Syria Strike 14th April 2018

[JFC Fuller]

Three targets; one research centre and two storage facilities struck with 105 cruise missiles, the shooters were as follows:

66 Tomahawks:

Red Sea: 30 from CG-51 & 7 from DDG-58
North Persian Gulf: 23 from DDG-76
Med: 6 from SSN785

19 JASSM: B-1B (2 aircraft)

8 Storm Shadow: Tornadoes from Cyprus (RAF)

9 Scalp (5 Rafales flown from France, possibly Saint Dizier apparently a ten hour mission with 6 tankers and 4 Mirage 2000s)

3 Naval Scalp (Languedoc in the Med)

Pentagon states that almost all found their target and 40 SAMs were launched in a failed counterattack- mostly after the last strike was conducted, apparently sent up on static trajectories (they were firing blind). All launched SAMs were Syrian owned, the Russians claim nothing flew through their AD zones.

This is the first combat use of JASSM (it was apparently the ER variant); B-1Bs ability to carry up-to 24 of these is obviously a serious force multiplier (2 B-1Bs contributed 18% of the missiles launched).

UK contribution is the smallest, lack of RN sub fried Tomahawks is curious- a lot of press noise was made about at least one Astute class moving within firing range over the last few days. Earlier this year BAE contracted LM for 9 8-cell strike length Mk-41 VLS systems for the first three Type 26 frigates (24 cells each); hopefully MoD will use some of those cells for additional Tomahawks. Equally Storm Shadow integration on F-35B for ops from the QE class would be a useful force multiplier.

French contribution is notable and demonstrates the utility of Naval Scalp, as the number of french ships and subs able to fire it increases it will only get more impressive. The need for a very long range operation because no carrier was available (CdG is on Toulon undergoing a mid-life refit) is reminiscent of the situation the UK found itself in during the Libya ops.

Global Hawks have been running stand-off intel missions up and down the Syrian coast, it also looks like F-15s and F-16s were deployed as covers for the cruise missile shooters. $ Mirage 200s may have performed a similar role.

 

[TomcatViP]

All the Rafale taking off were seen carrying a load of two Scalps. M2K hence would have been tasked with high value CAP (Rafale are self escorting).
Interesting that with 6 tankers we have a clear sign that Cyprus wouldn't have been used as alternate (to minimize the risk of a retribution-strike?)

 

[sferrin]

the Russians claim nothing flew through their AD zones.

I thought their S-400 site supposedly covered almost the entire country. ???

 

[Avimimus]

Interesting that with 6 tankers we have a clear sign that Cyprus wouldn't have been used as alternate (to minimize the risk of a retribution-strike?)

That is a disturbing thought... the British attack was launched from Cyprus though? Also, D653 Languedoc fired three missiles from the Mediterranean?

 

[Archibald]

Nice summary, thank you JFC. The French tankers are vintage 1963 relics, and still they fly. Scalp is an interesting multirole weapon, it works with or without Rafales or carriers. Perhaps it was a wise move not to duplicate the CdG, and go for alternate platforms - scalp of frigates, or Tigre helicopters flying out Mistral LPH, although the capabilities are not similar.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Now we wait for the repercussions. I wonder what they will do next.

 

[SOC]

I thought their S-400 site supposedly covered almost the entire country. ???

They've got two S-400 batteries in country. The "they cover everything" bit is a load of BS perpetuated by the media, using the non-existent 400 km engagement range (40N6 isn't in service) and not accounting for radar horizon or terrain issues.

 

[GTX]

Now we wait for the repercussions. I wonder what they will do next.

Repercussion might not be military...we hope.

 

[sferrin]

I thought their S-400 site supposedly covered almost the entire country. ???

They've got two S-400 batteries in country. The "they cover everything" bit is a load of BS perpetuated by the media, using the non-existent 400 km engagement range (40N6 isn't in service) and not accounting for radar horizon or terrain issues.

Yeah, I saw the free portion of your Jane's presentation on youtube. A little surprised the 40N6 still isn't in service. Maybe, without CEC and forward based (or at least airborne) sensors they think it's more of a party trick than a useful capability?

 

[Avimimus]

Maybe retaliation against proxies? Supplying more advanced equipment to the Houthis? Or the Ukrainian 'paramilitaries'? Or assisting Assad in crossing the Euphrates?

At least it doesn't look like hitting a carrier is on the roster any more...

I thought their S-400 site supposedly covered almost the entire country. ???

They've got two S-400 batteries in country. The "they cover everything" bit is a load of BS perpetuated by the media, using the non-existent 400 km engagement range (40N6 isn't in service) and not accounting for radar horizon or terrain issues.

