Are you saying there was not heavy damage?

Yes, The shelter they were in wasn't even destroyed,and there is something wrong about those photos.

If those jets had been destroyed by missile strikes,why are the roofs still standing?

For every question….there is a logical answer.

The missiles penetrated through the roofs and left the roofs still standing….after penetrating through the roofs, the missiles hit and destroyed the aircrafts under the roofs.

That’s exactly what happened …

I suppose I must be an extreme cynic not to just take their word for it.

I cannot understand why you are such a cynic on this.

If you could show good reason the Navy lied....I could join with you.

The missiles penetrated through the roofs and left the roofs still standing….after penetrating through the roofs, the missiles hit and destroyed the aircrafts under the roofs.

Maybe they have some reason to want to damage the roof.

However, they do brag that the Tomahawk can fly a thousand miles and hit a tenth-floor window with pinpoint precision so they could have flown them into the big open doors instead of punching through the roof.

I suppose those kind of aircraft shelters looked very formidable back in the Sixties and Seventies. I assume that is when they were built.

There were 58 hits with Tomahawks to destroy those aircraft, along with infrastructure, the air defense radar and control center, work shops and the fuel depot.

But not all of them came down in the area of the airport. Reports are that 23 to 26 landed there. The rest are "hits" on whatever they hit. One missile can take out more than one plane, etc, so quit lying and trying to claim that all 58 were wonderful hits on target.

You're starting to sound like the Donald's crowd size claims for the inauguration... "alternative facts" (lies).

If you could show good reason the Navy lied....I could join with you.

We get less and less information about any military operation in recent years. And what we do get is increasingly exposed as unreliable.

What we really get is just propaganda. Shallow propaganda at that.

But maybe that is all the public actually wants and only a very few people like me actually want any details. Increasingly, the public is desperate to feel good about itself, I think. They elected (and re-elected) 0bama whose policies they never really supported because they felt good about themselves for voting for a black man for prez. You see the same sort of thing with this missile strike. People don't care how effective it was, where the missiles hit, how much damage was done. But they feel better about themselves for Trump having struck at Assad and his nasty gas and they liked those cute videos with the flag limned by the rockets' red glare of missiles launching (from a ship commanded by a Womyn no less). It's hard even to add up all the virtue-signalling points you score with that. And it wasn't just Republicans who felt that way about slapping Assad around, so did Dems, no matter how much they hate Trump.

Just something to ponder. In the absence of facts the sheeple will believe the prevailing malarkey that they hear from the fake news media, aka propaganda.

If there were 59 missiles launched and 23 hit in the airport area, then the Ruskies might have shot down or electronically waylaid 36. This is just a wild guess and there's no proof, but it might be closer to the truth than what US gov, and MSM is reporting?

I tend to trust the Tomahawks. In all the thousands we launched at Iraq, only one or two failed. I recall our recovery effort to get one back that fizzled and crashed without exploding. I seem to recall a second Tomahawk failed too.

The Tomahawk is loved because it is so versatile and so reliable. It is our workhorse missile. And a lot more affordable than some of our other missiles.

The missiles penetrated through the roofs and left the roofs still standing….after penetrating through the roofs, the missiles hit and destroyed the aircrafts under the roofs.

That’s exactly what happened …

You should have started that story out with "once upon a time...."

The missiles penetrated through the roofs and left the roofs still standing….after penetrating through the roofs, the missiles hit and destroyed the aircrafts under the roofs.

The Tomahawks carry a payload of 1,000 lbs of high explosive.

Does anyone SERIOUSLY believe there would even be a truck load of rubble left if a couple of those babies had hit those revetments?

I see no displaced blocks,or even cement fragments. I do see soot from a burning fire,and what looks like a couple of jet fighters that might have been set on fire,though.

The missiles penetrated through the roofs and left the roofs still standing….after penetrating through the roofs, the missiles hit and destroyed the aircrafts under the roofs.

