Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and development Thread part 15

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 7 (0 members and 7 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • haavarla
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Dec 2008
    • 6652

    Relax. Most if not all cruise missile was lanched from the Red Sea. They crossed Jordan before they entered Syrian Airspace. Same with the ordinance lanched from B-1.
    The platforms were safe enough since they never entered Syrian Airspace. But sadly for US, the Rocky geografi of Syria is mostly towards North to turkey and west towards Lebanon. Its mostly plain desert towards Jordan.
    Easier to spot em Cruise missiles.

    This time Russia and SAA were far better prepared.
    Thanks

    Comment

    • JSR
      JSR
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Aug 2011
      • 4950

      So 3 targets got hit with many many missiles and other targets somehow blocked every missile.
      Those 3 buildings mostly like empty as no secondory explosions or chemicals or any humans there. so they may not even be defended fully .
      Hmm... If this were really the case, it would render all AShMs obsolete, since a destroyer or missile cruiser and fleet are infinitely better protected and have a clearer line of sight than any of Syria's land targets.
      Air launched Ashms are far smaller in size and fly too low on sea surface as there is no natural barriers. while on ground you have mounatain, high electric poles, trees, high rise buildings that make the larger size cruise missiles fly higher so easy to track from distance. plus ground based AWACS, fighters are far larger in size to provide situational awareness to incoming missiles. infact putting 300 to 400 people in frigate size ship against fighters or bomber with maximum two pilots is uneven contest.

      Comment

      • stealthflanker
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Sep 2015
        • 1007

        more and more R-77-1 make a sight. that's a good sign.

        Comment

        • Marcellogo
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jun 2014
          • 1825

          Annddd if it weren’t for ignorant comments like that above that are devoid of fact, threads probably wouldn’t degenerate into chest thumping stupidity and get erased.

          Frankly, FBW, this is the pot calling the kettle black.
          All we have on western side is the declaration of the Pentagon that all of 104 missiles has hitten their objective and some picture taken well after the strike occurred.
          And that lack of more complete data is perfectly to be expected as they have launched those missiles from great distances , well deep into enemy controlled territories and at a very low cruise quote, so no way to get a direct feedback from them.
          This, and the blind, lemming like trust of the usual suspects on everything their masters said...

          Last time I've checked, democratic regimes and utter lack of critical inquiry toward what authorities say and do were just considered not compatible one with the other.
          So,precisely, what is changed on your side of Atlantic in those last years?

          Comment

          • medo
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Dec 2010
            • 326

            The six flor building near those three objects is intact, you could see it on your own picture and this building in satelite image before strike have longer shadow than those three objects, so those objects have two to three flors. They are usual buildings, not reinforced bunkers with thick hardened concrete walls. On yoour own Picture you could see, that the sides of objects are still standing as they are made harder because of steps, but the middle colapsed as flors are supported by thin concrete pilars. For such damage one missile in the middle of building is enough. This damage was done by 10 missiles max.

            Comment

            • St. John
              Rank 4 Registered User
              • Jan 2018
              • 568

              Those 3 buildings mostly like empty as no secondory explosions or chemicals or any humans there. so they may not even be defended fully .

              Air launched Ashms are far smaller in size and fly too low on sea surface as there is no natural barriers. while on ground you have mounatain, high electric poles, trees, high rise buildings that make the larger size cruise missiles fly higher so easy to track from distance. plus ground based AWACS, fighters are far larger in size to provide situational awareness to incoming missiles. infact putting 300 to 400 people in frigate size ship against fighters or bomber with maximum two pilots is uneven contest.
              Many AShM's are actually larger. E.g. P-800, P-750, P-500, Kh-22 and the others aren't much smaller. Cruise missile also fly very low and can skim over flat desert.

              The whole of Damascus and Homs are heavily defended, probably the most heavily defended locations in the whole Middle East as regards air defence.

