overstated.

In this case, it's advertising for their anti-missile system.

Except the expert (was he at MIT or Harvard?) to say that you can't hit a bullet with a bullet, so the real, true number shot down has to be zero. (We still get people citing him every once in a while. It's been a decade or more since we've had some of this technology that works, with improvements almost every year, and still that ol' drive to appeal to authority kicks in.)

I think they were both trying to look tough for the public. They are still bosom buddies or 2 peas in a pod.

The Arab side claimed to have shot down more Israeli jets than the Israeli Air Force had.

Don't believe any such claims.

But I dont trust our side either especially this admin
Proven liars on just about anut3hing and everything

Not to mention the entire Republican Party.

Mid 1960s air defense is no shield from twenty first century missiles.


I'm kind of meh about the operation and look forward to once again discussing Trump's perfidy and nefarious ways.

with no chance against the mighty US army.

Lol.

The NVA had no chance of overrunning South Vietnam as long as US forces were in country.

Maybe you missed it.

How many US troops surrendered to the NVA when that army overran South Vietnam in April of 1975

You’re very much mistaken.

We took off with our tail between our legs.

We could not win that war as long as North Vietnam was committed to it ( to paraphrase your previous statement.)

North Vietnam could not win as long as the US was committed to it.

While it's certainly true that North Vietnam won, it can be argued that the US didn't lose if one looks at the big picture. Our relations with Vietnam are good. Heck, we are even selling weapons to Vietnam now. And while China was a major supporter of North Vietnam, the relations between the two now are not good.

Air superiority is of much less utility in the latter and this operation was totally from the air and sea.

We aren't discussing wars of attrition but the ability of 1960s era air defense to shoot down seventy percent of twenty first century era cruise missiles.

The suggestion the Syrians downed 70% of American, French, and British cruise missiles is patently absurd.

21st century missiles?

I doubt it. Most likely 20th century, but it’s ok.

I recognize “rah rah Merica” sentiment when I see it. We da BEST!

Swing and a miss:



France used cruises missiles fired from three of its multimission frigates and one its standard frigates in the Syria strikes, sources told CNN. The multimission frigates are some of the newest in the French naval fleet and are armed with the MdCN (Missile de Croisière Naval) cruise missile, with 16 launch tubes for them on each ship.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/14/politics/syria-airstrikes-weapons-used-intl/index.html

The aerodynamic trials of the MdCN missile were completed at ONERA’s wind tunnel facility in October 2008, and first test firing of the missile was successfully carried out in May 2010.

https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mdcn-missile-croisiere-naval


Britain contributed four Tornado fighter jets armed with Storm Shadow cruise missiles to the operation, the UK's Ministry of Defense said.

The first successful fully guided firing of the Storm Shadow/SCALP EG took place at the CEL Biscarosse range in France at the end of December 2000[7] from a Mirage 2000N. The first British firing occurred on 25 May 2001 from a Tornado flying from BAE Warton.[citation needed]

Storm Shadow entered service with the Royal Air Force (RAF) in late 2001.[7] It was first used during the 2003 invasion of Iraq by No. 617 Squadron. The integration of the missile to the Tornado aircraft had been brought forward "considerably ahead of when it had been planned" as an urgent operational requirement.[19] During the invasion, the RAF launched 27 Storm Shadows.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow


"Um really."

P.S. The U.S. isn't the only nation that manufactures missiles.

No "LOL"

But same-era weapons in the hands of the Iraqis didn't do much against the same cruise missiles in Desert Storm, or Dubya's invasion 12 years later.

It wouldn't be reason to sneer at Trump. It would be reason to worry about our safety.

of war profiteers to restock us with new state of the art new missiles.

Because of the ample warnings, the Syrian military had plenty of time to move military assets and personnel to safe haven.

at least you can mostly trust it.

I keep forgetting to tell you I LOVE your screen name.

and counted 71 explosions when they fell back to terra firma ?

http://www.businessinsider.com/pantsir-s1-makes-russian-air-defenses-stronger-2018-2
"Russia has a layered defense system protecting its bases in Syria that could prove difficult for American jets seeking to strike Syrian targets.
The system is composed of Pantsir-S1 mobile point-defence systems and S-400 missile systems. The Pantsir-S1 can take out low-flying vehicles and missiles while the S-400 can destroy high-flying targets.
Russia has also developed a small missile that is capable of taking out drones, limiting the effectiveness of a drone swarm or small armed UAVs.
Russia's air defenses are significantly more capable than American counterparts, especially when working together.
Talk of missile or air strikes against Syrian government forces as part of a retaliatory action for the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma on Saturday has heated up in the last 24 hours.

But while Syrian air defenses are viewed as either not a threat or fair game for destruction, Russia's air defenses provide a much more difficult challenge, and not only because their destruction could lead to higher escalation. The air defenses could prove dangerous should the Russians decide to protect their Syrian ally.

Both the Pantsir and the S-400 were brought to Syria years ago by Russia. Notably, the Russian systems, working in tandem, could take on both low-flying and high-flying targets, and could be a problem for US forces attempting to strike Syria.

The Pantsir, known to NATO as the SA-22 Greyhound, entered service in the Russian military in 2012. Its primary role is that of point-defense, meaning it can defend from low-flying aerial targets within a certain area."

And they aren't likely to waste those on cruise missiles.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2018/04/14/syria-us-airstrike-video-damage-on-ground-missiles-newday.cnn