Trump-Regime´s attack on Syrian airbase was a failure

[danielpalos]

Let's "audit" the attack instead of the Fed.

 

[Bleipriester]

Maybe the counter-measures were electronic.

Ahh so now you're confident claim about shot down is prefaced by "maybe" and it becomes speculation on countermeasures.

Tomahawks use inertial/GPS when first launched and over water, then they switch to TERCOM over land, then DSMAC for terminal. TERCOM and DSMAC both function from database in the missile, how exactly did the Syrian military jam terrain and image matching software that requires no communication or active RF?

Only 23 out of 59 missiles hit the airbase and it remained operational. Two "fell" into villages. So, if you claim the missile were not intercepted, provide another explanation.

 

[DrainBamage]

Only 23 out of 59 missiles hit the airbase and it remained operational. Two "fell" into villages. So, if you claim the missile were not intercepted, provide another explanation.

I see, so when you claimed these missiles were shot down by Syria you actually had no way of knowing this and can't provide any way it was possible aside from flailing stabs in the dark that you can't pursue because they don't make sense. So now you're trying to put the burden on me to prove the opposite.

The base remaining operational isn't relevant, even if every cruise missile struck the base they are not designed to damage a runway enough to make the base inoperable. They were only damaging soft targets. You have no idea how many cruise missiles hit the base, you're relying on your propaganda sources so and are unable to make the logical connection that maybe if you can't explain how Syrians intercepted them the reason is your info on how many hit is wrong.

Bottom line you've proven what I said... you are naive. Naive to think Syrians can shoot down low dozens of low flying cruise missiles, naive to think they can jam weapons that target using terrain contour and digital scene matching. Stop blathering about shit you are obviously clueless about, it makes you look foolish.

 

[danielpalos]

I read there were supposed to sixty missiles launched; one fell in the ocean after launch.

 

[Bleipriester]

Only 23 out of 59 missiles hit the airbase and it remained operational. Two "fell" into villages. So, if you claim the missile were not intercepted, provide another explanation.

I see, so when you claimed these missiles were shot down by Syria you actually had no way of knowing this and can't provide any way it was possible aside from flailing stabs in the dark that you can't pursue because they don't make sense. So now you're trying to put the burden on me to prove the opposite.

The base remaining operational isn't relevant, even if every cruise missile struck the base they are not designed to damage a runway enough to make the base inoperable. They were only damaging soft targets. You have no idea how many cruise missiles hit the base, you're relying on your propaganda sources so and are unable to make the logical connection that maybe if you can't explain how Syrians intercepted them the reason is your info on how many hit is wrong.

Bottom line you've proven what I said... you are naive. Naive to think Syrians can shoot down low dozens of low flying cruise missiles, naive to think they can jam weapons that target using terrain contour and digital scene matching. Stop blathering about shit you are obviously clueless about, it makes you look foolish.

Trump is not better off with this strike being a symbolic aggression. His lighting reaction connects it to the alleged chemical weapon attack, anyway.

However, it is more likely that a Krasukha 4 electronic warfare system jammed the missiles.

Only 23 of 59 Tomahawks Launched At Syria’s Al-Shayrat Air Base Hit Targets – Rogue Money

 

[DrainBamage]

Trump is not better off with this strike being a symbolic aggression. His lighting reaction connects it to the alleged chemical weapon attack, anyway.

Irrelevant to your claims that Syria shot down dozens of cruise missiles.

However, it is more likely that a Krasukha 4 electronic warfare system jammed the missiles.

Krasukha, like most ECM platforms, jams radars. It would work on something that used active radar for terminal homing like a Harpoon or Exocet cruise missile.

As I've already explained, Tomahawk uses terrain mapping from it's internal database to reach the target then digital scene matching (again from it's own database) for terminal guidance. Can you please explain how something that jams RF brought down tomahawks that aren't using RF when they reach the target? Try to put some thought into your answers, what you've come up with so far indicates a serious lack of critical thinking skills.

Your link to a conspiracy site is a joke, not only does it imply their goal was to destroy the runway, they introduce ridiculous speculation of jamming GPS signals that a Tomahawk doesn't need.

 

[Bleipriester]

Trump is not better off with this strike being a symbolic aggression. His lighting reaction connects it to the alleged chemical weapon attack, anyway.

Irrelevant to your claims that Syria shot down dozens of cruise missiles.

However, it is more likely that a Krasukha 4 electronic warfare system jammed the missiles.

Krasukha, like most ECM platforms, jams radars. It would work on something that used active radar for terminal homing like a Harpoon or Exocet cruise missile.

