|
Sperglord posted:Trump attacked Smart Commentators when it suited him, running for office mainly. Now, in office and beset by a thousand political problems, praise from Smart Commentators might sound awfully alluring. The domestic policy died with the Obamacare fiasco, so why not look abroad for praise and approval? You might be able to argue that the missile troops are somewhat protected from the more effectiveness draining forms of control and ensuring reliability, but that sort of tradeoff is corrosive.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
xthetenth posted:You might be able to argue that the missile troops are somewhat protected from the more effectiveness draining forms of control and ensuring reliability, but that sort of tradeoff is corrosive. The missile troops might be foreign contractors / under near direct control of foreign contractors. In that case, I would expect high performance. But, based on the rest of the Saudi military performance, one has to be cautious about taking everything at face value.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:Trump attacked Smart Commentators when it suited him, running for office mainly. Now, in office and beset by a thousand political problems, praise from Smart Commentators might sound awfully alluring. The domestic policy died with the Obamacare fiasco, so why not look abroad for praise and approval? Saudi air defense is actually its own separate branch and is generally regarded as the elite of their military. I will leave it to the individual to determine what he/she thinks "elite" is in the context of the Saudi military.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Saudi air defense is actually its own separate branch and is generally regarded as the elite of their military. I will leave it to the individual to determine what he/she thinks "elite" is in the context of the Saudi military. That opens the possibility of being structured in such a way that they can be competent, I think. Also I think missile defense probably involves education and training that might let them use that as a means of getting them to be loyal to the status quo rather than the more institutionally damaging methods that armies see, somewhat analogously to the Egyptian use of the state bureaucracy to guarantee jobs for college graduates.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/IraqiSecurity/status/850386466207387649 So I guess the question is did Russian air defenses shoot them down or did the TLAMs just break?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
I imagine most were shot down. In 1999 many were nailed by manpads supposedly in flight. Outright falling from the sky onto a beach etc doesn't seem likely. We'll just have to wait and see 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:https://twitter.com/IraqiSecurity/status/850386466207387649 We need pictures first of the missiles, but if this was the first major employment of TACTOMs, then high unreliability wouldn't be too surprising.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Sweden decided to be able to shoot things in the Baltic so bought a pretty capable missile upgrade. This isn't particularly big news but the article had a badass picture: I'm glad to see a real life example of sagging landing gear as opposed to one of my models
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
*Autistic nasal snort* I'm the obvious nose section of a destroyed Su-22 that was reported by the Russian MoD as a MiG-23.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
This comes from Foxtrot Alpha but they are reporting that the strike *deliberately avoided* the Sarin store, as to limit casualties in Russian and Syrian personnel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Wait were there Russian casualties? Because even for Russia signing off on the bombing of a couple of your dudes as the cost of doing business seems kinda cold.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
You clearly need to read up more on how Russia/USSR has treated it's soldiers just as a matter of course.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Godholio posted:You clearly need to read up more on how Russia/USSR has treated it's soldiers just as a matter of course. Yeah, they'll even blow up civillians in Moscow if it will serve political ends. Bombing a couple of their own troops is business as usual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Russian_apartment_bombings It sounds like the airfield is already operational again. Meanwhile, the Russians have dispatched the frigate Admiral Grigorovich in the direction of the American destroyers that launched the strike. This is getting a little uncomfortable. Hope this strike was worth it. I'm not convinced. https://news.usni.org/2017/04/07/russia-sends-frigate-mediterranean-following-u-s-retaliation-strike-u-s-destroyers-remain-station What do we know about the Admiral Grigorovich? Is it a credible threat to two Arleigh Burkes? I'm guessing it's not, but I know nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Kesper North posted:What do we know about the Admiral Grigorovich? Is it a credible threat to two Arleigh Burkes? I'm guessing it's not, but I know nothing. Not really a threat, but still armed to the teeth. Russia is putting cruise missiles now on everything that floats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Yeah it's weird to send a frigate at two Destroyers. It's just going to stare at them and scowl pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:The missile troops might be foreign contractors / under near direct control of foreign contractors. I don't know the ends and outs of it, but I do personally know Patriot contractors and uniformed military who've been stationed there. It's safe to say that Saudi air defense is... not quite entirely an indigenous Saudi affair.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Yeah it's weird to send a frigate at two Destroyers. It's just going to stare at them and scowl pretty much. Finally, context to this guy's Deviant Art: http://pookyhorse.deviantart.com/art/Scuttler-the-ship-331291454
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
I wonder how many subs are lurking out there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Syrian Lannister posted:I wonder how many subs are lurking out there. LOL. Nice avatar/text/username.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Syrian Lannister posted:I wonder how many subs are lurking out there. Russian submarine fleet is in a very dismal state at the moment, likely not many.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:Finally, context to this guy's Deviant Art: http://pookyhorse.deviantart.com/art/Scuttler-the-ship-331291454  Why did you have that bookmarked?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
He probably remembered it from the last time it got posted in TFR. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Gervasius posted:Not really a threat, but still armed to the teeth. Russia is putting cruise missiles now on everything that floats. The two statements don't follow. A small fiberglass boat disabled the Cole. A modern warship with anti ship missiles and torpedos is a major threat to any ship. If you mean "what happens if they attack the Burkes" then all 3 ships involve probably sink and the rest of us get to hail SS-18 Satan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The two statements don't follow. A small fiberglass boat disabled the Cole. A modern warship with anti ship missiles and torpedos is a major threat to any ship. While I don't relish the particular problem solving and grievance settling track record of our current Commander in Chief, I do remind you that there have been incidents in the past where Russian forces directly contributed to the deaths of American servicemen in *deliberate acts of hostility*, and occasionally within international airspace and waters. Last I checked, the world did not perish in nuclear fire. While a lost Burke would raise the tally far higher than the crew of an RB-47, EP-3, or spy ship would, the one thing the true 'owners' of this world don't want is something to come along and turn the money and power spigot off. Putin might be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, but it doesn't mean much if he can't loving *spend* any of it or enjoy the power it gives him. So - and this is *me* saying this - cut it out with the WE'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIIIIE poo poo, because believe it or not, there are actually people who are unhinged enough on these forums to actually do something rash should things escalate, which they probably will. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Apr 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Survivalist nutjobs? Or do we have national policy deciders on the forums?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 10:01
|
|
JcDent posted:Survivalist nutjobs? Or do we have national policy deciders on the forums? 
