Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Cruise missile tutorial, please


Recommended Posts

So the news says this morning that the US launched 59 cruise missiles at  Syrian airbase.

 

Now, with skepticism based on the source, the Russians say:

  • that only 39 struck the target
  • that the results demonstrate "low efficiency" of our targeting systems;
  • that operational fighters were left on ground untouched;
  • that runways were open and undamaged
  • that Russia will now install air defense upgrades

 

I admit to total ignorance on Tomahawk capabilities.

 

My questions:

  • if it's true that only 39 hit the target, how come?  It was my understanding that the Syrians have very little air defense capability; could they shoot down a cruise missile?  Is the targeting and control system so unresponsive that we could miss an airbase 20 times?
  • Why would we target hangers (inoperable planes being repaired) and leave functioning fighters untouched?
  • How could we leave the runways untouched after even 39 hits?
  • Are the movie versions of cruise missile use total fabrications?  Is it more like throwing stones, and hoping for a hit, than it is like an aimed shot?
  • Is Assad likely to be soiling himself at this point, or is this largely a non-event from a military point of view?

 

Thanks to the Cowboy Joint Chiefs for their input in advance.

 

LL

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not faith in any "details" of the strike currently being released by the media.  Here's a tutorial on cruise missiles in general...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile

 

The Tomahawk's accuracy and range is freaky good.  Picture a submarine or ship on patrol off Pensacola, FL.  A missile fired from one of those ships can put 1000lbs of ordnance through the goal post uprights in Soldier Field in Chicago, IL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the point of the attack was to destroy everything on the ground.  Given that the US told Russia 30 minutes before the attack that it was coming, there was enough time to move assets.  The important point is that it did happen.  Can cruise missiles be that accurate?  Yes, they can, but don't expect an accurate BDA (bomb damage assessment) from the Russians.  The base is quite large and it would take more than 59  missiles to reduce every part of it to rubble.  If you're in Assad's shoes, you have to wonder if the next time could be more serious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Charlie Harley, #14153 said:

 

 

The Tomahawk's accuracy and range is freaky good.  Picture a submarine or ship on patrol off Pensacola, FL.  A missile fired from one of those ships can put 1000lbs of ordnance through the goal post uprights in Soldier Field in Chicago, IL.

Unlike the kicker for the Bears:P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my opinion, but it was just a shot across the bow.   In this instance, it was about 59 shots across the bow... ;)

 

..........Widder

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most film being released show bunkers distroyed, no aircraft anywhere near.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

I wouldn't believe a Russian if he told me the sky was blue on a sunny day.

Maybe if he told you it was cold and there is snow on the ground?

 

the reports of damage assessment must be doubted.  You can bet that we had more than one satellite watching the target for damage assessment but the conclusions will be CLASSIFIED for a long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point was to send a message to Assad and the Russians that the US is able and now willing to come and get you in the middle of the night if necessary.  Building air defences to protect against 59 cruise missiles coming in at one time would be very costly if at all possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were the targets hit?  What were the targets?

Destroying hangars, bunkers and service facilities renders the airfield unusable for future strikes.  If they can't refuel, repair and rearm aircraft, it doesn't matter whether they can fly.

Runway damage can be repaired quickly by bulldozing rubble into the holes and laying down Perforated Steel Planking on top of it.  Not ideal, but serviceable.

It looks like an effective strike to me.

 

Duffield

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Remember what the Navy did to Lybia in the 1980?"

 

The night of that strike I was a junior at West Point and attended a lecture by G. Gordon Liddy.  Somebody asked during Q&A what he thought we should do about Libya in response to the Berlin discotheque bombing.  He suggested that we either covertly assassinate him, or do something so overwhelmingly obvious to damage his forces that he and similar dictators think twice.

 

On the way back to the barracks we heard about the air strikes.  It was weird for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC when the F-117 dropped bombs in Panama the story was they missed their mark because they did not hit the palace. However the truth was they told Noriega exactly where each bomb would hit and each one hit its mark as predicted. The news media maligned the F-117 for being a poor performer when in fact it performed a surgically precise strike.

 

IMNSHO the same can be said of this event. Only the mission commanders know the true accuracy of our 59 cruise missiles.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't believe everything the media puts out.  There are some very smart generals that know exactly what took place.  We don't want to know everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

I wouldn't believe a Russian if he told me the sky was blue on a sunny day.

Bingo.

Lyin through their teeth since 1917.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 said:

Now that richt there is FUNNY. :lol:

 

Remember what the Navy did to Lybia in the 1980?

1980? l missed that. Only ones I recall are the '86 strikes. And that was AirForce F111s

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in jump school when we hit libya.  they had us convinced we were going to graduate early and be sent to the 82nd airborne to fill their ranks for a combat jump into libya . we were stoked beyond belief and on cloud 9 at the prospect .  we were extremely sad when it did not happen.  in hindsight I'm glad we didn't get our way.  as for this one, one of these days we are going to sit offshore and pummel somebody and they are going to sit offshore and pummel us in return.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the American media and the Russian media as much as I trust Al Bore's global warming expertise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

1980? l missed that. Only ones I recall are the '86 strikes. And that was AirForce F111s

 

In addition to the 18 F-111s that got so much press for their round about trip from the UK, Navy and USMC aircraft from the USS America and the USS Coral Sea also participated in the raid. The USS Guadalcanal was also on station to provide SAR support as needed.