Yeah, I saw the free portion of your Jane's presentation on youtube. A little surprised the 40N6 still isn't in service. Maybe, without CEC and forward based (or at least airborne) sensors they think it's more of a party trick than a useful capability?

To get that range the missile actually acquires the target while descending from its loft trajectory right? The launcher can't actually see the target if it is flying relatively low. So without additional targeting information (e.g. from airborne radars or other radars who have line-of-sight) they probably can't ensure that the missile will come close enough for its terminal radar to acquire the target.

 

[kcran567]

So is this a morale blow to the Russians? Their S-400 didn't seem to be a factor.
Are they going to take this without much they can now do?

If Mig-31s were in the area would they have been able to take some of the cruise missiles down?

Or did Russia "stand down" at the request of western powers, they did know the attack was coming in advance?

 

[sferrin]

Or did Russia "stand down" at the request of western powers, they did know the attack was coming in advance?

Given that Russia threatened to not only shoot down the missiles but destroy their launchers as well I doubt a polite, "hey could you not do that" would have cut it.

 

[AeroFranz]

If Mig-31s were in the area would they have been able to take some of the cruise missiles down?

Or did Russia "stand down" at the request of western powers, they did know the attack was coming in advance?

hmmm...without some sort of early warning, the Russians would have to keep Mig-31 patrols up 24/7 to counter the cruise missiles. This would quickly become impracticable. Even with some warning, I don't know how much time they'd have to scramble them. Layered SAM umbrella seems to me to be a more effective solution (provided the SAMs are effective, which in this case doesn't seem to have been the case).

 

[SOC]

Yeah, I saw the free portion of your Jane's presentation on youtube. A little surprised the 40N6 still isn't in service. Maybe, without CEC and forward based (or at least airborne) sensors they think it's more of a party trick than a useful capability?

I'll be damned, I had no idea we were putting extracts on YouTube.

The S-400 as deployed is perfectly capable of shooting TLAMs that are within range - the problem is that with low altitude ingress the radar horizon may only be about 70 km, so anything further afield would not be able to be seen and hit. Now, fighters shooting Storm Shadows at higher altitudes? Should've been locatable, depending on their launch points. 40N6 wants to shoot (in theory) ISR assets and things like tankers operating behind the lines, their altitude would likely be high enough to target above the radar horizon.

The likely scenario is that the Russians chose to not engage targets within range, and will instead look for a different kind of response. Assisting Assad's forces in crossing the river doesn't seem out of the question - they can claim Assad and the Syrian military are securing Syrian territory and dare us to stop them.

 

[Archibald]

Looks like Mirage 2000-5 assumed air cover of the Rafale strike force. The irony...

 

[mrmalaya]

I would love to know how that is playing out!

 

[sferrin]

The S-400 as deployed is perfectly capable of shooting TLAMs that are within range - the problem is that with low altitude ingress the radar horizon may only be about 70 km, so anything further afield would not be able to be seen and hit.

What are your thoughts on trying to hit a JASSM vs a standard Tomahawk? (My take, FWIW, is that the aircraft launched from below the radar horizon and the missiles used terrain masking to avoid being detected. It doesn't sound like Syria knew missiles were on their way until they'd actually started hitting targets.)

 

[bring_it_on]

Yeah, I saw the free portion of your Jane's presentation on youtube. A little surprised the 40N6 still isn't in service. Maybe, without CEC and forward based (or at least airborne) sensors they think it's more of a party trick than a useful capability?

I'll be damned, I had no idea we were putting extracts on YouTube.

The S-400 as deployed is perfectly capable of shooting TLAMs that are within range - the problem is that with low altitude ingress the radar horizon may only be about 70 km, so anything further afield would not be able to be seen and hit. Now, fighters shooting Storm Shadows at higher altitudes? Should've been locatable, depending on their launch points. 40N6 wants to shoot (in theory) ISR assets and things like tankers operating behind the lines, their altitude would likely be high enough to target above the radar horizon.

The likely scenario is that the Russians chose to not engage targets within range, and will instead look for a different kind of response. Assisting Assad's forces in crossing the river doesn't seem out of the question - they can claim Assad and the Syrian military are securing Syrian territory and dare us to stop them.

Sean, good work with the Intelligence briefing as always. Hope that you guys are working on one on Syrian Air Defenses, particularly after the Israeli strikes. I think what we also have to keep in mind is that the 2-3 systems deployed there will very easily be saturated by the cruise missile defense mission if they are tasked with providing area defense against this threat. they have something like 32 missiles each so they have to be disciplined in the way they use them and I suppose platforms will get priority over payloads given that they are first and foremost interested in protected Russian assets and forces. These systems also don't have anything like CEC or NIFC-CA and I don't think an Active SAM is currently deployed so they are limits to their abilities to really go after these things at range. As Sfferin mentions, with JASSM-ER in the mix, RCS also plays a big role given that they do not have dispersed radars like they may have if they are back home with other deployed systems that can help.