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 11:55
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:I imagine most were shot down. In 1999 many were nailed by manpads supposedly in flight. Outright falling from the sky onto a beach etc doesn't seem likely. The consensus seems to be they were warned the attack was coming, so presumeably this was the ideal situation from an Air Defence viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
Still haven't seen evidence that any were shot down. There would be cam footage and wreckage. We likely won't see official BDA but if that drone footage is authentic then you could count impacts. We know how many were launched. E: lol at the news media being focused on stirring everyone up over the rare earths used in the missles and claiming we rely on China for our supply. Yeah, that's the strategic issue at play here. Way to deflect the issues. Where is the outrage at Russia actively defending a regime that uses chemical weapons? Something internationally banned for 100 years? Murgos fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Apr 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
I don't think any, or at least a major number, of the Tomahawks were shot down. If you look at the struck airbase on a map, it's close to the Lebanese border and far away from the airbase where the Russians have their major presence. Given that the Syrian air defences don't exactly blanket the whole country either, I'd imagine it'd have been trivial to route the missiles away from any threats. Here's an imgur album of images taken by ImageSat International. They count 44 targets, of which 15 are double aircraft shelters, so that's 59. They didn't upload all of the closeup comparion images, but there are other sources that show completely unharmed shelters and aircraft. I'd say most likely it was about 90 % hits and the Russians getting their disinformation in early because it's easy and free.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Shows what I get for jumping to conclusions! Those satellite galleries are excellent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Reported for poo poo posting
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
brakeless posted:I don't think any, or at least a major number, of the Tomahawks were shot down. If you look at the struck airbase on a map, it's close to the Lebanese border and far away from the airbase where the Russians have their major presence. Given that the Syrian air defences don't exactly blanket the whole country either, I'd imagine it'd have been trivial to route the missiles away from any threats. The ISI web page, which first posted the analysis, has been taken down. But, lol, internet! Archived here: http://archive.is/zuxre They counted 58 hits but two untouched bunkers. so, I'm going to guess 57 of 59? Somewhere in that range anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Will the destroyers that launched the tomahawks have to go to a port to reload or do supply ships come to them? Asking for a friend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Trampus posted:Will the destroyers that launched the tomahawks have to go to a port to reload or do supply ships come to them? That's what oilers are for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Trampus posted:Will the destroyers that launched the tomahawks have to go to a port to reload or do supply ships come to them? Interesting question. I believe the destroyers are Arleigh-Burkes, and the Tomahawks would have been fired from Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells. Apparently, at-sea reloading of VLS is not a thing, yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:Interesting question. I believe the destroyers are Arleigh-Burkes, and the Tomahawks would have been fired from Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells. Apparently, at-sea reloading of VLS is not a thing, yet. I'm sure I've seen pictures of that happening, with a commentary along the lines of "turned out to be far too bothersome for operational use, let's never do this again".
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I'm sure I've seen pictures of that happening, with a commentary along the lines of "turned out to be far too bothersome for operational use, let's never do this again". I was actually wondering that with regards to large-ish Russian cruisers. They carry reloads for the long range SAMs, but having to visit Vladivostok to reload shipwrecks seems onerous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Trampus posted:Will the destroyers that launched the tomahawks have to go to a port to reload or do supply ships come to them? Yeah, they're simple to load in port since all you need is a crane and the loading collar. At sea loading from a supply ship is possible in calm weather. Doing an UNREP for tomahawks is more a wartime emergency thing though, since you're dangling a big fragile bomb over your head while doing it. edit: For context, for those of you who aren't familiar with UNREPs. here's one going wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htpjDopOgac thanks to Boon: (click through for full story) Boon posted:That said, we were in the SAG and our initial course (about 010) had us heading towards Iran with an oil field to our port beam. The CO was with the conning officer and I was managing the bridge. e2; BIG HEADLINE posted:They did it during the Polaris days: Thats not at sea reloading though, they're in a harbor loading from a tender, which is essentially designed as a FOB for submarines. \/\/\/ M_Gargantua fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Apr 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I'm sure I've seen pictures of that happening, with a commentary along the lines of "turned out to be far too bothersome for operational use, let's never do this again". They did it during the Polaris days:  Kind of telling that it didn't extend to Trident. That being said, this is what Rota, Diego Garcia, and Yokosuka exist for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 23:31
|
|
