What was damaged or destroyed by the 59 tomahawk missiles?

[kentuck]

Have we seen any photos or reports yet?

What exactly was destroyed? There was a report that six people were killed.

It seems that 59 of those 1000-lb bombs would do a tremendous amount of damage, don't you think?

The Russians seemed very angry about it.

[uponit7771]

1. RT has a video out already, empty bunkers hit.. runway mostly intact and planes mostly intact and

per Pentagon Russians were notified in advance so ... about 100 million dollar shit show by Benedict Donald

[kentuck]

3. Thanks!

Why bomb empty bunkers?

[workinclasszero]

10. So golden showers 45 can prove he isn't Putin's lapdog

But the advanced warning to Russia/Assad put that joke to bed.

[spanone]

13. reality teevee baby, it's showbiz

[kentuck]

2. I found this on Google but I could not get the video to work?

???

[LeftInTX]

4. I found a picture and a video

There is also a video on the same page, but it is in Russian:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/world/syria-military-strikes-donald-trump-russia/

I can't really tell from the picture or video how severe the damage is or what the airfield looked like before or anything. I don't know what this orange stone structure is. To my uneducated eye, it looks like an overpass, but I could be totally wrong.

[EX500rider]

5. It's a re-enforced hanger made to protect planes.

[LeftInTX]

8. Thx

I watched the video again and saw similar structures with what looked like vegetation covering them.

[EX500rider]

9. Yeah they usually add a layer of dirt on top for more protection.

[kentuck]

7. I found this from Syrian TV

http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/07/first-pictures-show-aftermath-of-us-air-strikes-against-syria-that-have-angered-russia-6559483/

[workinclasszero]

12. Looks like a hardened aircraft hanger to me

Full of non-existing aircraft too.

Gee what a cowinky dink hmmm?

[mac56]

6. "The Russians seemed very angry about it."

The Russians are acting like they're very angry about it.

[dogman]

11. It let Putin off the hook.

He had an agreement where he guaranteed there would be no chemical attacks in exchange for Obama not doing what T-Rump did. Without a challenge to his agreement he is not responsible and has declared the agreement that helped avoid conflict void. T-Rump has also found that for a mere 30 million taxpayer dollars he can raise his poll numbers and media credibility. He wagged the dog bigly.

[HAB911]

14. Back in business!

Link to tweet

[LeftInTX]

17. How dare they defy the Great and Powerful Donny!!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

15. Meals on wheels.

[TheDebbieDee]

16. Not enuf was damaged bcuz Syria just launched

An air strike from that base...

[magicarpet]

18. The MIC maker of the Tomahawk cruise missle - Raytheon......

.......their common stock on the stock exchange went up bigly.

Drump - Drump - Drump - USA - USA - USA.

[R B Garr]

19. Maybe the pictures of them launching was the

priority. Payload, baby. That seems to be the priority.

Hubby said one could destroy a strip mall we were driving by. He's not an expert, just a military buff/Veteran. It would be interesting if someone here knew the stats.

[LittleBlue]

20. The airport, which I'm guessing is non-operational or partly operational

The point of the strike was to show that we have a red line and are willing to use violence to enforce it.

That's why there is no way Trump planned this strike, it was done by someone highly competent in the military. It didn't kill anyone, most importantly it didn't kill Russians and cause a war. It didn't even shift the balance of power. But it did cause structural damage and serve as a warning.

If Trump had planned this, it would have been immensely disproportionate, missed its target and probably hit civilians or Russians. He doesn't have the brain to have pulled off something so meticulously perfect, both in operation and strategy.

[panader0]

22. see post 14

[LittleBlue]

23. Already saw it, and the reports that the bases are partially operational

Which is why I said "partially operational"

[panader0]

24. Only one base. Still operational. A BS strike, pre-warned, little damage.

Well over 100 million in costs just to give Trump a boost.

[LittleBlue]

25. And to warn Syria that next time will be worse

That was only 2 destroyers firing part of their arsenals. We've got 62 Arleigh Burke destroyers.