 

[TomcatViP]

Interesting that with 6 tankers we have a clear sign that Cyprus wouldn't have been used as alternate (to minimize the risk of a retribution-strike?)

That is a disturbing thought... the British attack was launched from Cyprus though? Also, D653 Languedoc fired three missiles from the Mediterranean?

Yes. I stand corrected. sorry if I did misled anyone

 

[fredymac]

Pics

 

[GJ33]

What do you guys recon about the amount of missiles used?
Or were there more targets?
Check http://charly015.blogspot.nl/2018/04/llego-el-ataque-contra-siria.html
Maybe you will need google translate..

Here a teaser pic:

 

[marauder2048]

Hmm...

 

[Avimimus]

Interesting that with 6 tankers we have a clear sign that Cyprus wouldn't have been used as alternate (to minimize the risk of a retribution-strike?)

That is a disturbing thought... the British attack was launched from Cyprus though? Also, D653 Languedoc fired three missiles from the Mediterranean?

Yes. I stand corrected. sorry if I did misled anyone

I'm just going off of livemap.ua ...much less well put together than your write-up. Certainly, I think you are right about U.S. assets being positioned to prevent retaliation.

 

[NeilChapman]

The level of destruction on these sites is noteworthy. It sounds like Trump.

"Ok, what have you got for me?"
"We can effectively destroy these targets with 25 missiles, sir."
"No, I want these sites totally obliterated. Not a stone left standing"
"That will take 105."
"Go do it"

As much focus is on the message being "Syria can bomb but not with CW" I'm suprised that no-one is reporting the annihilation of these facilities. This isn't one missile going through and collapsing a building. They're just gone.

Not only are they obliterated but the targets were destroyed before Syria had any indication that something very bad was happening. That's a pretty clear message.

Message to Assad
"
We've got you. The most powerful militaries in the West are united. We are capable of swift, merciless violence that you cannot comprehend. Your protectors, the Russians and Iranians can do absolutely nothing about it. Don't cross us again. Contemplate our ability to terminate your command should this tap on the shoulder not get your attention. Terminate with extreme prejudice
"

Message to Putin and AK
"
You can play house with the Syrians but when I tell you to come in for dinner, you better listen the first time.
"

Message to Erdoğan, Duterte and the military leadership in the Phillippines.
"
Remember why you wanted to be on our team. Quit hanging out in the other teams dugout and taking them candy bars or we may not pick you next time.
"

Message to Kim Jong-un
"
We've made you an offer you can't refuse. This is an ghost of a hint of what is behind Door #2. Assad thought Russia and Iran had the strength to protect him. Don't bank on the PRC being able to shield you.
"

Message to PRC
"
Our friends are more powerful than your friends. The UK doesn't only have a base in Cyprus and the Russians are bullies that have no real power. Yes, you are surrounded.
"

Message to the rest of the world
"
You may have been told the US is a power in decline but think again. Their private companies are; building the largest rockets and rocket engines with printers; developing cars that drive themselves and logistical companies that move goods around the world overnight; developing zero-carbon natural gas power plants and renewable power generation and storage systems for world use; developing automated cities with robots to deliver the mail; designing and building AI systems with imaginations; building universal, real-time language translators; using quantum computers to design new molecules that will enable new medicines, batteries, and perhaps will turn sunlight directly into liquid fuels; eradicating diseases around the world; exporting more food than any other country reducing undernutrition around the world (>40% since 1990 alone)
...and...
can project power at will around the world and disappear like a fart in the wind.
"

All for under $200M. I've got to hand it to Trump. That's a pretty good deal.

 

[gTg]

Wow Neil, one way interpreting this attack in positive!
My take: complete waste of long range attack assets, by 3 countries where the rulers are under quite some pressure from internal politics. A dog and pony show for internal consumption, utterly irrelevant to the outcome of the conflict...

 

[Orionblamblam]

Wow Neil, one way interpreting this attack in positive!

History has shown that when the US shows a willingness to lay a *proper* beatdown, the villains of the world tend to crawl back into their caves. It's when the US starts to look tired, weak or uncertain that things get screwy around the world.

 

[Avimimus]

How about if skip the policy merits, long term implications, politics, discussion of legality etc.

...and just focus on the technical analysis? The thread will last longer.