That’s exactly what happened …

You should have started that story out with "once upon a time...."

Then “once upon a time” [last Friday morning] Tomahawk missiles went through the roofs of these two aircraft shelters ….

And the Tomahawk missiles destroyed the aircraft in those shelters without destroying the roofs of those shelters.

There, Catfish….that’s exactly what happened and I am telling the story the way you want it to be told.

You like it better that I started the story that way….huh?

Good, then …

At 0:41 in the video below, you will see the Syrians drive past the two aircraft shelters in the picture I posted.

Continue watching that video and at 1:15 you will hear one Syrian say to another Syrian in Arabic …

So the missiles came through the top [meaning the roof, of course], right?

Yea, it broke through the roof of the hanger.

Is this the burned down Mig-23?

And all of the hits came through the roof? Yes, exactly.

It is the same in the other hanger.

Here is a picture of one Mig-23 showing what one looks like before it met up with a Tomahawk missile …

Ah, but I digress from “once upon a time.”

Sorry about that, back to the “once upon a time” story …

Hey, Pete….voilà….at 1:31, you will see but one of the holes in the roof of the aircraft shelter that shows where a dastardly Tomahawk missile penetrated through thick concrete reinforced with steel rebar and steel mesh …

Here is the Syrian video …

And so, Pete, it happened exactly the way I first told you it happened and now you have heard the story told the way you wanted it to begin …

So, as with another story from the past …

Goldilocks woke up and saw the three bears. She screamed, "Help!" And she jumped up and ran out of the room.

Pete, did you like it better when I tell the story by starting with “once upon a time?”

And, I also politely ask you once again …

Pete, are you saying there was not heavy damage?

Maybe you and Tooconservative should start a new ping list, called: “Skeptics Anonymous.” I am sure that Deckard would also be prequalified to sign up on it.

The missiles penetrated through the roofs and left the roofs still standing….after penetrating through the roofs, the missiles hit and destroyed the aircrafts under the roofs.

The Tomahawks carry a payload of 1,000 lbs of high explosive.

Does anyone SERIOUSLY believe there would even be a truck load of rubble left if a couple of those babies had hit those revetments?

I see no displaced blocks,or even cement fragments. I do see soot from a burning fire,and what looks like a couple of jet fighters that might have been set on fire,though.

You should not believe what your lying eyes tell you, Pete.

If you are not objectively seeking the truth….your lying eyes will tell you exactly what you want to see and omit what you don’t want to see.

That’s the pure and simple truth….from “once upon a time” directly to you.

You will notice they say only 23 missiles struck and there was no significant damage to the air field.

You will also notice they showed the two arched aircraft shelters remained unimpaired.

However, I just posted a Syrian news video for you that showed extensive damage to the air field and the aircraft in those shelters were destroyed.

Interesting….that some folks wish to go with the Russians and still believe there was no heavy damage to the air field.

Hey, Pete….voilà….at 1:31, you will see but one of the holes in the roof of the aircraft shelter that shows where a dastardly Tomahawk missile penetrated through thick concrete reinforced with steel rebar and steel mesh …

I don't think they penetrated the roof entirely. I think they exploded when they hit the rebar mesh, based on the crater on top of the roof and the larger crater in the ceiling.

A Tomahawk doesn't have penetrator warheads.

Here is the Syrian video …

I'd like to see all of these missile bodies. They have to be somewhere.

I notice this particular video offers nothing to support the idea that half of our missiles missed the airbase.

Here is a Russian propaganda drone video showing the Syrian air field after the attack.

. . .

However, I just posted a Syrian news video for you that showed extensive damage to the air field and the aircraft in those shelters were destroyed.

ANNA News is a news outfit from Abkhazia. You may recall the Abkhazians were a breakaway region from Georgia, along with the South Ossetians back in 2008. The Abkhazians are to the northwest of Georgia along the sea and the Ossetians are in the far east of Georgia.