[awesomerwb]

32. Geez you're gullible.

Do you chase laser pointers too?

Watch the movie Wag the Dog.

-Conflicts drive oil prices up = Russia happy.
-Conflicts take over the news = Trump and reps happy (except for the far right wing nutters)

They told Russians about the strikes in advance. It didn't affect Syrians launching airstrikes one bit.

Symbolic, political theater.

[LittleBlue]

36. I know what Trump is doing

That doesn't mean I can't admire a well planned operation. Our military is pretty amazing.

[The_Casual_Observer]

21. Looked like nothing.

[samnsara]

26. and apparently the runway is back in business

[Warpy]

27. There's a lot of uninformative Russian drone footage at You Tube

The best one I've seen so far shows most damage to buildings while jets sit safely under their concrete archways.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. The media's attention span on Trump-Russian collusion?

[L. Coyote]

47. If so, they hit their target. But the Constitution took a bigger hit.

Authorization for Military Force Against Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons

Link to tweet

[KingCharlemagne]

29. Joseph Conrad is instructive:

Once, I remember, we came upon a man-of-war anchored off the coast. There wasn’t even a shed there, and she was shelling the bush. It appears the French had one of their wars going on thereabouts. Her ensign dropped limp like a rag; the muzzles of the long six-inch guns stuck out all over the low hull; the greasy, slimy swell swung her up lazily and let her down, swaying her thin masts. In the empty immensity of earth, sky, and water, there she was, incomprehensible, firing into a continent. Pop, would go one of the six-inch guns; a small flame would dart and vanish, a little white smoke would disappear, a tiny projectile would give a feeble screech—and nothing happened. Nothing could happen. There was a touch of insanity in the proceeding, a sense of lugubrious drollery in the sight; and it was not dissipated by somebody on board assuring me earnestly there was a camp of natives—he called them enemies!—hidden out of sight somewhere.
~Heart of Darkness

FWIW: Syria used to be a French colony.

[sarisataka]

30. From the two morning videos

Here is what I noted:
-runways intact, small catering this is what I would expect to see, runways are tough targets to seriously damage and Tomahawks are not a good choice
-damage to several runway access points better target, it keeps the planes from getting to the runway. downside is the same as runways, without specialized weapons damage is light and easily repairable
-superficial damage to aircraft shelters again expected given weapon used. the shelters are designed to protect against such an attack and worked as advertised
-aircraft parked in open untouched it was difficult to tell from the drone video but is appeared they were older aircraft. while not prime targets, they could be used in attacks and as they were unprotected were freebies. I would have hit them

What I did not see on the video was any images of control, repair, refueling or weapon storage sites. Unsurprising that this footage is not shown as that is where the real damage can be done and would help determine how long the base may be at reduced capability.

[politicat]

34. I will disagree with you on the runway damage aspect

With the caveat that my knowledge of military runways is pushing 30 years old, and is indirect (I grew up on bases and one of my parents builds fighter/bomber capable runways).

A bush plane, a cargo plane? Those can set down on almost anything that's relatively firm, flat and straight -- gravel road, field, prairie. The landing won't be pretty, it'll be bumpy as hell, and the landing gear is going to take a beating, but it can be done. But not fighters and bombers, because the landing gear comes at a cost-benefit ratio: build it robust enough to handle a shit runway and the extra weight reduces what the plane can do.

Taking out a runway (was) is operationally the key target because a base without a runway is a collection of buildings. A runway without buildings is a crappy place to be, but it's still a base because the planes can still get up and down. I agree that Toms aren't the best thing for putting holes into runways (a lot of dumb gravity bombs) but they'll do.

I'm also questioning why so many were off target. That says bad coordinates or intentionally bad coordinates -- Toms in the 80s were around 80% accurate (last duty station was near a proving ground, and the Toms were in test at the time) but this volley was under 40%. I can't imagine that they've gotten worse given improvements in satellite observation, GPS and guided targeting.

