possible violent reactions to aircraft traveling through their airspace on very short notice to launch and support counterattacks are in between. And I said supposedly knew- only the US side has said they warned the Russians.

>Feel free to cite a single source suggesting the maximum range for theatre defense AAA missiles on the S-300PMU2, S-300V4 or S-400 are only 70km. Because I'm pretty sure that'd be news to the Russian MoD.
next time try some reading comprehension, or better yet, actually try to fucking learn whatever it is you are speaking of.
>>33745205
>Meanwhile, in the real world:
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/s-300pmu2.htm
>>200km
>http://www.military-today.com/missiles/s300v.htm
>>S-300V4 improved version. It seems that this system is also called S-300VMD. It has a range of 300 km
>http://www.military-today.com/missiles/s400_triumph.htm
>>400km
THE EARTH IS FLAT!

>Except for the small detail that we were striking their own allies, at a base where they actually had personnel, over an issue Russia has made strenuous diplomatic fights to ensure Syria is not punished for.
Except for the rather important part where they don't have fucking personnel and equipment or made arrangements to use the base when it was cruise missiled.

>>33745291
>and those offboard targeting platforms are where? They couldn't even have the AWACS and MiG-31s taking off screaming and be there in 1 hour because, have you looked at a fucking map recently- Turkey and a host of other countries who have understandably possible violent reactions to aircraft traveling through their airspace on very short notice to launch and support counterattacks are in between. And I said supposedly knew- only the US side has said they warned the Russians.
There are both MiG-31BMs (flying overwatch nearly constantly these days) and dispersed ground radar networks in Syria, you complete fucking moron, and either of these are supposedly capable of remote targeting and guidance. Kindly neck yourself or stick to topics you have any fucking clue about.

>>33745291
>our super awesome IADS network couldn't shoot down those missile because we can't effectively cover a country as tiny as Syria

Jesus, Vatnik, I think you sunk your own battleship.

>>33739547
they never stated they were shot down. There was a first day preliminary count and said the rest didn't make it due to malfunction. Like any investigation they updated their results a week later and said at least ~40 made it to their target, while the rest was uncounted for.

File: JESUS-LUMINOUS-PRESENCE-GOLD-PICTURE.jpg (9KB, 234x357px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 234x357px

>>33737190
>>33737190

>>33745371
so how come all those cruise missiles flew more then half of the syria and accidentally entire airfield ?

>>33745451
So Russians still clearly lied.

>>33745495
You rely on first day results on an ongoing investigation?

>>33745371
mig-31s can only talk to other migs with their data link, and Russian IADN won't accept targeting info from off network sources. Ie, a spoonrest radar can't feed target tracks to an s-300 missile. The best they can do is send their information, manually, to the hub of the IADN and give early warning to the S-300 systems.

>>33745511
what investigation ?

>>33745371

this fgt claims there are migs and radar everywhere, clearly they could just fly out there and confirm everything within like hour ?

>>33745511
They claimed specific numbers for tomahawks which reached their target and those that did not. Very specific. And those numbers turned out to be complete bullshit.

>>33745541
>mig-31s can only talk to other migs with their data link
Are you retarded?
That is ONE of the four datalinks in the MiG-31BM and later variants, the APD-518. The AK-RLDN facilitates ground controlled intercept, the BAN-75 is the command datalink and the MB5U15K facilitates air-to-ground tactical data, including SAM search, targeting and guidance.

>>33745571
aftermath investigation of the strikes that made it to the base. Which is more than counting pot holes, since some of the toms striked the same HAS targets.

>>33745511
>>33745511
The Russian MOD does. Vatniks on /k/ does.

They based their 4 hour old claims on nothing. They lied.

>>33745599
Source on the 31 data links.

>>33745664
Literally google APD-518, AK-RLDN, BAN-75 and MB5U15K you lazy faggot.

>>33745683
I did. Nothing about capabilities, just that they exist.

I am well aware of the 4 ship 31 datalink.

Saying a 31 can be an FCR for ground based missile systems is a different story all together, not to mention WHICH ground based missile systems.

>>33737190
>Russians finally admit that not a single Tomahawk was actually shot down.