As I've already explained, Tomahawk uses terrain mapping from it's internal database to reach the target then digital scene matching (again from it's own database) for terminal guidance. Can you please explain how something that jams RF brought down tomahawks that aren't using RF when they reach the target? Try to put some thought into your answers, what you've come up with so far indicates a serious lack of critical thinking skills.

Your link to a conspiracy site is a joke, not only does it imply their goal was to destroy the runway, they introduce ridiculous speculation of jamming GPS signals that a Tomahawk doesn't need.

You have no idea about Tomahawks. Since the second variant of the Tomahawk, the missile uses radar and since the thrid variant it uses satellite data (GPS) additionally to the radar system to increase accuracy. The latest variants are even in permanent connection to the host and can be redirected.

 

[DrainBamage]

You have no idea about Tomahawks. Since the second variant of the Tomahawk, the missile uses radar and since the thrid variant it uses satellite data (GPS) additionally to the radar system to increase accuracy. The latest variants are even in permanent connection to the host and can be redirected.

You're incorrect, as usual. Tomahawk has GPS to help with midcourse guidance but is mainly useful for waypoints over water since featureless, the missile is inertial/TERCOM over land. It doesn't use radar, the version that used active radar homing was the antiship variant that hasn't been in service for decades, current TLAMs use digital scene matching for terminal guidance. The loitering and retargeting capability doesn't matter here, their targets were preprogrammed and not changed.

Your claims they were jammed are feeble.

 

[Bleipriester]

You have no idea about Tomahawks. Since the second variant of the Tomahawk, the missile uses radar and since the thrid variant it uses satellite data (GPS) additionally to the radar system to increase accuracy. The latest variants are even in permanent connection to the host and can be redirected.

You're incorrect, as usual. Tomahawk has GPS to help with midcourse guidance but is mainly useful for waypoints over water since featureless, the missile is inertial/TERCOM over land. It doesn't use radar, the version that used active radar homing was the antiship variant that hasn't been in service for decades, current TLAMs use digital scene matching for terminal guidance. The loitering and retargeting capability doesn't matter here, their targets were preprogrammed and not changed.

Your claims they were jammed are feeble.

You are wrong about the Tomahawk. Your ludicrous claim is that the missile uses GPS after take off but for what purpose should that be? The missile uses GPS near the target to increase accuracy. In the meantime the missile uses radar to compare the landscape to the imagery stored in the missile.

 

[DrainBamage]

You are wrong about the Tomahawk. Your ludicrous claim is that the missile uses GPS after take off but for what purpose should that be? The missile uses GPS near the target to increase accuracy. In the meantime the missile uses radar to compare the landscape to the imagery stored in the missile.

Nope. I already explained GPS but I've learned that with you things need repeating... Tomahawk can use GPS to aid in navigation, primary for waypoints over water since it is featureless so not suitable for waypoints using TERCOM. Tomahawk uses for DSMAC for terminal guidance. Block IV can retarget the missile to GPS coordinates instead of one of the preprogrammed targets, but as discussed this clearly wasn't the case here and nobody jammed GPS to make a cruise missile that primarily uses DSMAC for terminal guidance miss.

I get that your dealie here is to stand out as the Russia/Syria supporter and that's fine, but you look really foolish babbling about things you're clueless about.

 

[DrainBamage]

Btw here is a graphic of TLAM mission profile:

Note GPS early (used along with inertial) then TERCOM as primary midcourse, and terminal is DSMAC.

 

[ESay]

You're incorrect, as usual. Tomahawk has GPS to help with midcourse guidance but is mainly useful for waypoints over water since featureless, the missile is inertial/TERCOM over land. It doesn't use radar, the version that used active radar homing was the antiship variant that hasn't been in service for decades, current TLAMs use digital scene matching for terminal guidance. The loitering and retargeting capability doesn't matter here, their targets were preprogrammed and not changed.

Your explanation isn’t flawless. I am not a specialist in missiles, but simple logic tells me that there is something wrong with it. It is hardly possible that the Tomahawk doesn’t collect external data during the flying. Even if it has a map in its memory, it will nonetheless have to collect data about its actual location and compare with that information which its memory contains. To collect data about its current location, it has to use either own radar or information from a satellite.

 

[Bleipriester]

Btw here is a graphic of TLAM mission profile:

Note GPS early (used along with inertial) then TERCOM as primary midcourse, and terminal is DSMAC.

You graph explains that the missile uses radar.