The Russians stood down the Georgians in their attempt to steamroll their breakaway provinces, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We didn't hear much about the Abkhazia end of things because they have a big gorge along the "border" and some really rough terrain there so Tiesucker attacked South Ossetia first.

Anyway, it seems the Abkhazians didn't get the party line from Moscow on how to report the story.

Hey, Pete….voilà….at 1:31, you will see but one of the holes in the roof of the aircraft shelter that shows where a dastardly Tomahawk missile penetrated through thick concrete reinforced with steel rebar and steel mesh …

I don't think they penetrated the roof entirely. I think they exploded when they hit the rebar mesh, based on the crater on top of the roof and the larger crater in the ceiling.

A Tomahawk doesn't have penetrator warheads.

Au contraire, on what you say about the Tomahawk penetration ability.

The Tomahawk was far past my time, so I only know what I read.

I dealt with 5 nukes with the B-58 and eighty-four 500-pound bombs in the B-52 over Nam….with a year in the AC-130 gunship at the end of hostilities, it had the 105 and Gatlin gun.

So, maybe redleghunter has the expertise to help us here, if he will.

I believe Tomahawk missile can be programed to detonate upon impact or programmed to penetrate 40 centimeters of concrete with a delayed detonation.

I don’t belive that is a Tomahawk in this video, but it shows that a missile can penetrate concrete with a delayed detonation….same point.

Edit: I think maybe the Tomahawk can only penetrate 20 centimeters of concrete. Anyway, it could still have, and did, penetrate the concrete roofs of those aircraft shelters.

I believe Tomahawk missile can be programed to detonate upon impact or programmed to penetrate 40 centimeters of concrete with a delayed detonation.

40cm is only 15 inches.

Given the amount of dirt they piled on the roofs of these shelters, I think they would need more than 15" of concrete to support them, especially if these hangars are 50yo like I think. Using blown concrete, maybe you could make it work with less concrete but we didn't have those techniques back when these hangars were built.

I've read that they developed a "Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator" but I'm not sure if they ever built any beyond the test program. We've built bigger and more effective penetrators since then.

Edit: I think maybe the Tomahawk can only penetrate 20 centimeters of concrete. Anyway, it could still have, and did, penetrate the concrete roofs of those aircraft shelters.

I think it penetrated the dirt roof and then blew up the concrete ceiling.

Notice the painted lettering on the concrete block.

Again, that is a true bunker buster, capable of penetrating hundreds of feet of dirt and then blowing up a concrete bunker. No Tomahawk can do anything like that.

I see the much smaller SDB is claimed to penetrate 3' of concrete.

Thanks ...

...can now service 4 times as many tagets...

LOL. Nice euphemism.

...can now service 4 times as many tagets...

LOL. Nice euphemism.

Our SDB is an especially polite weapon, chock-full of egalitarian principle.

Thanks ...

Yeah, I totally caught you with your pants down by identifying the painted marks on that concrete block that was the star of both videos.

A good example of why I am your literary hero.

I do, see why in Post 36.

You believe because it is your nature to believe anything the government tells you.

Interesting….that some folks wish to go with the Russians and still believe there was no heavy damage to the air field.

I prefer to trust my lying eyes.

They were testing concrete penetration of the bunker buster under carefully controlled conditions. For instance, these bunker buster munitions have a fuse at the back of the warhead which can sense what the warhead has struck as it penetrates walls or ground or concrete. Hence in the video we see the missile penetrate the block fully before it detonates. Imagine that sort of thing in a concrete military bunker 20' below ground. That is the kind of thing they were after in the test.

I thought you were talking about the test video.

I don't think we have fuel-air weapons that can be mounted on cruise missiles. They're generally very big bombs, among the largest. Like those daisy-cutter bombs in size and weight.

I do, see why in Post 36.

You believe because it is your nature to believe anything the government tells you.

You obviously did not read the post or even dare to look at the video.

Had you looked at the video, you would have seen that was not “the government telling me anything?”

