American missiles fired at Syria

[HurricaneDitka]

elucidator, could you give me your best estimate to the three numbers I asked you for in post #475?

[RitterSport]

@Okrahoma

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?

The administration is claiming that Russia has been covering up Syria’s involvement in the sarin gas attack. Basically, it’s the administration claiming the gas attack was done by Syria and all of this confusion and conflicting reports is Russia’s doing. I know you’re a fan of this administration – who side are you taking here? Russia’s or Trump’s?

[elucidator]

elucidator, could you give me your best estimate to the three numbers I asked you for in post #475?

What is this, your defense isn’t working, so you are going on offense, the Leeroy Jenkins rhetorical ploy?

I am a “military brat”, spent three years of my early life on that very Davis-Monthan AFB you refer to, but that is the extent of my military expertise. I received an invitation in '66. but upon examining the prospective soldier, they decided they could get along without me. Five eight, one hundred ten pounds, recovering from mono. Probably a wise choice. I deferred to their judgement.

And the day will not dawn that I describe myself as an “enthusiastic layman”. Goddess willing. If that is the basis for your, ah, “argument”, it is too many for me, I fold. Besides, friend **Single Malt **has some excellent questions for you, a splendid opportunity for you to clarify your points.

Please proceed.

[elucidator]

@RitterSport

The administration is claiming that Russia has been covering up Syria’s involvement in the sarin gas attack. Basically, it’s the administration claiming the gas attack was done by Syria and all of this confusion and conflicting reports is Russia’s doing. I know you’re a fan of this administration – who side are you taking here? Russia’s or Trump’s?

https://thinkprogress.org/spicer-praises-hitler-chemical-weapons-a45144ebb8ae

Sean Spicer praises Hitler for his restraint, falsely claims he never gassed his own people

Referring to Assad’s recent sarin gas attack on Syrian civilians, Spicer said, “You had someone as despicable as Hitler, who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons.”

Its ThinkProgress, so maybe they’re lying. I actually hope so, it would be less depressing. Nurse? Nurse?

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

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.

Only if you assume every missile took out a plane, which you claim not to be assuming… except when you are assuming it.

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.

No, I did not point that out, because the press release did not say that (emphasis added)

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.

I thought you weren’t assuming that. This must be one of those cases when you are.

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?

I don’t know how many aircraft one missile can take out. You don’t either.

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.

No, it looks to me like you are just taking unsupported (and unusuportable) pot shots at Mattis’ statement. If I have to choose between him and you on this subject, I’ll believe him. Notwithstanding your well established military expertise and detailed knowledge of the Syrian Air forces. Sure, he’s couched his estimate with the term “operational”, and that might give him some wiggle room, but I expect his number is closer to the truth.

[elucidator]

John, I will not hide my disappointment, I overestimated you, and likely will do so again. If you can look at his statements and the surrounding situation and say “Yep, kosher. Straight from the shoulder, unvarnished candor”, you are welcome to it. Alas.

Did you look at friend Single Malt’s post? Did it affect your judgement any? I did not know that strict candor was so flexible.

[HurricaneDitka]

@SingleMalt

I understand where elucidator is going with this; the administration has been all over the map as to the effectiveness of this cruise missile strike.

On Friday, the Defense Department said that “about 20 Syrian jets were destroyed.” Also on Friday, SoS Tillerson said that the strike “took out about 20 percent of the seventh wing of the Syrian air force.”

Also on Friday, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said, “it’s my understanding that they took out something like 20 percent of the entire Syrian air force.”

Then, on Monday, Gen. Mattis said that the raid destroyed “20 percent of Syria’s operational aircraft.” Also on Monday, Sean Spicer said that the strike destroyed “over 20 percent of their fixed-wing aircraft in their entire air force.”

So, please tell us how many craft you want to start at, and which of the above calculations you’d like to use.

Then maybe you could forward your work on to someone at the White House? It looks like they could use a hand with the math.

I strongly suspect that Sean Spicer and Wilbur Ross did a bad job of trying to restate what Mattis stated clearly and lost some of the nuance and detail in their attempts, as politicians and reporters often tend to do. In other words, I don’t think I’d describe them as “all over the map”, but they were definitely off a little.