"President Bashar Assad said that S-200 Could Not Shoot Down US Tomahawk"


interesting, i think that OP is a fagot

>>33739547
your sauce is a interview with Assad

i don't see any Russian admit what you have claimed

read your sauce before your post, faggot

>MFW Russia is cucked so hard is let's America fuck it's ally

File: 1476750976143.jpg (33KB, 424x315px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 424x315px

>>33737190
>>33739547
>article about Assad admit that Syria air defend is shit
>some how anon turn it into "no Tomahawk was shot down"

>>33742871
>The brainwashed American mind: CNN says so, therefore it is true.
Buuuut all of that info comes from elsewhere... Try again vatnik

>>33737190
Based tomahawks

>>33745044
With this kind of performance i think you can find them at the royal albert hall

>>33746097
23/59

>>33746066
No tomahawk was shot down.

Russians lied about the amount that hit.

>>33746184
Keep reinforcing Russia's MOD lies. It makes them look terrible.

Doing America's work for it.

>>33746188
Tomahawk failure is about 20% in both Iraq war

the Tomahawk that crashed were send to Iran

>>33746209
That's nice.

In the Syria strike it was about 1.6%

>>33745406
No it's just their carrier and its only smoking

>>33746265
no, it was 23/59

>>33746291
See
>>33746197

>>33746315
see what

>>33746575
Either your incompetence or your false flag America shilling.

>>33740139
It's true that "the combat effectiveness of the attack was extremely low".
They never claimed they even tried to shot the missiles down.
Only /k/ was larping about muh s300 and muh pantsirs even though every single non-retarded person knew that trying to shot down the tomahawks was pure retardation for many reasons.

But yeah, /k/tards are /k/tards.

File: 1394019019765.jpg (44KB, 500x366px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x366px

>america still bombing the syrian desert

File: NYET CTHULU IS FINE.jpg (58KB, 742x960px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 742x960px

>>33746815

>>33746804
If you shoot down the missiles they win.

-vatnik

>>33746870
Okay fuck it. Here we go

>shoot down all missiles
escalation of conflict, U.S. learns about Russian S400 performance, extremely unlikely to happen, US just fires some more

>shoot down some missiles
same as above but bit more likely to happen

>try to shoot down missiles but fail
humiliation, no benefits to russia, U.S. learns about capabilities etc.

>don't shoot at missiles
some 3rd rate Syrian equipment that can easily be replaced gets damaged/destroyed and nobody gives a fuck

Pick one. Remember there was ample warning to move personnel and some equipment before the missiles struck.

>>33746931
"If you shoot down missiles coming to kill you it escalates things"

-vatnik

>he forgot that Syrians died

On the Pentagons video I counted a maximum of 17 hits

File: RUSSIAN-FAKE-EXPOSED-EXAMINER-238.png (1MB, 1314x1008px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1314x1008px

>>33740139

>No shot down anything, why lie like this anon? It's two clicks away.

Lying is what the Russian MOD is best at.

File: 1492184650197.jpg (52KB, 480x529px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 480x529px

>>33747156
But they will never get on America's level

File: RUSSIAN-FAKE-EXPOSED-EXAMINER-206.png (2MB, 1289x1008px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1289x1008px

>>33746197

>Keep reinforcing Russia's MOD lies.

Indeed. Lying is their prefered method of communication.

>>33747171
Left picture:
Photos and schemes
Right picture:
useless claims and 3d cgi

>>33746992
Well you counted incorrectly, since satellite footage shows at least 44.

File: wher ar evidense.jpg (6KB, 249x242px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 249x242px

I know what this thread needs.

File: 1490188867232.png (35KB, 1234x815px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1234x815px

>>33747207

File: IMG_9310.png (994KB, 1314x1008px) Image search: [Google]

994KB, 1314x1008px

>>33747186

>>33746943
>missiles coming to kill you
Missiles were not coming to Tartus, imbecile.

can someone post photo of that giantass rocket on a truck? the "hi im johnny knoxville" one?

>>33747171
>>33747217

This is some Bellingcat tier disinformation control contracted out by the State Department.

File: IMG_9309.png (1MB, 1289x1008px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1289x1008px

>>33747407

>This is some Bellingcat tier disinformation

How about this one?

>>33745371
>There are both MiG-31BMs (flying overwatch nearly constantly these days) and dispersed ground radar networks in Syria, you complete fucking moron, and either of these are supposedly capable of remote targeting and guidance. Kindly neck yourself or stick to topics you have any fucking clue about.
no you neck yourself. Show me a credible source that states RuAF MiG-31s have been based in Syria. There's literally nothing except press tv and debka file BS.Funny that for something that supposedly flies 24/7/365 there appears to be a fucking dearth of goddamn photos of it flying in Syria!