It was a reporter from ANNA, a news organization from Abkhazia, who gave grossly conflicting stories from the Russians and showed actual intensive video footage.

His video showed a hole in the roof of the aircraft shelter when the Tomahawk penetrated and destroyed the Mig 23 aircraft.

I prefer to trust my lying eyes.

I truly believe that you sincerely do….and there will be no reason for you to ever change from doing that.

Good luck with that….I wish you well in life.

I don't think we have fuel-air weapons that can be mounted on cruise missiles. They're generally very big bombs, among the largest. Like those daisy-cutter bombs in size and weight.

The Tomahawk either is already used, or soon will be redesigned to be used, as a thermobaric weapon. This is but one of the numerous upgrades of the Tomahawk over the many years….this one is all about fuel-air explosions.

If they had wanted to destroy those revetments as well as the AC parked under them,they would have just used a fuel/air explosive and been done with the.

So, there was no need for a thermobaric weapon when all the Navy had to do was what they did so effectively and accurately….the Navy dropped a Tomahawk missile through the roof of the aircraft shelter [like was shown by ANNA News in the Video in Post #36] to destroy the Mig 23 aircraft in them.

Between the massive pressure wave and the lack of oxygen to breathe,they would have owned the rubble,

Overkill through the use of a a thermobaric weapon was completely unnecessary …

Does anyone SERIOUSLY believe there would even be a truck load of rubble left if a couple of those babies had hit those revetments?

I see no displaced blocks,or even cement fragments. I do see soot from a burning fire,and what looks like a couple of jet fighters that might have been set on fire,though.

Depends on the warhead.

A Tomahawk doesn't have penetrator warheads.

The sole reason for using TLAM is to get the necessary penetration.

Two major model warheads and both have penetration capabilities.

The unitary model is designed to penetrate hard and deeply buried targets. The model which dispenses sub munitions also have multiple penetrators.

The ATACMS missiles I worked with in OIF 1 were designed around the Tomahawk unitary warhead design. Our sole purpose in procuring the warhead for ATACMS was to get the necessary penetration for deeply buried targets.

Even our smaller GMLRS UNITARY rockets had superior penetration capabilities.

I think it penetrated the dirt roof and then blew up the concrete ceiling.

I mean the TLAM only has a 1,000lb warhead and can attack a target at an 89 degree drop angle and speed to target subsonic.

They call it kenetic strike for a reason.

But you are missing the point. The aircraft were not fully protected. Think of the entire explosive chain of a 1,000lb unitary warhead. No over 50!

The blast and frag from just a point detonating fuze would have done the necessary damage.

Plus all this talk about looking for missile bodies and counting craters. Total bush league discussion.

I would gather 3-5 Tomahawks were used as "drones" what we call ISR collectors for BDA. Some were the submunition variant spreading hundreds of dual purpose bomblets with smaller penetrators to damage or destroy air defense weapons. The unitary warheads used to either blast and frag around the bunkers thus destroying the aircraft or using delay penetrator fuzes to send the heat and blast down into the bunker. This is a 1,000 lb warhead for heaven's sake. With a near vertical angle of attack, 1000lbs of explosives, proper fuze setting and not to mention speed of the missile, the TLAM can penetrate that girly bunker. However, why do that when blast and frag gets the job done.

Our SDB is an especially polite weapon, chock-full of egalitarian principle.

That and Excalibur (155mm) version were used in Iraq when I was there. We even fielded the Excalibur in country which was a first.

Both were designed for COIN. The SDB and Excalibur were used in Iraq urban fighting (during the 2007 surge). Accurate and very good when there are collateral concerns. One unit used an Excalibur against a sniper on a roof top. He no longer exists in carbon based form and the people inside the apartment building were not harmed. As a matter of fact most of them slept through the attack.

I would gather 3-5 Tomahawks were used as "drones" what we call ISR collectors for BDA. Some were the submunition variant spreading hundreds of dual purpose bomblets with smaller penetrators to damage or destroy air defense weapons.

