• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Gas attack on Syria. US , UK and France begin airstrikes, ROLLING UPDATES

TheWexfordInn

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
2,005
Likes
2,046
Points
213
Because something flying so low at 500 mph is only visible for maybe a second before it is gone so it is impossible to fire. And that is assuming it flies over you. A plane at 15000 feet is visible for an eternity in comparison. The only way to see the tomahawk is from above and that capability is far beyond the Syrians imo.
My point is that planes can fly as low as Tomahawks.

Edit in fact planes can fly lower than Tomahawks

 
Last edited:

TheWexfordInn

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
2,005
Likes
2,046
Points
213
My goal is to enlighten you to why it is difficult to hit a tomahawk.
Ive got not doubt that flying low makes them harder to hit than flying high and if they were flying at 500 mph at 10,000 feet they probably would all have been shot down.

The only point I made at the beginning was in response to the US claiming that none had been intercepted with my point being that with their advance warning that these missiles are on the way the number of these 100+ missiles that the Syrians shot down should be greater than zero or else whoever is in charge of Syrian air defences has earned an arse kicking.
 

Dan Óg

Ui Máine
Staff member
Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
9,751
Likes
4,446
Points
313
I doubt that they were able to shoot down any.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2018
Messages
1,230
Likes
1,307
Points
163
As far as I'm aware 70% of the missiles were intercepted. The S400 has two radars for low and high altitude targets. It can take out targets as low as ten meters at a range of 40KM. It can track 100 targets. I got most of that from Wiki. 70% of targets intercepted may not seem like much, but a broken country with that success rate against the US and chums is quite spectacular really and it says a lot about the technology. It certainly levels the playing field somewhat.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
1,691
Likes
1,478
Points
163
Location
Gombeenia
It is mainly a problem of detection. A missile flying at low altitude is more difficult to detect due to radar clutter and reflection from buildings and the landscape. This isn't a V-1 travelling in a straight line at a few thousand feet. Even if someone managed to detect it visually, by the time anyone reacts, it may have hit its target. It may be possible to detect it using airborne radar surveillance but then it would be necessary to have various anti-aircraft installations target and fire their missiles at it. This generally would require good communications. This is why some of the primary targets in any air attack are generally any airborne surveillance and control (EWACs) aircraft and any radar systems on the ground. Even sacrificing a missile (or drone) to get a ground based AA installation to turn on its radar could be useful because it would then allow these installations to be targeted with radar homing bombs and weapons. The low tech alternative is a "wall of steel" anti-aircraft fire which may work at sea or open area with a missile traveling at medium to high altitude. In a city or built up area, it might end up demolishing a few blocks and killing everyone in the line of fire.

There is, I think, some footage from one of the news channels from the first Gulf War of a Tomahawk flying down a street in Baghdad. Intercepting a missile over a city is going to cause damage and injuries. The Syrians might have been able to shoot down a few but there was, apparently, a lot of missiles involved and some targets probably had missiles approaching from different directions. They would simply have been overwhelmed by the numbers.


It's not a video game. Real people die when these things are used.
It sickens me when people get drawn into discussions fetishising weapons.

It sickens me even more when otherwise very intelligent people use their intellects to help
develop these things just for money.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2017
Messages
911
Likes
1,322
Points
143
I enjoy looking at weapons systems myself. Men especially are more engineering minded. No different to a tv, phone, radio, non digital watches, i always wanted to to see how they worked, and would open them up when i was young if i could. Similar to wanting to know how a car works.

And just like cars etc.. these weapon systems exist.
As example
How US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: The burst-height compensating super-fuze
Great explanation on where barry bathhouse obama spent his trillion on nuclear weapons, on things like "The burst-height compensating super-fuze"

Anyone interested in nuclear war should read it. Not particularly hard to understand but obviously the actual physical engineering that goes into it is a different story.

What inspired whole generations of engineers was the rockets to the moon in the cold war, inspiration that is completely devoid of today.
But those rockets came off the back of ww2 and those german engineers building those v2 rockets.
Violence breeds a lot of the innovations we have, in health and science.

They train some of the military surgeons in chicago as the blacks shoot each other so often there that its a good training centre for real war scenarios. Doesnt mean its a good thing, its just a reality of today.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
1,691
Likes
1,478
Points
163
Location
Gombeenia
I enjoy looking at weapons systems myself. Men especially are more engineering minded. No different to a tv, phone, radio, non digital watches, i always wanted to to see how they worked, and would open them up when i was young if i could. Similar to wanting to know how a car works.

And just like cars etc.. these weapon systems exist.
As example
How US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: The burst-height compensating super-fuze
Great explanation on where barry bathhouse obama spent his trillion on nuclear weapons, on things like "The burst-height compensating super-fuze"

Anyone interested in nuclear war should read it. Not particularly hard to understand but obviously the actual physical engineering that goes into it is a different story.

What inspired whole generations of engineers was the rockets to the moon in the cold war, inspiration that is completely devoid of today.
But those rockets came off the back of ww2 and those german engineers building those v2 rockets.
Violence breeds a lot of the innovations we have, in health and science.

They train some of the military surgeons in chicago as the blacks shoot each other so often there that its a good training centre for real war scenarios. Doesnt mean its a good thing, its just a reality of today.
We're not really all that different.
I am a very technical person as regards what I studied and what I worked at for a living.
I was also that annoying kid who took everything apart to see how it worked.
But I believe you can appreciate technology without publicly frothing over weapons systems
or taking a job as a brain slave in the military industrial complex.
 

Dan Óg

Ui Máine
Staff member
Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
9,751
Likes
4,446
Points
313
As far as I'm aware 70% of the missiles were intercepted. The S400 has two radars for low and high altitude targets. It can take out targets as low as ten meters at a range of 40KM. It can track 100 targets. I got most of that from Wiki. 70% of targets intercepted may not seem like much, but a broken country with that success rate against the US and chums is quite spectacular really and it says a lot about the technology. It certainly levels the playing field somewhat.
Maybe with Russians operating but that did not happen. I would be amazed if any were shot down.