              Comment

              • St. John
                Rank 4 Registered User
                • Jan 2018
                • 568

                The six flor building near those three objects is intact, you could see it on your own picture and this building in satelite image before strike have longer shadow than those three objects, so those objects have two to three flors. They are usual buildings, not reinforced bunkers with thick hardened concrete walls. On yoour own Picture you could see, that the sides of objects are still standing as they are made harder because of steps, but the middle colapsed as flors are supported by thin concrete pilars. For such damage one missile in the middle of building is enough. This damage was done by 10 missiles max.
                Look at the F-22 strike, if I were to say that building was hit by 4 bombs, people would probably deny it without the video.

                Comment

                • FBW
                  FBW
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Dec 2011
                  • 3290

                  Originally posted by Marcellogo View Post
                  Frankly, FBW, this is the pot calling the kettle black.
                  All we have on western side is the declaration of the Pentagon that all of 104 missiles has hitten their objective and some picture taken well after the strike occurred.
                  ?
                  Frankly, you should take you comments back to Russiadefense.net. Im sure you buddies there can explain it all to you, ill not waste me time with someone who pretends objectivity.

                  As for lemmings, I would say thats a very appropriate analogy. You and a few others have run off the cliff separating sceptical from delusional. Feel free not to respond to me or my posts.
                  Last edited by FBW; 29th April 2018, 11:20.

                  Comment

                  • archangelski
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jul 2013
                    • 2383

                    Originally posted by St. John View Post
                    Look at the F-22 strike, if I were to say that building was hit by 4 bombs, people would probably deny it without the video.
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQMQaPzLYGM

                    Now imagine 76 missiles impact on the very same target...

                    Comment

                    • St. John
                      Rank 4 Registered User
                      • Jan 2018
                      • 568

                      Well here's the problem with your assumption. The 1,000lb bombs dropped in the F-22 strike would have done similar damage if the building were the same. Clearly this building has been hit by 1 missile but it has not blown apart and you can see reinforcement wires hanging off the left side.



                      Were the missiles intended to explode on impact, or inside the complex, or underground?

                      There are places the Syrian Army and Russians have been bombing and shelling for years that aren't as flat as that place.



                      See also.

                      https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...q/dg-bda11.htm

                      Last edited by St. John; 29th April 2018, 12:02.

                      Comment

                      • Levsha
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jan 2006
                        • 2823

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

                        Now imagine 76 missiles impact on the very same target...
                        Did you not watch your own video? The 'building' is obviously a dummy target made from wood/plywood or whatever located on a bombing range. Did you not see the panels flying into the air - obviously not a reinforced concrete building.

                        Comment

                        • archangelski
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jul 2013
                          • 2383

                          Originally posted by St. John View Post
                          Well here's the problem with your assumption. The 1,000lb bombs dropped in the F-22 strike would have done similar damage if the building were the same. Clearly this building has been hit by 1 missile but it has not blown apart and you can see reinforcement wires hanging off the left side.
                          All modern buildings are made of reinforced concrete (steel bars to strenghten the friable concrete). Honestly I don't believe the US version more than the Russian one. The truth should probably be somewhere else ....It's clearly impossible that 76X1000 lbs hits these simple constructions...and I'm sceptic that Syrian defence can destroy as much cruise missiles...
                          Last edited by archangelski; 29th April 2018, 12:19.

                          Comment

                          • archangelski
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jul 2013
                            • 2383

                            Originally posted by Levsha View Post
                            Did you not watch your own video? The 'building' is obviously a dummy target made from wood/plywood or whatever located on a bombing range. Did you not see the panels flying into the air - obviously not a reinforced concrete building.
                            See 0:12 and 0:50 to see the effect of same kind of warhead (here a Kalibr missile) on reinforced concrete : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LHI6sRJHOM

                            PS : I only give my opinion and don't want to convince anyone. Everyone will have his degree of blindness ...but let's get back to this thread subject : RuAF News and development...
                            Last edited by archangelski; 29th April 2018, 14:10.

                            Comment

                            • St. John
                              Rank 4 Registered User
                              • Jan 2018
                              • 568

                              Did you not watch your own video? The 'building' is obviously a dummy target made from wood/plywood or whatever located on a bombing range. Did you not see the panels flying into the air - obviously not a reinforced concrete building.
                              And it's very small.