"The Block III TLAMs that entered service in 1993 can fly farther and use Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers to strike more precisely. Block III TLAM-Cs retain the DSMAC II navigation system, allowing GPS only missions, which allow for rapid mission planning, with some reduced accuracy, DSMAC only missions, which take longer to plan but terminal accuracy is somewhat better, and GPS aided missions which combine both DSMAC II and GPS navigation which provides the greatest accuracy."
Tomahawk (missile) - Wikipedia

 

[longknife]

In response to Terrorist Trump´s chemical weapon attack on Syria, Terrorist Trump launched a missile strike on a Syrian airbase. In support of al-Qaeda and ISIS, the terrorist regime fired 59 missiles on the al-Shoairat airbase, from which the Syrian airforce launches its airstrikes against ISIS in the Palmyra region.

36 out of the 59 Tomahawks did not reach their targets but were intercepted by the Syrian military.

23 missiles reached the airbase, killing children and soldiers.

Results of the missile strike:

- 9 civilians killed, among them 4 children
- 4 soldiers killed, 2 casualties unconfirmed
- 6 Mig 23 destroyed
- 1 radar destroyed or damaged
- 1 runway damaged

Edit: There is even a source available:
US strikes on Syria: Donald Trump's missile attack 'kills four children' as Russia condemns 'aggression'

You are such a pile of bull poop. And tour Telegraph link is about as useful as something from The Daily Kos

 

[DrainBamage]

Your explanation isn’t flawless. I am not a specialist in missiles, but simple logic tells me that there is something wrong with it. It is hardly possible that the Tomahawk doesn’t collect external data during the flying. Even if it has a map in its memory, it will nonetheless have to collect data about its actual location and compare with that information which its memory contains. To collect data about its current location, it has to use either own radar or information from a satellite.

DSMAC uses a digital camera. Just the consumer cameras can tell where someone's eyes are, facial scanners can identify people with a camera, and license plate readers can use a camera to pick license plates out of a fast moving image through a parking lot. Here is an explanation of DSMAC:

DSMAC stands for Digital Scene Matching And Correlation. It is a terminal guidance system used by the Tomahawk cruise missile. A camera in the nose is activated once the missile is near its target, and the view from the camera is compared constantly to a set of 'correct' images of the target stored in the missile. When the scene matches, the missile refines its heading to place itself in the center of the 'stored' scene. This allows for precision unknown prior to its invention; it is said that Tomahawks can pick a window on the side of a building to hit if given the proper reconnaissance photo of the target.

During flying it can use inertial, TERCOM, and GPS. Inertial is obvious, if you know where you were, how fast you went in what direction, and for how long you can get an good estimate of where you are now. The problem with inertial is given a long enough flight (cruise missile can fly over a thousand KM) tiny errors in inertial can slowly build up to put you farther and farther off course. That is where TERCOM comes in, it just checks altitude of the missile versus altitude of the ground under it, and can match those changes in elevation to a database. It is something that can be easily jammed because jamming is only strong near the source and TERCOM doesn't isn't constantly required since you can go past any ECM source with just inertial. GPS is useful when there is insufficient ground contour for TERCOM to work, such as long periods of flight over water. For launched like USN just did against Syria GPS would be mainly relevant immediately after launch when the missile is over the water.

 

[DrainBamage]

You graph explains that the missile uses radar.

"The Block III TLAMs that entered service in 1993 can fly farther and use Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers to strike more precisely. Block III TLAM-Cs retain the DSMAC II navigation system, allowing GPS only missions, which allow for rapid mission planning, with some reduced accuracy, DSMAC only missions, which take longer to plan but terminal accuracy is somewhat better, and GPS aided missions which combine both DSMAC II and GPS navigation which provides the greatest accuracy."
Tomahawk (missile) - Wikipedia

No, my graph shows DSMAC as terminal, which uses a camera to compare what the missile sees with images in the missile's database. Since it does not require active radar homing on terminal jamming isn't effective.

The text you pasted clearly says Tomahawk can do DSMAC only, you're arguing against yourself.

 

[DrainBamage]

Actually this is like trying to explain something to a five year old.

Bleiprister maybe you can get your head around this if you take a step back and answer these questions to yourself honestly:

1. Is the tomahawk missile capable of targeting using DSMAC?
2. Is DSMAC a camera and target database stored inside the missile?
3. Can an ECM jammer that disrupts RF signals affect a camera and internal database?

I'll give you a hint:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No

That combined with the redundant crusing guidance methods inertial,TERCOM, and GPS should answer your question as to whether the Syrians shot down a couple dozen cruise missiles. Oh wait, when called on taht you switched to Russians jamming them, you can't even keep your propaganda straight.

