I find those numbers are implausible. My faith in your intelligence is such that I am certain that you will also, after taking a moment to reflect. Actually, “implausible” may not be the right word, I think we are being fed a spoonful of horseshit.
If 59 missiles destroyed one fifth of Syria’s “operational aircraft”, then Syria previously had roughly 300 aircraft. Of which at least 60 were located on that one base. But, just as you point out, we were advised that the main targets were support facilities. The precision of our attack has been touted rather loudly, so those missiles were not targeted on airplanes. So, some number of those missiles were not even targeted at aircraft (most of them, if we are to believe what we are told).
And yet 60 aircraft were destroyed. Collateral damage? One missile taking out several aircraft, two missiles taking out ten, what? Did the Syrians stack their aircraft one upon another? Were they parked nose to nose in a rosette, so that one missile directly in the center would take out five, ten, fifteen?
John, this doesn’t make sense to me. I was counting on **Hurr’**s expertise for an explanation, but if you want to carry the ball, go for it.
He’s not. It’s pretty clear that he’s pointing out that the administration’s claim that 20% of Syria’s air force was destroyed is weirdly optimistic/a lie.
I’m surprised at how much effort you guys are putting into responding to post #453. It just looked like nonsense to me.
As for Mattis’ claim that the strike destroyed “20 percent of Syria’s operational aircraft”, I suspect there are very few individuals on the planet with as much information to make that assessment as SecDef Mattis. I’m inclined to believe it, and I’ll explain why in a longer post.
Sorry, CarnalK, I was making a joke upon my rather poor math skills. I consistently overestimate the capacity of my audience to get the joke. Yes, I do know that sixty is not one-fifth of three thousand.
Nonetheless, I trust you take my point. A “Viet Cong water buffalo” might be an apt historical analogy.
The only place I saw estimating Syria’s airforce at only 100 aircraft is wikipedia, and the citation goes to global firepower that has over 400 as their estimate.
But you don’t have to prove the Secretary of Defense has the best info available, he undoubtedly does. So I assume he’s bullshitting not operating under false info.
I don’t claim any particular expertise here, so this is basically one enthusiastic layman trying to explain things as he understands them. That being said, let’s first talk about the key modifier in Mattis’ claim: “operational”
Even the USAF ends up “cannibalizing” aircraft for parts at times. Those “cannibalized” aircraft are still technically in our “inventory” of aircraft, but nowhere near operational. I’m not sure what status the USAF assigns to the many aircraft in the “boneyard” at the Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona, but I could see how a foreign power might count them as aircraft in the USAF inventory, but no one I knows would call them “operational”.
So, how many aircraft does Syria still have in their inventory? That’s a good question I don’t know the answer to. That’s the question places like Jane’s and GlobalSecurity.org seem to be trying to answer, although even they acknowledge there’s a lot of guesswork involved because we’re not sure how many planes Syria has lost in the war.
A far more relevant question, especially for civilians being bombed by Assad’s air force would be: how many “operational” aircraft does Syria have today? I also don’t know the answer to that, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if it was less than 100. Who would know the answer? Probably not Jane’s or GlobalSecurity. I suspect the Syrian government has a really good handle on that number, and I’d imagine the Russians do too. Outside of that, I imagine that our own Department of Defense has the next-best idea of how many “operational” aircraft the Syrian government has at its disposal.
20 aircraft were destroyed or damaged in the strike. That has been reported before. Syrian air force is not huge - see 2024 Syria Military Strength - and with the maintenance requirements to keep modern aircraft operational, it is quite plausible that their total number of operational aircraft is on the order of 100.
Strawman. Can you give the cite for where you got that “60 aircraft destroyed” meme from?
BTW, I don’t know anyone that claimed the strike destroyed 60 aircraft. AFAIK, elucidator just pulled that number out of thin air for this post. The Russians claimed we only destroyed 6 aircraft (and that only 23 of the 59 missiles actually hit the base). I think they’re lying, or wrong, or both, but YMMV. Other assessments I’ve read said 58/59 missiles hit the base, and destroyed ~20 aircraft, along with other equipment. I’m more inclined to believe those numbers.
As for destroying multiple aircraft with a single missile, that almost certainly happened. Take a look at the twitter pics I posted earlier in this thread.
Could you humor me, and tell me exactly where did you arrive at this number?
No reputable source reported 60 aircraft destroyed, 60 missiles were used to hit various targets, only approx 20 aircraft were ever reported damaged that i heard.
Sixty would have been close to the maximum possible number of aircraft, unless Hurr is correct and the Syrians parked their aircraft in a manner to offer the most convenient targeting possible.
The use of “60” was an expression of my skepticism. If each missile took out an aircraft, that would be “60” (59, actually, but quibbles…). If that is one fifth of the Syrian Air Force, then they had 300, yes?
And yes, I do vaguely recall a “20 aircraft destroyed” but I think that has been “clarified”. I have no sources other than the one cited. My point is not that I have better information, my point is that I know when I am being lied to.
Yes, sarin has a shelf life of a few days (well, maybe more depending on purity of ingredients). That is why it is a “binary” weapon - sarin is created by mixing the ingredients at the time of delivery. From Wiki on sarin: “In binary chemical weapons, the two precursors are stored separately in the same shell and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of solving the stability issue and increasing the safety of sarin munitions.”
So - let’s say Syria has developed sarin weapons at some point (no one really disputes that, do they?). Syria has been a chaotic mess for years now. Why is it so incredibly unlikely that some rebel faction or other managed to take control of a government weapons storage facility at some point, “liberated” some of these sarin binary shells and used them - both in this latest incident and in the prior documented ones that showed sarin use against Syrian government soldiers?
HurricaneDitka, aren’t you the one who said “I’m surprised at how much effort you guys are putting into responding to post #453. It just looked like nonsense to me.”? He said it was a joke so there’s even less reason to pursue it.
Since that post there have been several claims that DoD / Mattis are lying about the claim that we damaged / destroyed “20 percent of Syria’s operational aircraft”.
(Posts snipped)
It’s those claims of dishonesty I was trying to address in my subsequent posts.
Perhaps we need a more generous definition of “damaged” aircraft, as compared with “destroyed”? Which would make some sense, given that we are also told that our targeting was superb, and the targeting was directed at support facilities. So, a scuffed bit of paint from a random bit of shrapnel? Well, then, that’s an aircraft “damaged”, isn’t it? Yes, if I adopt your faith-based viewpoint, and am willing to fudge a bit…
Viet Cong water buffalo, body counts. I remember, do you? Goes around, comes around, and here it is again. And damn! but I’m sick of it.