[sarisataka]

35. Two considerations must be accounted

The first is the method of Runway Construction. I have no idea how this one is actually built. However if it was built to Russian standards it is a modular design that is built to be repaired quickly. When the runway is bombed equipment goes out remove the damaged panels, the underlayment is smoothed out and new panels are dropped in their place.

The second is this type of Runway makes for a much less even surface than you would see on Western air bases. Many soviet-era aircraft are built with reinforced landing gear to be able to handle the unevenness. A second benefit is these aircraft can deal with other less-than-perfect runways.

Now a couple of 2000 pound penetrating JDAMS that can cause widespread under ground disturbance would be a completely different story. Unfortunately they must be delivered by manned aircraft

[politicat]

37. That makes sense.

I never got much exposure to Iron Curtain aircraft, but that does make sense, and given that Syria's hardware is almost all Russian, they're going to use Russian runways, too.

In total agreement on the JDAMS, and I know I can think of several crews (now retired, but willing to be called up and probably willing to run a potentially suicidal mission) who would consider that a good use of their time, but this still looks like it was 80% optics.

Still wondering about the miss ratio. That's just... weird.

[sarisataka]

38. If correct that ratio is troubling

I have seen first-hand the aftermath of Tomahawk strikes and in general they do not miss. There could be something going on at the electronic warfare side. The Russians using some form of jamming, trying to throw them off. If they can degrade Tomahawk hit ratios by 50% that is a serious issue.

[malaise]

31. The alt-right support of Don the Con?:evilgrin:

[onenote]

33. 59 missiles?

[Equinox Moon]

40. And the air strip was left intact

Hmmm.... seems to me this was a careful attack to MISS anything of importance. Don-the-con at work.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028906682

[jmg257]

39. 20 aircraft, bunkers, fuel and munitions storage facilities..

Two U.S. Navy destroyers were in position in the eastern Mediterranean with dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles targeted on a Syrian airfield and launched within three hours of President Donald Trump making the final strike decision, defense and White House officials said Friday.

The officials said the strikes inflicted “severe damage” on the airfield and destroyed at least 20 aircraft as the culmination of a plan put together on quick notice to carry out Trump’s order to retaliate swiftly against an alleged Syrian chemical attack that had occurred less than 72 hours earlier.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was with Trump for meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Florida, said the initial damage assessments were that “20 percent of the 7th Wing of the Syrian air force” had been eliminated by the 59 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles, or T-LAMs, or, launched by the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers Ross and Porter.

Defense officials said that at least 20 aircraft were destroyed on the ground at the Shayrat airbase north of Damascus and heavy damage was inflicted on bunkers, fuel and munitions storage facilities and air defense radars by the BQM-109 Tomahawks carrying 1,000-pound conventional warheads.

https://www.defensetech.org/2017/04/07/us-strike-damage-syrian-airfield/


Don't know what kind of planes, but with an F16 costing $165 Million each, 20 destroyed planes is pretty good.

[kentuck]

41. The Destroyer Porter was the same one that was in the Black Sea...

when they were dive-bombed by Russian Migs a while back.

It is now commanded by a Lady Commander.

[jmg257]

42. Sweet - pretty good payback!

[BannonsLiver]

43. They don't have f-16's

They have Mig-23's and Mig-29's. You can buy a 70's Mig-23 for $250,000 in some cases. They were made from late 60's to mid 80's. The 29's are more modern. You can also buy one of those for about $4 million. Obviously these listings don't include the weapons systems and any advanced avionics the Syrians might have upgraded to. But those modifications wouldn't be anywhere near $160 million either way.


http://www.globalplanesearch.com/usa/aerobatic/jets/mig/

[jmg257]

44. Thanks - appreciate those details!

[sarisataka]

46. Checking a few sources

It seems that face had mostly Su-22 Fitters. They are a seventies era ground attack aircraft. Obsolete by US or Russian standards. 5 countries still use them; Syria has the most with 42, well perhaps 22.

[L. Coyote]

45. Did Trump kill Big Bird yet?