 

[ESay]

Your explanation isn’t flawless. I am not a specialist in missiles, but simple logic tells me that there is something wrong with it. It is hardly possible that the Tomahawk doesn’t collect external data during the flying. Even if it has a map in its memory, it will nonetheless have to collect data about its actual location and compare with that information which its memory contains. To collect data about its current location, it has to use either own radar or information from a satellite.

DSMAC uses a digital camera. Just the consumer cameras can tell where someone's eyes are, facial scanners can identify people with a camera, and license plate readers can use a camera to pick license plates out of a fast moving image through a parking lot. Here is an explanation of DSMAC:

DSMAC stands for Digital Scene Matching And Correlation. It is a terminal guidance system used by the Tomahawk cruise missile. A camera in the nose is activated once the missile is near its target, and the view from the camera is compared constantly to a set of 'correct' images of the target stored in the missile. When the scene matches, the missile refines its heading to place itself in the center of the 'stored' scene. This allows for precision unknown prior to its invention; it is said that Tomahawks can pick a window on the side of a building to hit if given the proper reconnaissance photo of the target.

During flying it can use inertial, TERCOM, and GPS. Inertial is obvious, if you know where you were, how fast you went in what direction, and for how long you can get an good estimate of where you are now. The problem with inertial is given a long enough flight (cruise missile can fly over a thousand KM) tiny errors in inertial can slowly build up to put you farther and farther off course. That is where TERCOM comes in, it just checks altitude of the missile versus altitude of the ground under it, and can match those changes in elevation to a database. It is something that can be easily jammed because jamming is only strong near the source and TERCOM doesn't isn't constantly required since you can go past any ECM source with just inertial. GPS is useful when there is insufficient ground contour for TERCOM to work, such as long periods of flight over water. For launched like USN just did against Syria GPS would be mainly relevant immediately after launch when the missile is over the water.

As I can understand, DSMAC is used on a final stage of the flight, when the missile is about to hit the target. If we are talking about the main part of flying, then the third paragraph in your post is more relevant, more precisely this statement caught my eye:

That is where TERCOM comes in, it just checks altitude of the missile versus altitude of the ground under it, and can match those changes in elevation to a database

How can it check the altitude? Obviously, there is a radar (or name it whatever you want) which sends signals and receives ‘an answer’. In other words – the missile collects external data during the main part of its flying.

 

[Bleipriester]

Actually this is like trying to explain something to a five year old.

Bleiprister maybe you can get your head around this if you take a step back and answer these questions to yourself honestly:

1. Is the tomahawk missile capable of targeting using DSMAC?
2. Is DSMAC a camera and target database stored inside the missile?
3. Can an ECM jammer that disrupts RF signals affect a camera and internal database?

I'll give you a hint:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No

That combined with the redundant crusing guidance methods inertial,TERCOM, and GPS should answer your question as to whether the Syrians shot down a couple dozen cruise missiles. Oh wait, when called on taht you switched to Russians jamming them, you can't even keep your propaganda straight.

"Terrain Contour Matching, or TERCOM, is a navigation system used primarily by cruise missiles. It uses a pre-recorded contour map of the terrain that is compared to measurements made during flight by an on-board radar altimeter."
TERCOM - Wikipedia

 

[danielpalos]

Only 23 out of 59 missiles hit the airbase and it remained operational. Two "fell" into villages. So, if you claim the missile were not intercepted, provide another explanation.

I see, so when you claimed these missiles were shot down by Syria you actually had no way of knowing this and can't provide any way it was possible aside from flailing stabs in the dark that you can't pursue because they don't make sense. So now you're trying to put the burden on me to prove the opposite.

The base remaining operational isn't relevant, even if every cruise missile struck the base they are not designed to damage a runway enough to make the base inoperable. They were only damaging soft targets. You have no idea how many cruise missiles hit the base, you're relying on your propaganda sources so and are unable to make the logical connection that maybe if you can't explain how Syrians intercepted them the reason is your info on how many hit is wrong.

Bottom line you've proven what I said... you are naive. Naive to think Syrians can shoot down low dozens of low flying cruise missiles, naive to think they can jam weapons that target using terrain contour and digital scene matching. Stop blathering about shit you are obviously clueless about, it makes you look foolish.

Trump is not better off with this strike being a symbolic aggression. His lighting reaction connects it to the alleged chemical weapon attack, anyway.

However, it is more likely that a Krasukha 4 electronic warfare system jammed the missiles.

Only 23 of 59 Tomahawks Launched At Syria’s Al-Shayrat Air Base Hit Targets – Rogue Money

What are we actually trying to accomplish over there, with our exorbitantly expensive superpower?

Maybe the UN could sponsor, "an enlightened new outlook on policies" from the current administration or institute a process by which that populace can establish their own government, eventually.