Comments by "ZIPZ" (@zipz8423) on "Did Syria Really Shoot Down 71 NATO Cruise Missiles?" video.

It doesn't sound right to militarily illiterate people.
2
The OPCW confirmed the UK findings on Novichok.
2
"French defence force put out a statement that a few of their missiles malfunctioned". I would like to see any link to that statement sir. "Point two if all those missiles hit only three targets and successfully hit them would one not see for example the Scientific center in Damascus be totally flattened with multiple craters?" TLAMs are not cratering munitions, if you wanted craters you'd use Mk-82 gravity bombs. The Barzeh complex was almost completely flattened, which is what you would expect after a raid by 76 cruise missiles. You can set TLAM aimpoints at any elevation, they dont have to detonate at ground level, it was certainly overkill, but they did a plume analysis of any chemical precursors stored and decided to incinerate the site to mitigate the spread of contaminants. As you could see from footage from the site the next morning there were officials walking around without CBRN gear, either there were no substances held at the site, or what was onsite had been successfully incinerated. I tend to believe there was nothing really harmful at that site, but it was a centre for chemical weapons research, equipment used in that field has a building designed around it so cannot be relocated.
2
The Syrian BUK crew provided no radar data as evidence so we can forget whatever they said. Where were the Pantsyr systems? Were they near the targets?? Obviously not, they are point defence systems only. Those older Sov systems have virtually zero chance of shooting down a cruise missile especially a JASSM or a SCALP., and even the bulbous nosed Lo frontal RCS TLAMs.they just wouldn't see them in that terrain which is very hilly in western Syria. As much as you would like to hear the news, they shot nothing down.
2
Sorry Hanz, you dont understand what why or how the damage happened, so your opinion is uninformed and therefore irrelevant. Lets put it another way, you have zero HE weapons qualifications, you have directly compared the physical structure of two different buildings when you dont understand that reinforced structures are designed and built to different standards of hardening, even the concrete used is different as well as the steel reinforcement., what layering was used , single or double walls etc. You have Military standard and civilian standards. You have structures designed not to keep weapons out but to keep volatile chemicals inside its far more complex than you give it credit, so are weapons/ effects determinations I guarantee you, there is nothing usable inside whats left of those buildings whatsoever which was the point of the attack. You are also making assumptions about the types of warhead used, were they general HE warheads or shaped multi effects charges? You just dont know. You are fixated on numbers, and because you have no knowledge of the problem you've made ill informed assumptions. Please leave BDA to the experts. I will leave you with a better picture a side by side image taken via satellite, its pretty obvious what 78 missiles can do when focused on what was a large site. https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2018/04/Slide2.png
1
If you believe that, then you have never been trained on the effects of the multiple warhead types associated with TLAM use.
1
Yes because you may be thinking under the false premise that TLAMs are cratering munitions, which they are not, if you wanted craters, ask them to use Mk 82 dumb bombs fuzed to detonate on ground impact. Then you'll have your craters.
1
They typically have warheads of 450 kg, not 3500kg.....
1
Ive seen a lot of things, but I aint never seen no TLAM with a 7,000 lb warhead.
1
Oh, I didn't know you did it cumulatively.. If they had used 76 Mk82 gravity bombs then you would see craters, you aren't going to see craters with TLAMs, these missiles may have utilized Joint Multi-Effects Warhead System (JMEWS) but I am not sure what the status of that program was.
1
To me the BDA pictures look perfectly viable for a 76 missiles strike, what did you expect to see?
1
What warhead was on that test missile and what warheads were on the ones that hit Barzeh? You're making assumptions you cant back up.
1
The 55Zh6ME Nebo M RLM-ME VHF-Band Radar System has never been deployed to Syria. This is the so called "anti stealth" VHF system.
1
tell me why and how they shot down 71 cruise missiles with no more than 5 second separation between missiles, coming from multiple bearings, even the vaunted S-400 couldn't do it because its radars operate in only a 120 degree arc.