Your first quote appears to be for a pair of unnamed sources within the DoD, who say that 20 aircraft were destroyed, and doesn’t really affect the % claim from Mattis except to give us an actual number to work with. I don’t think that 20 aircraft and 20% of SyAAF’s operation aircraft are inconsistent. This article is from 2015 but describes some of the losses the Syrian regime has sustained (and highlights the maintenance challenges they face in keeping aircraft “operational”):

The first setback occurred on the 25th of November 2012, when Majr as-Sultan heliport was overrun, resulting in the capture and destruction of five Mi-8/17s. This was followed by the fall of Taftanaz on the 11th of January 2013, which saw at least fifteen Mi-8/17s and one Mi-25 being captured or destroyed. Next in line was Kshesh (commonly known as Jirah) on the 12th of February 2013, which apart from more than fifty inoperational MiG-15/17s and L-29s gave the rebels an opportunity to work on establishing their own air force, as at least eight intact L-39s were capture. This opportunity was later utilised by Jaish al-Islam. Dhab’ah (commonly known as Al-Qusayr) was captured on the 18th of April, and although several MiG-21s were found here, all were inoperational. Stocks of air-to-air missiles found here were later used as provisional rockets by the rebels. Abu ad-Duhor was stormed on the 30th of April 2013, but the defenders managed to fence off the assault. This marked a turning point in the rebels’ advances on SyAAF airbases, all of which subsequently came to a halt. Only the already surrounded heliport of Mennegh fell on the 6th of August 2013, where several Mi-8s were captured or destroyed. The latest airbase that fell was Tabqa on the 24th of August 2014. As much as eighteen MiG-21s, ranging from operational examples to piles of scrap, were captured by the Islamic State here. Of these eighteen only three were in operational condition as the few remaining airworthy MiG-21s escaped Tabqa before the base was given up.

…

Apart from the several aircraft captured or destroyed at their home bases mentioned above, losses during this time were limited to five MiG-21s, two MiG-23s, one Su-24M2, two L-39s and six Mi-8/17s.

…

The presence of B-8 armed MiG-29s usually indicated an absence of larger numbers of the wearing MiG-23BN or Su-22M-3/M-4 fleet, which has to be overhauled regularly in order to keep the aircraft operational. Temporarily grounding large amounts of its fighter-bombers to have them replaced by fighters has become a standard tactic within the SyAAF, and allows for some much needed rest for certain airframes. For example, during November 2014 not a single Su-22 was spotted over Syria, as increasing numbers are temporarily grounded or even completely phased out, as witnessed by the growing Su-22 graveyard at Dmeyr.

…

Four MiG-23s were deemed unsuitable for overhaul because of their bad condition and remained at Neyrab, and two of them were struck by TOW ATGMs here.

…

After two L-39s were struck at Meyrab air base, at least one L-39 was deployed to Deir ez-Zor where it took part in the counter-offensive against the Islamic State.

The Tillerson quote you shared wasn’t in quotes in the article, but it looks like it’s repeated elsewhere as a quote. I can’t find other administration officials talking about the “7th Wing” besides Tillerson.

[elucidator]

That appears to be a “blog”. “Article” is probably more dignity than it deserves. Can you offer us any further basis to support this blog’s expertise? Or its authors?

Or is it just the best you can do?

[HurricaneDitka]

@elucidator

That appears to be a “blog”. “Article” is probably more dignity than it deserves. Can you offer us any further basis to support this blog’s expertise? Or its authors?

Or is it just the best you can do?

The authors are listed as Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans. Their bios are listed here as:

Joost Oliemans is a freelance writer and analyst based in The Netherlands. Having worked as a co-author or contributor for various online military blogs and news websites, he is now writing a book about the Korean People’s Army.

Stijn Mitzer is an analyst and blogger based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Working as a contributor for IHS Jane’s and Bellingcat, he is now writing a book about the Korean People’s Army.

If you think you have more credibility than them because you “know when [you are] being lied to”, have at it, but I suspect most people here will recognize the inherent imbalance in knowledge and expertise involved here between you and them.

[HurricaneDitka]

As for the question about whether multiple aircraft can be destroyed by a single Tomahawk, the best evidence I can offer is this photograph. It appears to show two Syrian aircraft destroyed when a Tomahawk punched through the roof of their hardened aircraft shelter.

There’s also this photograph that might be multiple aircraft, but the damage is more extensive, to the point that I have trouble even identifying with confidence what was destroyed.

ETA: you can see a satellite photograph showing the strikes on the roof of the HAS’s here

[John_Mace]

@HurricaneDitka

As for the question about whether multiple aircraft can be destroyed by a single Tomahawk, the best evidence I can offer is this photograph. It appears to show two Syrian aircraft destroyed when a Tomahawk punched through the roof of their hardened aircraft shelter.

If you look closely enough, you can see a badly damaged T-800 trying to crawl out of that wreckage.