 

[NeilChapman]

How about if skip the policy merits, long term implications, politics, discussion of legality etc.

...and just focus on the technical analysis? The thread will last longer.

It was reported that "most" of the weapons hit their targets. Any word on which ones did not?

 

[stealthflanker]

Hmm. This is from twitter but well, this one is quite reliable i think.

https://twitter.com/WaelAlRussi/status/985497416865603584

Detection range of like 5-20 km. This looks consistent with low RCS target and the flight altitude is just what it is given mountainous nature of Syria.

It's rather pointless tho to debate over numbers, as it is crystal clear that Syrian AD is saturated. even they really got 71 missiles 30 made in and just do their intended job in leveling the building and complete mission.

 

[bring_it_on]

Love when you tried to slip in "even if 30 made it". Trouble is, given the regime propaganda I'm sure they would have loved to show off dozens of downed missiles especially from that one operator who is claimed to have shot down 16 by himself.

This is from twitter but well, this one is quite reliable i think.

Reliable? It shows a generic image of a defense system and a bunch of data about detection range and altitudes. Another account on Twitter can totally change those numbers and the result would be just about as "reliable" as this. If you wish to engage in an evidence-based discussion, do indulge but do note that the tweet you have posted lacks any merits or evidence from an account/user whose personal opinions and ideology are crystal clear from a cursory look at his feed. Since this is a forum that isn't interested in political ideological discussions, it would be worthwile to post evidence that supports a particular argument and advances discussions about the technical assessment of these strikes. For example, if you are trying to analyze whether 70+ missiles were shot down, evidence supporting that via missile debris, the wreckage will be a good data-point to introduce here. A random tweet, or an image of a launcher that shows two missing missiles is not anything that should fly with any reasonable observer.

 

[stealthflanker]

Love when you tried to slip in "even if 30 made it". Trouble is, given the regime propaganda I'm sure they would have loved to show off dozens of downed missiles especially from that one operator who is claimed to have shot down 16 by himself.

And i don't know what else to say O-o Im talking about how futile it is to discuss "how many" If what was count is target destroyed. They can exaggerate anything they want but if what people see is not there then.

Reliable? It shows a generic image of a defense system and a bunch of data about detection range and altitudes. Another account on Twitter can totally change those numbers and the result would be just about as "reliable" as this. If you wish to engage in an evidence-based discussion, do indulge but do note that the tweet you have posted lacks any merits or evidence from an account/user whose personal opinions and ideology are crystal clear from a cursory look at his feed. Since this is a forum that isn't interested in political ideological discussions, it would be worthwile to post evidence that supports a particular argument and advances discussions about the technical assessment of these strikes. For example, if you are trying to analyze whether 70+ missiles were shot down, evidence supporting that via missile debris, the wreckage will be a good data-point to introduce here. A random tweet, or an image of a launcher that shows two missing missiles is not anything that should fly with any reasonable observer.

Well those i found so far. The evidence from Syria AD itself is rare and more than often i have to dig in to twitters and some other unusual source and present it. Would love to be there myself but i can't. And the debris image is also from twitter and no real way to assess whether it's taken from impact or it was hit by AD missile.

 

[bring_it_on]

Apparently, if some reports are to be believed, one Air-Defense operator is responsible for shooting down 16 missiles ???. So the regime wants to do a press-release (whatever that looks like provided these reports represent the position of the regime) how hard will it be to collect wreckage from those 16 missiles at this site and some 55 other missiles that they claim to have shot down? I would also advise being careful taking tweets/reports seriously. Here is something I encountered from an alleged reporter who apparently is considered a qualified expert reporter in the A&D media.

 

[fredymac]

US post attack summary. Go to 4:50 for assessment of missile success rate and Syrian air defense response.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loIay5AQPww

 

[bring_it_on]

And i don't know what else to say O-o Im talking about how futile it is to discuss "how many" If what was count is target destroyed. They can exaggerate anything they want but if what people see is not there then.

That is why I thought it was rather strange for you to first claim it was pointless to talk about numbers and then try to introduce a "number" in the very next sentence. Similarly, the tweet that you chose to present also imho lacked anything that can be used as supporting evidence to advance a particular narrative and is accompanied by no more or no less proof of another claim made that one operator alone is responsible for downing 16 missiles. It is one thing to try to establish a particular narrative and justify it based on evidence, yet another to push out claims that lack any sort of corroborating evidence.

-------

Four Outlandish Russian Ministry of Defense Claims About The Syrian Missile Raid

 

[bring_it_on]

Syria Only Got Off Two Missiles While Coalition Strikes Hit, Despite Russian Claims That 71 Were Intercepted