1
There is much more to this than meets the eye, I am going to speculate now, the Syrians didn't engage in anything but a token way because if they tried to shoot down US missiles their AD systems would most likely have been targeted by the US. They may have been willing to "stand down" since its very likely the Russians would have told the Syrians what the targets were likely to be, dont forget, US and Russian military chiefs had been talking with each other in the days before to ensure no escalation took place. Primarily, the Syrian AD systems just aren't capable of shooting down cruise missiles, they weren't designed to do so. The Syrians only launched 40 SAMs, AFTER the last few TLAMs had hit their aimpoints.....
1
The S-400 in Syria is actually an S-350 system, there are elements associated with the S-400 that have never been deployed to Syria.
1
Which is another interesting supposition, and completely illiterate.
1
In the entire history of SAM combat, they have only shown a 30% success rate, the S-400 would be no different. That system is limited in its engagement capability mostly because of the topography in Western Syria (very hilly) and the fact that its acquisition radars operate in a narrow field of 120 degrees, they cant handle attacks from multiple bearings , their reload time is also 50 minutes, 30 for an exceptional crew and only has 4 ready rounds in the tubes, one of them an extremely long range round which would not be used to engage a low flyer. There`s no precedent in history of any AD system splashing 71 cruise missiles out of 105. They would need a vital airborne element - airborne radar plugged into a kill chain linked to the S-400 batteries. Russia doesn't have that capability in Syria other than the odd visiting A-50 AEW bird, of which they have precious few. As long as low flying cruise missiles are used, they can attack Syria with impunity, with or without Russian help.
1
This is what the OPCW actually said "But a 2016 OPCW report said that "Syria has not yet adequately explained the presence of indicators of four chemical weapons agents." They never had a permanent office in Barzeh, and sections of the complex were "off limits" to the OPCW, the OPCW said that also. Strange right? As a 22 year Navy vet, also an old cynic, I can assure you, that never happened to the Donald Cook and its technically and physically impossible for an aircraft to burn out a high power radar system on a naval ship. 4 EA-6Bs tried it to a Tico` once and got nowhere and they are dedicated EW birds. The KRET pod carried by the SU-24 isnt designed to attack ship mounted radar systems its designed to counter missiles from other aircraft operating at MUCH lower power levels. Personally, I am not a supporter of these US strikes, I believe the US should leave Syria immediately. On the tech side, I tend to agree with the US assessment of the strike, I dont see many holes in it.
1
Sir, i dont need to research, i trained instead. Trying to "jam" an SPY radar on a DDG-51 using a pod on a fighter sized aircraft would be like trying to blow out the after burner flame on an F-16 using only your own breath. We are talking kilowatts of radiated power versus the several megawatts of radiated power on a ship, its just not possible i`m afraid. Even the Russian government has made no statements on the Donald Cook fantasy and worse, the pod makers KRET have even stated the SU-24 wasn't integrated with that particular pod at the time. Even if it used a pre production version, KRET on their own webpages will tell you what its purpose is, which isn't to "jam" a ships radars. During my service, the tech guys with their briefs were always pretty accurate with their analysis of Russian equipment and we found that out when engaging it for real.
1
They just "touched them" with 105 missiles.
1
That looks ok ,you can see on radar if you have intercepted a target if you have the requisite resolution but yes, not visually unless you have a decent EO solution within range. Good work Deep Blue lets defeat Russian lies with the truth brother.
1
if they splashed 71 inbounds, the Syrian countryside should be littered with missile debris, that fact they have produced none of it should put any doubts to bed for any rational person.
1
I would be interested to know what EW support was used, there were a heck of a lot of EW and ELINT birds in the air that night according to several sources.EA-6B, possibly Growlers not sure but NATO RC-135`s and EP-3`s. My guess is they were standing by just in case they were needed.
1