[elucidator]

…It appears to show two Syrian aircraft destroyed when a Tomahawk punched through the roof of their hardened aircraft shelter…

The first picture shows what appears to be one jet engine. There were two planes, and they were sharing? Also, the picture shows no hole in the roof. Other than that…

[SingleMalt]

@HurricaneDitka

Your first quote appears to be for a pair of unnamed sources within the DoD, who say that 20 aircraft were destroyed, and doesn’t really affect the % claim from Mattis except to give us an actual number to work with. I don’t think that 20 aircraft and 20% of SyAAF’s operation aircraft are inconsistent.

I do not disagree with this presumption, and it may well be accurate that 20% = 20 planes, for a total of 100 operational aircraft. We do know that Syria had more at one time, and we do not know how much support Russia has provided in repairing and maintaining Assad’s AF.

Could Syria have had, as of last week, 300 operational aircraft? Is that many craft beyond reason? I honestly don’t know. But if Syria had 300 operational aircraft, then that 20% is now 60 planes, and somebody slinging this “20%” around is full of it.

My own take is that “20 planes” has become conflated with “20% of the planes.” This administration is kind of like listening to a group of people playing “Telephone.”

[elucidator]

@John_Mace

If you look closely enough, you can see a badly damaged T-800 trying to crawl out of that wreckage.

It’ll be back.

[Okrahoma]

@RitterSport

The administration is claiming that Russia has been covering up Syria’s involvement in the sarin gas attack. Basically, it’s the administration claiming the gas attack was done by Syria and all of this confusion and conflicting reports is Russia’s doing. I know you’re a fan of this administration – who side are you taking here? Russia’s or Trump’s?

The administration has to do that, since they already punished Syria for it. That doesn’t mean it actually happened. I am a fan of truth. We don’t know what the truth is in this case.

[HurricaneDitka]

@John_Mace

If you look closely enough, you can see a badly damaged T-800 trying to crawl out of that wreckage.

Two thoughts come to mind:

1. Does Assad have no shame? First chemical weapons, and now he’s using Terminators against his own people!

2. Maybe Elon Musk is right about the dangers posed by AI.

[RickJay]

@HurricaneDitka

As for the question about whether multiple aircraft can be destroyed by a single Tomahawk

I don’t even know why this is a question. A Tomahawk carries a thousand pound warhead.

A 1000-pound bomb is a big goddamned bomb. I’m not talking about a Hollywood explosion here where the car blows up. A bomb that big, if it hit your house, would disintegrate it and destroy every adjacent house and the houses across the street.

Here’s a video of six 1000-pound bombs impacting a target in Afghanistan. Pause the video before the first one hits to get an idea of how far away and large that compound is. The force of the bombs is staggering.

Of course if a bomb that large detonated anywhere near two planes it could destroy them.

[HurricaneDitka]

@elucidator

The first picture shows what appears to be one jet engine. There were two planes, and they were sharing? Also, the picture shows no hole in the roof. Other than that…

This is getting boring, so this may be my last response to you for a while, but can you see the damage in the roof? Hint: it’s that mess of rebar all mangled and sticking out in different directions along the top edge of the photo, somewhat left of center.

Now take a look at this photo. Do you see the hole in the roof of that HAS?

Here is a series of photos on the DailyKos showing the damage. In the first one, you can see a double HAS with what appears to be rebar hanging down where the roof was penetrated. In the second image, you’ll see the same HAS with a hole in the roof (it’s the light spot surrounded by dark in the middle of the photo) from before and the third photo shows a really good close-up image of what it looks like when a Tomahawk blasts through the roof of your hardened aircraft shelter. Keep scrolling down and you’ll see another couple of pictures of holes in the roof of the hardened aircraft shelters, including this one showing daylight through it.

In this tweet, you can see flames shooting out of the hole in the roof of the HAS and another (clearer) view of a double HAS (possibly the same one as before?) with the rebar hanging down from where the roof got smashed by Tomahawks.

[Ravenman]

@Okrahoma

The administration has to do that, since they already punished Syria for it. That doesn’t mean it actually happened. I am a fan of truth. We don’t know what the truth is in this case.

Honest question: what reputable sources of informed opinion are you reading that share your opinion? Sure, Russia says it was probably someone else, but it isn’t worth listening to them. The US, UK, and France are all on the same page, which I consider pretty convincing.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Ravenman

The US, UK, and France are all on the same page, which I consider pretty convincing.

I don’t really dispute their assessment in this case, but weren’t the US, UK, and France all on the same page regarding Iraqi WMDs as well?