Oh and dispersed radar networks don't do shit when most of Syria's installations are static and easily bypassable ones.
>>33745406
>Jesus, Vatnik, I think you sunk your own battleship.
9/11, would penetrate AMERICAN """"""IADS"""""" net again.

>>33747454
>How about this one?
Still mediocre bullshit. you mean to say you can't store oil in silos? those look air and watertight silos with low oxygen tech. to prolong grain life ffs.

>>33747407
>2017
>STILL rectal ravaged about being shown to be culpable in downing a passenger jet

File: RUSSIAN-FAKE-EXPOSED-EXAMINER-91.png (697KB, 1313x936px) Image search: [Google]

697KB, 1313x936px

>>33747575

Don't you know that it was a Ukrainian Su-25 that shot down that plane? Or at least that's what the Russian MOD tried to make us believe.

>>33747567
no you can't store oil in grain silos you dumbass

>>33747567
This may surprise you, but liquid storage requirements are vastly different from solid storage requirements.

Something being watertight does not mean it actually holds water.

As an example, grab a raincoat, which is watertight, then try to store water in it.

File: RUSSIAN-FAKE-EXPOSED-EXAMINER-92.png (497KB, 1313x936px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 1313x936px

>>33747575
>>33747600

Of course as soon as they realized their mistake they commanded their internet trolls to change the wikipedia entry about the Su-25.
(Probably the most pathetic example of Russian propaganda.)

>>33747243
Nope, but they killed Syrians.

Glad to see you are out of arguments though.

>>33747611

That takes the fucking cake.

Got any more of those?

File: IMG_9307.png (968KB, 1289x1008px) Image search: [Google]

968KB, 1289x1008px

>>33747701

File: IMG_9306.png (1MB, 1289x1008px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1289x1008px

>>33747701

Last one.

You can find more here: http://www.russialies.com

File: vatnikbuttrage.jpg (37KB, 604x483px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 604x483px

>>33747407
>Bellingcat
The Bellingcat people ought to get a medal for their service to the civilized world and for exercising my sides.
When you bring out such hard truths that you get the russian MoD to go on state media to have long moments of vatnik buttrage, then you are truly doing something right.

>>33747780
Bombing 819 IS targets isn't mutually exclusive with merely bombing IS 80% of the time. Why even be outraged when jihadist shitskins are killed all the same?

>>33747737
and this means anything? just that the staff who prepared the maps are in for some geography lessons or they are capable for a job at CNN.

>>33747611
proxies are never a thing.

>>33747854
>with merely bombing IS 80% of the time

You are truly retarded.

>>33747851
This
Additionally it is really helpful since the vatniks can never stop repeating and reheating their old lies.

File: 1426772830000.jpg (45KB, 604x398px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 604x398px

>>33747854
>proxies are never a thing.
And why would anyone else want to make edits like that? Russia has documented web brigades specifically for shitposting and misinformation like that. They've got both the motives
>wanting to peddle a bullshit story to get people to think the Ukrainians downed the jet
and the means
>web brigades

>>33746931
It's not even that. It's just that it's completely pointless. The russians were warned about the strikes something like 2 hours in advance. There was no reason to even waste money on intercepting anything. Not even for testing.

>>33748729
Just read the last line of the post you're quoting again

>>33747630
>Nope
Glad to see you are out of bullshit.

File: cadus_fightis_shirt.jpg (139KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1200x1200px

what do you feel when you look at this shirt?

>>33750549
Well, first, it's hilarious.

Also confusing.

Also awesome in that mistaken third world take on US culture way.

>>33750586
>Also awesome in that mistaken third world take on US culture way.
CADUS = german crowd funded mobile hospital for syria/iraq https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjrXW9wmKYo

>Vodakaniggers for years love showing infographics with S-300 defense range
>"NATO is BTFO now that Syria has Russian backed air defense!"
>Proudly boast that nothing could get through it
>Syria airstrikes happen
>"Well, the S-300 and similar systems were never supposed to be used against cruise missiles!"
At least they're slowly coming back to reality.

>>33750355

Syrians getting killed by US missiles under the great protection of a russian IADN is bullshit?

>>33750642
It does make me chuckle, considering how much shit they've talked about "slow, useless" American cruise missiles and AShMs over the years, and how their ground and ship based IADS systems would face fuck them with a bukake dessert. Ivan still don' no bout mah saturation doctrine.