I just learned this morning that these strikes were also the combat debut of the Virginia-class SSN.
As **Stranger **said, it depends. More often than not, when an ally nation gets an arms sale from the US, it is weaponry that is brand new, not manufactured until after the order has been placed and approved. After all, one big purpose for arms sales is that they keep employment going at production lines in America. Taiwan’s F-16s, most of Japan’s F-35s, etc. were or will be manufactured in America only after the orders were/are confirmed.
Yeah, no way there was any improvising on US/coalition side especially v air defense assets which could potentially have been Russian manned. Same reason I’d dismiss any speculation about hard kill Suppression of Enemy Air Defense support (by HARM firing tactical a/c) for the operation that just wasn’t announced. And for intel purposes it would also be questionable to use any advanced ECM or cyber capabilities not already well known to the Russians, likewise any black program SEAD drones already operational, none are per open source info. Just because somebody says they downed 71 missiles doesn’t make it remotely plausible, doesn’t make ‘the truth somewhere in the middle’ of that and zero, or even make it worthwhile potentially compromising strike support methods which aren’t actually needed for the missiles to get through in this particular circumstance.
I wonder if even the Syrians really seriously attempted to react to the raid v just lofting some older SAM’s ballistic/self-destruct to set up some fig leaf for a propaganda story about ‘blunting’ the attack. Say even modern point defense gun/SAM systems like Pantsir were parked on the grounds or hilltops near around the big complex most of the missiles struck. It’s still adjacent to a populated area (check out Google Maps), a regime controlled area presumably so the regime would care about sending SAM’s or 30mm rounds into the houses, and tricky to set up self destruct of the missiles and cannon shells to completely avoid that shooting at low altitude targets in hilly terrain. And there probably wouldn’t be time or necessarily well organized set up to get people to air raid shelters (a big reason for civilians to go to them even in the pre-precision guided era was safety from their side’s AA defenses). And it’s probably not realistic in any case to hope to shoot down most of dozens of missiles missiles arriving almost at once. So you could argue, why even bother? Just keep key people, and try to move key equipment, out of those buildings in the several days warning given.
That’s got to be just about the shittiest job on the planet: see that equipment we use to make sarin gas? We want you to move it down the stairs, load it up on a truck, drive it across town, and set it up again at our new location. Hurry up, because cruise missiles are going to be destroying this building anytime now. Oh, and wear gloves.
It’s not that hard. The equipment needed to produce phosgene or sarin is just normal chemical processing equipment that can be easily broken down and cleaned, and the chemical precursors are readily available on the open market, which the Russians could easily provide to them. Even if they had to abandon facilities and set up new ones the costs are not great; what is crucial is the process and the people experienced enough to follow it correctly. And while they only had a few days notice, they’ve had weeks previous knowing that strikes were possible. At most, this probably interfered with their production schedule. However, it is also engendered internal support for Assad and international conflict on the UN Security Council, none of which is actually favorable to what should be our long term goals of reducing the influence of fundamentalist Islam, encouraging stability in the region, and eventual soft removal of the Assad regime with a coalition that has some chance of maintaining order and garnering popular support. Even if that were possible before (and due to the mishandling of this situation by this administration and the last one, it probably wasn’t), it is fucked in a cocked hat now.
Stranger
I’m now curious: if you’d been elected in November 2016 and sworn into office in January 2017 instead of Trump, how would you have handled the situation? What would you have done / not done?
I would not have launched air strikes unilaterally and without Congressional approval, and such strikes have clearly not diminished the Assad regime’s capability or willingness to use chemical weapons. Nor would I have reflexively blocked Syrian refugees, most of whom are children, from entering the US.
As for what should be done I don’t think there are any simple answers to this. Unlike many the self-made problems of this administration, this one pre-existed the election, and in its modern incarnation goes back to the decision to invade Iraq and overthrow the Ba’ath Party regime there without a clear plan for followup, which created both the power vacuum and even more regional hatred for the United States. The Obama Administration didn’t fare much better in the region, and State Department policy toward the North African and Arab states fostered the events of the so-called “Arab Spring” and subsequent blowback. I think Assad’s increasing authoritarianism, even prior to the beginning of the Syrian Civil War, was an attempt to control extremist influences which threatened to destabilize the country which was regarded as an internal problem even though many of those elements were financed and trained by external sources, and the regime turned to Russia as its long-time sponsor, receiving support that Putin was only too happy to offer as a global-scale troll of the West.
So I don’t think there is any good way to handle this other than to provide assistance to refugees fleeing the violence and persecution by both their government and radical fundamentalists, and to avoid inflaming the war further and turning it into a proxy for international conflict. However, by eschewing and attempting to ban refugees and making pointless and ineffectual air strikes, Trump has managed to find just about the worst possible of all options.
Stranger
I asked a guy who used to be in Army Air Defence about the Syrian claims. He said that considering the fact that the NATO planes and vessels launched the weapons at extreme range, that the targets were fairly obvious and the fact that they no doubt had several hours warning, he’d be surprised if the Syrians didn’t successfully shoot down a few of the missiles, though he thinks 7 rather than 71 is a more likely figure.
