SYRIA thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes, they use cruise missiles and there are systems to defend against them.
Sarmatian is probably correct in that they're not fool-proof, but I'd think they can take down a few before they reach their target. Might also depend on the terrain and other factors. These systems even have a name:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system

Depending on the size of the cruise missile, the flight path, terrain, etc., it's also possible that airplanes can intercept them.
Of course one question might just be how much gear capable of doing this does Russia have close to the target in the first place?

Even mortar and artillery shells can be targeted by some modern systems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counte...ry,_and_Mortar

Actually, the longer and higher the ballistic arc, the easier the targeting (at least until you get up to near-orbital speeds). True even of small targets like a mortar round. Lower and more obstacles in the way is much tougher to target.

Though, of course, NOT impossible. Cruise missile have been shot down before and would be in such a strike. I was noting that the 90% interception rates achieved (in some cases) by multiple GTA systems against ballistic missiles was not a realistic percentage expectation.

[Sarmatian]

I don't think it matters much whether it's 1% or 99%. The point is that Russia and USA are shooting at each other. And, if that happens, all bets are off.

[Husar]

Actually, the longer and higher the ballistic arc, the easier the targeting (at least until you get up to near-orbital speeds). True even of small targets like a mortar round. Lower and more obstacles in the way is much tougher to target.

Though, of course, NOT impossible. Cruise missile have been shot down before and would be in such a strike. I was noting that the 90% interception rates achieved (in some cases) by multiple GTA systems against ballistic missiles was not a realistic percentage expectation.

While Sarmatian is correct about the actual big thing being the overall situation of two nuclear superpower shooting at eachother, I do like to talk about details in this case....

I'm pretty sure that the radars or other sensors play a very important role in this. One of the most important factors is the time it takes from the detection of an object until it can be effectively engaged. Some ballistic missiles reduce this time by coming in at very high speeds as you say, but that's not the case with cruise missiles and mortar rounds.

In the case of cruise missiles, they tend to fly relatively low above the ground to avoid early radar detection, but the terrain is obviously a factor in how well that works. In the middle of a valley, you're more likely to end up toasted than when you're in the middle of a flat desert where the radar isn't blocked by hills.

When it comes to mortars, I think the overall flight time of a round is relatively short and the rounds are also very small compared to airplanes or large missiles.
First of all your search radar needs a sufficient resolution to "see" the round in the first place and then it might be one of those radars turning around. So in the worst case, the radar takes a few seconds to see the round for the first time. Then the gun or missile launcher needs a few seconds to aim at the round and in between the tracking radar has to track the round, the exact trajectory needs to be calculated, there might be humans involved making decisions and so on.

In a Bundeswehr ad about the new MANTIS system they say the crew has about 20 seconds to engage a missile, on some other page the average flight time of a mortar round is given as 20 or 30 seconds depending on the round used.

Artillery rounds probably fly a bit faster, aren't much larger, but are launched at a longer range as well (radar range/resolution limits may apply here), so I'd think they're not much easier to engage. Not to forget that your gun or missile needs the mechanical precision to hit the projectile, even if exploding rounds can help there.

Considering you're unlikely to spot the round the moment it leaves the barrel, that gives you maybe 15 seconds or so to engage it. I'm sure AI and other modern computer systems may fully automate some of that already or in the near future, but it's probably still harder than engaging a missile that behaves very similar to a low-flying aircraft and people are probably hesitant to remove human decisions for fear of friendly fire. The engagement of low-flying aircraft is in the realm of better developed techniques since AA guns could already do that in the 80s and it was already done manually (though probably with terrible accuracy) before that.

Inthis video you can see the MANTIS system engage a missile, at 4:48 one can see that they spray quite a bit.
Of course in reality it might as well be a luxury just having to intercept one incoming projectile/missile at once, could be 20...

The best course of action is usually not to (try to) kill people in the first place, but that does not appear to be everyone's favorite.

[Fragony]

The Thalys-system om Dutch frigates can shoot down any rocket, but if a lot are shot at the same time and most are duds probably not

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I doubt that any US strike will target known locations for Russian personnel. I doubt the Russians would shoot at our missiles, though they would probably coach/let the Syrians do so (as did that group of separatists in Ukraine who waxed those poor Dutch). Plausible deniability etc.

Putin wants the USA as a vague threat/obstacle to keep up the Russian 'need' for his strong leadership. I do not think he wants an actual firefight. Cui bono?

[Fragony]

These poor Dutch were only half of the casualties, and I do not think the seperatists did it

[Seamus Fermanagh]

These poor Dutch were only half of the casualties, and I do not think the seperatists did it

I always thought that the separatists did it in the sense that one of them gave the order and another pushed the button.

I just thought they were equipped, supplied, trained, supported, and coached by the Russians -- who did nothing to convince them NOT to shoot at an airliner either. Other than that, the Russians weren't culpable at all.

[rory_20_uk]

I always thought that the separatists did it in the sense that one of them gave the order and another pushed the button.

I just thought they were equipped, supplied, trained, supported, and coached by the Russians -- who did nothing to convince them NOT to shoot at an airliner either. Other than that, the Russians weren't culpable at all.

I'm sure that MI6 and the CIA (I name these two since I don't have the right acronyms to hand for all the other countries who could equally be accused) have done exactly the same the world over. That doesn't make it right, but it makes it a pretty standard wrong to do.

[Fragony]

I always thought that the separatists did it in the sense that one of them gave the order and another pushed the button.

I just thought they were equipped, supplied, trained, supported, and coached by the Russians -- who did nothing to convince them NOT to shoot at an airliner either. Other than that, the Russians weren't culpable at all.

It was shot from behind, Ukraine pronanly did it, they have the same systems. Not intentionaly, just a horrible mistake

[Pannonian]

I doubt that any US strike will target known locations for Russian personnel. I doubt the Russians would shoot at our missiles, though they would probably coach/let the Syrians do so (as did that group of separatists in Ukraine who waxed those poor Dutch). Plausible deniability etc.

Putin wants the USA as a vague threat/obstacle to keep up the Russian 'need' for his strong leadership. I do not think he wants an actual firefight. Cui bono?

https://www.billboard.com/files/styl...board-1548.jpg

[Seamus Fermanagh]

https://www.billboard.com/files/styl...board-1548.jpg

lol