I saw no mention of any real air defenses at the base. No mention of the location and disposition of S-300 systems either. You would think the media would display a little curiosity as to whether our missiles avoided the S-300's or flew right over them.

You would think a gas attack would naturally make that base a target of the West. Yet we see nothing to indicate that Syria or Russia anticipated any such retaliation.

With a near vertical angle of attack, 1000lbs of explosives, proper fuze setting and not to mention speed of the missile, the TLAM can penetrate that girly bunker. However, why do that when blast and frag gets the job done.

It does seem like overkill to assign an entire Tomahawk to penetrating the roof of those hangars if all they wanted was to disable the aircraft inside.

Supposedly, they were reworking some jets there and scrapping one or more others. I suppose that makes those hangars handy to have but they don't seem to to provide much real shelter.

I think those are some very old hangars. Maybe they would protect aircraft from old dumb bombs if the saturation level of the attack wasn't too high. But in an era of smart bombs, they seem ridiculous. Perhaps we wanted to punch holes in them to make Assad look powerless to stop us. It doesn't seem to be degrading his air force too much. Russia probably has a thousand of those old jets in storage if Syria needs them.

The ATACMS missiles I worked with in OIF 1 were designed around the Tomahawk unitary warhead design. Our sole purpose in procuring the warhead for ATACMS was to get the necessary penetration for deeply buried targets.

I've never heard the Tomahawk described as a bunker buster. We have other weapons that are designated for that.

Those aircraft shelters weren't exactly bunkers though. They looked like they had 8'-10' of dirt piled on a concrete ceiling a foot or two thick. They had a workshop or parts depot built between the two hangar doorways as well but no one has described what those were. Apparently they ran fuel trucks around to refuel the jets as I saw some bombed trucks that looked like fuel trucks for jets.

I saw no mention of any real air defenses at the base. No mention of the location and disposition of S-300 systems either. You would think the media would display a little curiosity as to whether our missiles avoided the S- 300's or flew right over them.

You would think a gas attack would naturally make that base a target of the West. Yet we see nothing to indicate that Syria or Russia anticipated any such retaliation.

There has been no confirmation of this, that I have seen.

However, since the Russian ADS reportedly can detect missile fire from 400 kilometers away and then destroy the missiles when they get into range….I therefore believe the statement is true.

JMO - I think this because Russia either correctly anticipated a strike they damned well knew had to be coming, or Russia was informed earlier than the stated one hour, and wanted no part of an active engagement against U.S. forces by downing Tomahawk missiles.

It does seem like overkill to assign an entire Tomahawk to penetrating the roof of those hangars if all they wanted was to disable the aircraft inside.

Great job…Navy!

Additional info –
I heard the Tomahawk strike destroyed 20% of the Syrian Air Force aircraft. This is unconfirmed.

Personal Story –
It was indeed a strange sight years ago that gave me a rather eerie feeling when I would drive on the Frank Lloyd Wright Boulevard in Scottsdale and pass the end of the runway at Scottsdale Airpark where I would continually see a changing number of Migs always parked along side of the runway behind the fence just 30 yards away. The story behind the Migs in Scottsdale is here if you are interested.

It was reported that Abdullah Hayri Torun, deputy CEO of major Turkish weapons maker Roketsan, claimed that Russia had shut down its air defense system in Syria ahead of the U.S. strike the airbase.

These powerful radars used for the S-300 are probably easily detected from Turkey. As a NATO member, they would be familiar with their operating characteristics.

However, since the Russian ADS reportedly can detect missile fire from 400 kilometers away and then destroy the missiles when they get into range….I therefore believe the statement is true.

It seems the missiles arrived at the airbase over the course of a half-hour. Most of the S-300 control/radar units can control and target 4-6 AA missiles at airborne targets at once. They do have one high-end model that can handle over thirty at once. They can track twice as many targets as they can target with missiles simultaneously.