                              The bunker complex wiped out elsewhere is 200m across.


                              Comment

                              • archangelski
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jul 2013
                                • 2383

                                With 22 missiles ??

                                Comment

                                • Levsha
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jan 2006
                                  • 2823

                                  With 22 missiles ??
                                  Why not?

                                  Comment

                                  • St. John
                                    Rank 4 Registered User
                                    • Jan 2018
                                    • 568

                                    Exactly. 22 missiles aimed at underground facilities that still did enough surface damage to blot out 200m of land. How many holes are there?

                                    Comment

                                    • JSR
                                      JSR
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Aug 2011
                                      • 4950

                                      Many AShM's are actually larger. E.g. P-800, P-750, P-500, Kh-22 and the others aren't much smaller. Cruise missile also fly very low and can skim over flat desert.
                                      Those Ashms were developed from 1960s and there likely role is to light up ship radars for eventual saturated attack from smaller combined attack of Antiship/Anti radiation missiles. ships does not need to sunk just disable so it need tugs to rescue and create even bigger target for second wave of attack. even Ka-52K is designed for smaller long range antiship missile. you refuse to admit that airpower has more flexibility in time and place of choosing a strike and can greatly reduced time of reloading. ship does not travel more than 30knots an hour. few hours travel it cannot escape from second volley of missiles from airpower.

                                      The whole of Damascus and Homs are heavily defended, probably the most heavily defended locations in the whole Middle East as regards air defence.
                                      This is on paper myth of Damascus/Homs heavily defended. for proper airdefence with tall and big radars with proper electric/fuel supply. you need 30 to 40km of safe area around it. just look at it in Latakia. Untill recently insurgents could easily shell mortors into Russian embassy. now they may have slightly upgraded the airdefence as areas are cleaned up but it is still fundamentally 1980s tech at best and completely lack density.

                                      Comment

                                      • archangelski
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jul 2013
                                        • 2383

                                        Originally posted by St. John View Post
                                        Exactly. 22 missiles aimed at underground facilities that still did enough surface damage to blot out 200m of land. How many holes are there?
                                        Take a closer look at your pictures, in a better definition...no "deep holes to destroy underground facilities", only surface damages that evidently blow up storage hangars (or "bunkers" if you prefer). Many missiles for sure, ...but not 22 impacts, sorry.

                                        Originally posted by Levsha View Post
                                        Why not?
                                        There is no worse blind than the one who doesn't want to see...

                                        PS : Last comment from myself on cruise missiles attack, please can we go back to RuAF thread ?

                                        Comment

                                        • St. John
                                          Rank 4 Registered User
                                          • Jan 2018
                                          • 568

                                          Those Ashms were developed from 1960s and there likely role is to light up ship radars for eventual saturated attack from smaller combined attack of Antiship/Anti radiation missiles. ships does not need to sunk just disable so it need tugs to rescue and create even bigger target for second wave of attack. even Ka-52K is designed for smaller long range antiship missile. you refuse to admit that airpower has more flexibility in time and place of choosing a strike and can greatly reduced time of reloading. ship does not travel more than 30knots an hour. few hours travel it cannot escape from second volley of missiles from airpower.

                                          This is on paper myth of Damascus/Homs heavily defended. for proper airdefence with tall and big radars with proper electric/fuel supply. you need 30 to 40km of safe area around it. just look at it in Latakia. Untill recently insurgents could easily shell mortors into Russian embassy. now they may have slightly upgraded the airdefence as areas are cleaned up but it is still fundamentally 1980s tech at best and completely lack density.
                                          The P-800 was developed in the 1960s? Ground targets don't move at all, what's your point?

                                          You can look on Google Earth at the defences. Green = SA-6, Red = SA-2, Cyan = SA-3, Pink = SA-5, Blue = EW site.



                                          Are these the same defences that someone breached using recreational drones bought off Amazon to bomb an airbase that shot down 76 cruise missiles?
                                          Last edited by St. John; 29th April 2018, 15:05.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X