In total at least 24 Navy and Marine aircraft launched/dropped ordinance on Lybia. 3 additional carrier bases aircraft aborted for various reasons.

Although it was not needed because no pilot would dare to take off from Libya, CAP was provided by carrier based F-14s and F/A-18s.

Airspace coordination came from Carrier based E-2C Hawkeyes. 

EW support was provided by EA-6Bs from the carriers, an ERA-3B launched from the America and an EP-3E. The ERA-3B and EP-3E  were from VQ-2.

 

Out of the original 18 F-111s only 12 actually dropped ordinance on Libyan soil.

One F-111 only made it as far as Rota Spain where it made an emergency landing.

Another was shot down due to a lucky hit by a SAM.

4 others aborted for various reasons.

 

For the most part Libyan air defenses never fired a shot until after the raid was over and US aircraft were safely back over the Med.

In total close to 230 bombs and 4 dozen anti-radiation missiles were dropped/fired as part of the exercise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was stationed in W Germany in 86 when we hit Libya. The Aardvarks had to fly without ordinance to the base I was at where they were armed up. It was a surprise  to see the elephant walk of 111's in and out of the loading  area. At the time of course we had no idea what they were up to, until they announced the attack. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 On the subject of Cruise Missiles, why can't we sneak a couple into North Korea and get rid of that fool running it. ( " North Korea issues fiery response to US air strikes  on Syria", Netscape headline) .We can blame Syria for doing it since they won't have a clue what hit them until it's too late to say OOOH ___________  (fill in the line). We don't dare blame China...no more imports if we do; and they could always call in the loans we have from them. Then they'd own the USA without firing a shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw an article on the Ruski frigate that's en route to the area. The picture with the article showed a freakin aircraft carrier not a freakin frigate!! Sheesh.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Charlie Whiskers said:

 On the subject of Cruise Missiles, why can't we sneak a couple into North Korea and get rid of that fool running it. ( " North Korea issues fiery response to US air strikes  on Syria", Netscape headline) .We can blame Syria for doing it since they won't have a clue what hit them until it's too late to say OOOH ___________  (fill in the line). We don't dare blame China...no more imports if we do; and they could always call in the loans we have from them. Then they'd own the USA without firing a shot.

sneaking a few into NK is a whole different ballgame!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootin' Shu said:

sneaking a few into NK is a whole different ballgame!!

 

 I know, but someone needs to do something about that idiot before he starts launching nukes at us and other US friendly countries in that region. The newest Netscape headline reads "Navy strike group nears North Korea in show of force". That'll stir the fat idiot's pot of stupidity up. He's going to do something extreme in the not so distant future just because he can unless he's "evicted" from office.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree the nutcase needs to be gone..  It took 60 missiles to do decent damage to one airbase that had no air defenses in place and no missiles to respond with.  The NKs would see anything headed their and IMO would not hesitant to respond. A sniper or other inside option would be best but who knows if we have anyone that close to him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read a bit about Kim, his daddy and grand daddy I have come to the conclusion that the guy is not stupid. He has complete and total power over the people and maintains it through brutality. His blustering is confined to the ocasional potshots across the border and assinations. It's dificult to say how long he can maintain power but internally his people (the inner circle, not the citizenry) may eventually take him down. But if he thinks his constant threats will go unanswered with this administration, obviously he may be miscalculating. He does have a huge army of fanatical troops but I believe an attack on S. Korea would fail. If we take any action, we have to ensure the Chinese will not interfere. Otherwise it's a whole bew ball game. Or should I say old ball game? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

Having read a bit about Kim, his daddy and grand daddy I have come to the conclusion that the guy is not stupid. He has complete and total power over the people and maintains it through brutality. His blustering is confined to the ocasional potshots across the border and assinations. It's dificult to say how long he can maintain power but internally his people (the inner circle, not the citizenry) may eventually take him down. But if he thinks his constant threats will go unanswered with this administration, obviously he may be miscalculating. He does have a huge army of fanatical troops but I believe an attack on S. Korea would fail. If we take any action, we have to ensure the Chinese will not interfere. Otherwise it's a whole bew ball game. Or should I say old ball game? 

 

Hmm...there were a number of press comments, after China's President's recent visit to D.C., that North Korea was one of the main topics, and that the meeting was "brief but successful"; I wonder how long it takes to say "We will not interfere" in Chinese?

 

LL

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

 

Hmm...there were a number of press comments, after China's President's recent visit to D.C., that North Korea was one of the main topics, and that the meeting was "brief but successful"; I wonder how long it takes to say "We will not interfere" in Chinese?

 

LL

Mandarin or Wu?

I think the Chnese are clever enough to realize that holding on to their alliance with NK is counterproductive to their economic and political aims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LLR after reading your posts I wonder where your info comes from.  Appears to be at odds with almost  all other posts in this thread.

By listening to a few so called news stations one immediately sees,reads, hears the difference of the same action always one so very different than all the rest,

such as yours. KINDA makes you wonder. Have a good day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, SlicLee SASS #16638 Life said:

LLR after reading your posts I wonder where your info comes from.  Appears to be at odds with almost  all other posts in this thread.

By listening to a few so called news stations one immediately sees,reads, hears the difference of the same action always one so very different than all the rest,

such as yours. KINDA makes you wonder. Have a good day.

 

 

I think you need to re-read his post. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.