If the missiles did take a half-hour to arrive and were fairly evenly spaced, then a single S-300 might theoretically take out most of them or even all of them.

We don't know which model of the S-300 is on the ground. There was a rumor of having a few S-400 batteries too but no confirmation of those at all. If there are S-400s there, it would probably be only a few batteries to protect the most important Russian airfield.

I don't believe I've ever seen any real info on the disposition of the S-300 in Syria. Apparently, no one is releasing that info. Probably the info is out there as the active radars on those S-300 units should be pretty easily pinpointed.

I don't think we have fuel-air weapons that can be mounted on cruise missiles.

I don't know,but I don't see why not. They put everything else on them.

Why should the ever want to destroy the revetments?

I don't know.

More importantly,I don't even know how or why this is any of our business. The only thing I see coming out of brainfarts like this are more Muslim refugees coming to America to retire in place on welfare and other "free" stuff" while breeding future Jihadists.

Depends on the warhead.

I'm not a zoomie and I don't even play one on teebee,but why bother to send a load if you intend to destroy your target,the shelter it is serviced in,any spare parts and tools in the area,and the men who service the aircraft?

In the spirit of full disclosure,if anyone ever tells you I am a fan of small explosions,they are lying. They don't know me at all.

The model which dispenses sub munitions also have multiple penetrators.

Cluster bombs? I used to LOVE cluster bombs.

It seems the missiles arrived at the airbase over the course of a half-hour. Most of the S-300 control/radar units can control and target 4-6 AA missiles at airborne targets at once.
[…]
If the missiles did take a half-hour to arrive and were fairly evenly spaced, then a single S-300 might theoretically take out most of them or even all of them.

I believe that was the point I was suggesting in my post….at least I tried to.

I don't believe I've ever seen any real info on the disposition of the S-300 in Syria. Apparently, no one is releasing that info.

But, rest assuredly….we know if they are there and where they are, if they are there.

America’s Most Important Spy Plane That Isn’t an SR-71 Blackbird

Ah, memories …

No, I did not serve in the RC-135.

However, my terminal assignment upon returning from SEA while awaiting retirement was to refuel the RC-135s from the KC-135 off the coast of Russia.

In the video “Tribute to RC-135 Silent Warriors,” at 14:55 you will see a RC-135 at Shemya AFB in Alaska.

Because of the RC-135 operating out of Shemya….Shemya was an area of high intelligence interest.

So there was Russian satellite positioning to cover the base.

We knew exactly when the satellite would be passing over the base each day and for how long.

They were interested to find out what was going on as Shemay….and we had a definite interested in not letting it be know what was going on there.

So, everything was always taken inside or covered up the entire time of the satellite passing.

It would be stupid for the Russians to let the U.S. know where they are.

I think that when they turn on their radars, we do see the S-300s. So do the Israelis and probably the Turks. Perhaps they can use passive radar signals and only go live when they detect a threat. But they do operate a tracking and targeting radar system in each S-300 cluster group, depending on what they deploy and how. If they actively track/target incoming craft, I think the S-300 radar has to go active and stay active. It is a powerful ground radar station so you can't really hide it. The enemy sees it the moment you really start to use it.

Russia has sold a S-300 defense to Iran and it is functioning now. I'm not sure how many units (clusters) they bought or what models Russia let them buy (purchased after 0bama gave that $150 billion back to Iran). I notice that Russia supposedly ended S-300 production in 2016 and will manufacture only S-400 unit in the future. So these S-300 are still not their most modern systems. And it is likely that Iran and Syria only have the export version of the S-300. Russia keeps its best versions for itself and markets lesser versions overseas, sort of a pattern with them going back to the Soviet era.

So, everything was always taken inside or covered up the entire time of the satellite passing.

Russia tracked our satellites and spy plane flights and tried to hide things too.

I recall they weren't so good at it. We managed to get photos of their Buran space shuttle despite their best efforts. That really annoyed them.