US failed attempt to disable the Syrian air force by destroying its airports

US definition of ‘surgical’: 105 missiles against 3 targets, or something else? Two reports.

There is a very large discrepancy between the Russian Ministry of Defense’s report of strike and the description in the Pentagon briefing on the strike. According to the Pentagon, only three places related to non-existing Syrian chemical weapons were targeted:

This combined military strike was directed against three distinct Syrian chemical weapons program targets.

In summary, in a powerful show of allied unity, we deployed 105 weapons against three targets.

It does not make any sense to send 35 cruise missiles against each of those not hardened, not defended targets like the now destroyed Barzeh research center which was a small two story building complex and had been declared free of chemical weapons and weapon research by the OPCW. Why would the U.S. military use such a high number of precision weapons against only three targets? This is extremely unusual and does not make sense at all.

The Russians, as well as other sources on the ground, report in detail of many more targets:

  • Four missiles targeted the Damascus International Airport; 12 missiles – the Al-Dumayr airdrome, all the missiles have been shot down.
  • 18 missiles targeted the Blai airdrome, all the missiles shot down.
  • 12 missiles targeted the Shayrat air base, all the missiles shot down. Air bases were not affected by the strike.
  • Five out of nine missiles were shot down targeting the unoccupied Mazzeh airdrome.
  • Thirteen out of sixteen missiles were shot down targeting the Homs airdrome. There is no heavy destruction.
  • In total 30 missiles targeted facilities near Barzah and Jaramana. Seven of them have been shot down.

A Syrian report identifies jets taking off from Cyprus (UK), Jordan, Qatar and UAE, and that the attack on Syria came in three waves from three different directions.

At least six airports were targeted according to the Russian report. The Pentagon reports no strike on Syrian airports, but claims to have launched a way too high number of cruise missiles for each of the claimed three target. The Syrian opposition outlet SOHR reports of eight targets and says that at least 65 of the cruise missiles were downed by the Syrian air defences. The Russians say 71 were shot down while the Pentagon says none of its cruise missiles were hit.

At least three other sources confirm the Russian version of events. The Pentagon is lying. The attack was a U.S. attempt to disable the Syrian air force by destroying its airports. All U.S. aggression is premised on achieving air supremacy. It failed and the Pentagon is hiding that failure. Will the U.S. and Canadian media report this discrepancy?

Not unrelated to the strike on Syria is the Skripal case where the mysteries continue to pile up.

Source: Main part of this article is from Moon of Alabama


US-LED STRIKES ON SYRIA: PR VICTORY OR DECISIVE FAILURE?

South Front

Early on April 14, the US, the UK and France delivered a massive missile strike on Syria. The attack was publicly justified with accusations that the Syrian government had allegedly been behind the so-called Douma chemical attack on April 7. US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis described the strikes as “harder” than the 2017 strikes on Shayrat military airfield.

The Pentagon said that the US and its allies had launched 105 missiles at the alleged “chemical weapons” facilities of the Assad government and all of them had precisely hit their targets.

The attack involved the following means and launchers:

  • The USS Monterey CG61 fired 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Red Sea.
  • The USS Laboon DDG58 fired 7 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Red Sea.
  • The USS Higgins DDG76 fired 23 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Persian Gulf.
  • The USS John Warner SSN785 fired 6 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Mediterranean.
  • The French frigate LANGUEDOC fired 3 Storm Shadow/SCALP EG cruise missiles from the Mediterranean.
  • B-1B strategic bombers fired 19 AGM-158 JASSM air-launched cruise missiles.
  • British Typhoon and Tornado fighter jets fired 8 Storm Shadow/SCALP EG air-launched cruise missiles.
  • French Rafel and Mirage fired 9 Storm Shadow/SCALP EG air-launched cruise missiles.

According to the Pentagon 76 missiles hit “Barzah Research and Development Center”, 22 missiles hit “Him Shinshar Chemical Weapons Storage Site”, 7 missiles hit “Him Shinshar CW Bunker”.

However, during the official briefing the Pentagon declined to provide any evidence confirming the allegations against the Assad government and offered no explanation as to why there was no dispersal of chemical agent clouds if the chemical weapons facilities had been hit.

Another issue raised by experts is why 76 missiles were needed to destroy three buildings in Barzeh.

There is another side to the story. According to the Syrian Defense Ministry, most of the missiles launched by the US-led bloc were intercepted. The Russian Defense Ministry provided more details by saying that Russia had not employed its air defense assets, but 71 missiles heading to 8 locations had been intercepted by the Syrian Air Defense Forces (SADF).

The Russians added that Moscow will also consider deliveries of S-300 air defense systems to Syria and other countries in response to the US actions.

However, the numbers provided by Russia raise serious questions. Some experts contacted by SouthFront said that even theoretically the SADF could not have been capable of shooting down more than 15-20% of the launched missiles. The SADF just does not have the means and measures necessary to intercept such a number of missiles simultaneously in one wave of strikes.

The experts suggested that the Russian military had possibly used its state-of-the-art electronic warfare systems to counter the launched missiles during the final phase of their flight path.

Another factor, which “highly likely” contributed to the effectiveness of the Syrian counter-measures, is that Russia had provided the Syrian military with operational data from its technical reconnaissance net, including satellites and other surveillance means. Likely, Iran had done a similar thing.

Using tracking data, Russian-made air defense systems like S-125, S-200, Buk and Kvadrat are capable of shooting down cruise missiles with a relatively high efficiency.

The 71 intercepted missiles of 103 launched are a decisive failure for the US and its allies. Some experts suggested that the 76 missiles strike on Barzeh announced by the Pentagon could be an attempt to explain where all the missiles had gone.

If the data provided by the Russian Defense Ministry is confirmed, this will be the first time in the history when that a side was able to repel a massive strike of so-called modern high-precision weapons/missiles. If so, in the case of a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia, the Russians will be able to intercept most of the US means of attack while suffering only minor damage, whereas Russia’s nuclear strike would be a crushing blow.

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under West Asia (Middle East)

3 responses to “US failed attempt to disable the Syrian air force by destroying its airports

  1. The information about attempted strikes of airfields explains why U.S. Air Force recruiting advertisements are appearing on prime-time American television.

    • Is that new? Have they not always been on prime time sports? How do you quantify this?

      • Perhaps the point could have been sharpened by suggesting that if humanity doesn’t prevent world war by exposing the false flags, the U.S., U.K., France, NATO offensives might likely be largely from the air.

        One would need to research to compare expenditures on Air Force recruiting advertisements across the years. Listening to Trump speak to Air Force men and women a few weeks back (an anniversary of sorts), his patriotism soaked talk included mention of Air Force operations during WWII in the Pacific, which suggested preparations being made for global war. Of course, one might have an overactive imagination – let’s hope so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s