He did say that he can’t be sure of the quality of Syrian training. Besides defections since 2011, the exigencies of war would very likely mean that AD troops got less training as the Army would concentrate on fighting an enemy without any airpower whatsoever, also he says that AD troops are typically the first place HQ raids to get riflemen when shortages occur. I’ll admit that had not crossed my mind.
Well he could have decided to launch Operation Syrian Freedom.
Just…don’t. Not even in jest. It would be all too easy, and you know John Bolton is stroking himself at just the thought of it.
Stranger
Do you think they did shoot down a few missiles?
I don’t, but I recognize we have imperfect knowledge of the situation.
shrug I think it is plausible. The SA-22 Greyhound SAM system was designed specifically for point defense against cruise missile and ground attack aircraft. Whether they knocked down as many as claimed, well, there is a well respected tradition in battle statistics and fishing to overstate measurements to a ludicrous extent. And the Tomahawk is not some kind of superstealth technology; it is a more than forty year old basic design which is relatively inexpensive and easy to use but is well known to Russian anti-missile developers.
Stranger
The second hand appeal to authority is not worth much IMO. Former members of military forces aren’t that likely to adopt a theory which might be interpreted as complete impotence of their former service, though again like I said I would question whether seriously trying in this particular case would have been worthwhile, not necessarily a matter of 100% lack of capability.
Again would it be possible to down several % of a large cruise missile strike given the test condition capabilities of various systems? Absolutely, or a higher %, depending. Given even the real capabilities of some forces, even including past iterations of Syria’s AD force in certain situations, also yes.
But in this circumstance, again down to reality which doesn’t include airborne early warning a/c etc. but low fliers in rolling populated terrain, avoiding AD systems except at the targets, questionable to even try. Really blunting the attack is exceedingly unlikely, and you have to shoot at low angle in hilly populated friendly terrain. Safely lofting some SAM’s to self destruct (which is what the videos released supposedly showing cruise missile shoot downs seems to show) and claiming you downed a bunch of cruise missiles is arguably a more practical approach than trying to prove to yourself you can down a few missiles, even by putting a few short range SAM’s and auto-cannon rounds into civilian buildings near the target before their self destruct fuzes initiate. A lot of people will believe whatever the Syrian regime says, especially if the Russians back it up, and particularly people whose belief the Russian and Syrian regimes care whatsoever about.
But who knows, of course. Maybe they seriously tried. Maybe they downed a few within the margin of error of how many separate missile hits can be seen. I’d just bet not on one or both counts, if I had to bet.
At $1.87 million a pop, I wouldn’t call it inexpensive in relation to anything short of an ICBM. Cruise missiles are extremely expensive compared to regular aerial bombing munitions. Presumably we’re using them to avoid the political fallout of a pilot being shot down and captured.
FWIW, Corry El, though I agree with your points, has any 3rd World dictator historically shown an awareness of collateral damage from firing a bunch of AAA or SAMs over his own territory?
Like AK, I could see attriting maybe 10% of the main strike, and probably less, though it seems they’ve done better against the Israeli follow-ons from the last couple of days, but 75% doesn’t meet my giggle test.
Turn it around: how would US/NATO SAM land-based systems have handled a strike like this, without getting to use a networked AWACS to feed target information to the shooters? Or having any launch warning or any radar warning until maybe they went past the first surveillance radars on land. I suspect really poorly. Even non-stealthy cruise missiles like TLAM are really hard to meaningfully stop, when all you have are point defense systems and a few medium range systems that may not even have been turned on. Never mind that the Syrians may not have even seen the JASSMs until they hit. I wonder if even an Aegis-ship at sea like the Donald Cook would have done well?
And this ignores that already-revealed, 10-year-publicly-known things like SENIOR SUTER etc… were probably used to mask the strike. I don’t like our chances.
For the purpose they were designed for—deep penetration precision bombing of critical strategic targets—they are a bargain. Sure, they are expensive compared to a BLU-109 or GBU-31, but they can be launched from a destroyer-sized surface ship, submarine, or from a standoff aircraft, instead of requiring a sortie from a carrier positioned within range, or land based bombers with aerial tanker support. And despite the cost, it would be likely cheaper than lost and recovery ops for a single F-35 much less a B-1 or B-2, and can be sent to strike targets at multiple locations.
Stranger
retrying
This would be what I am really afraid of. The modern version of gunboat diplomacy, which is what a raid like the 7 April 2018 really is? It’s expensive, sort of, even in the apocryphal Dirksen sense, and if the US/NATO persist in sticking their high explosive phallic symbols into every hornet’s nest around the world, eventually they’re going to find an opponent that will meaningfully retaliate, but a raid like this should be a one and done sort of thing.
OTOH, doing things like activating military units such as a MEU, or an airborne division, or any other things that look like the US and NATO want to invade, occupy ground, and expel Assad? That is going to be a whole lot more expensive, for a wide variety of metrics. Even assuming the Russians would choose to gracefully retire from the theater.