What's new

Why didn't Putin's Growlers intercept Trump's Tomahawks?

Evil Flare

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
3,508
Reaction score
0
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
i know the source is not good but here it is ..


Why didn't Putin's Growlers intercept Trump's Tomahawks? Russian leader's missile protection system failed to prevent attack on Syrian airfield

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ntercept-Trump-s-Tomahawks.html#ixzz4de8yUloP
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Vladimir Putin did not try and intercept Donald Trump's massive missile strike on Bashar al-Assad's Al Shayrat military airbase outside Homs - despite being covered by Russia's state-of-the art S-400 Growler air defence system.

The Russians deployed the Growler - which can intercept targets at a range of 250 miles and at heights of up to 90,000 feet - to the Latakia Airbase on the Syrian coast.

Yet, despite being well within the missile system's range, no attempt was made to intercept the 59 Tomahawk Cruise missiles fired from the Arleigh Burke- destroyers USS Porter and USS Ross from the Mediterranean.



he Tomahawks, which have a range of 690 miles can skim the surface of the earth and take a complicated route to a target to avoid possible interception.



However, President Trump gave the Russians advanced notice of the attack before the 1,450kg missiles struck the air strip.

Russia deployed the advanced air defence systems after a Turkish F-16 shot down a Russian Sukhoi-24 bomber in November 2015 after it encroached Turkish airspace.

3F0DCA3B00000578-4391656-image-a-5_1491602942690.jpg



+6
The Growler is able to track up to 300 targets

Following last night's devastating attack, Russian politicians claimed their service personnel were being kept save by the S-400 and the older S-300 air defence systems.

Viktor Ozerov of the Russian upper house defence and security committee told Sputnik: 'Regardless of today's US attack on the Syrian air force air base, our air base [in Latakia] and logistics centre in Tartus are secured from the sea and from the air by S-300 and S-400 systems.

The Russian Defence Ministry claimed it may improve protection of Syrian airbases following the attacks.



According to The Aviationist, the Tomahawks flew straight through the 'Missile Engagement Zone' covered by Putin's 11,000mph Growler missiles.

Syrian sources suggested only some 30 of the Tomahawks failed to hit their targets, but the US insists all the weapons were successful.

Russian military sources claim their advanced air defence systems can protect against incoming missiles and aircraft - including stealth jets - however, they have not been tested against US equipment.

Andrei Kortunov, director of the Russian International Affairs Council told the Interfax News Agency: 'The risks of a direct military confrontation of Russia and the U.S. have risen significantly. Whether or not it could lead to WW III depends on how responsible the leaders are.'


Sergei Rogov, director of the US and Canada institute, a Moscow-based think-tank, said Trump authorised the strike to prove his independence and 'show Trump critics that he doesn't have a pro-Russia stance and is ready to take a tough course regarding Moscow'.

However, as a result of the strike, Putin has ordered Russia no longer co-operates with the US over the so-called 'deconfliction line', which prevents coalition and Russian aircraft coming into conflict.



Tomahawk: US fires its most advanced missile that flies low, avoids radar then obliterates its targets
09DA01BC00000514-4391656-A_Tomahawk_cruise_missile_flies_toward_Iraq_from_the_cruiser_USS-a-23_1491597103569.jpg

A Tomahawk cruise missile flies toward Iraq from the cruiser USS San Jacinto

The Tomahawk is the US military's most advanced missile, which map-reads its way to the enemy, hugging contours in the landscape and using an on-board camera to pinpoint its target.

First fired in anger during the Gulf War by the US, Tomahawks cruise at low altitude and follow a complicated route to avoid being tracked by radar.

The American-made missile can be fired from a submarine, ship or B-52 bombers and can carry nuclear or conventional warheads.

They blast off with the aid of a rocket, then switch to a small turbofan engine to cruise to their targets - hence the name.

The fan emits little heat, making it hard to be spotted by infrared detectors. During flight, the cruise missile compares its view of the landscape with a stored map reference to continually correct its course. It has a range of up to 1,500 miles.

The weapon is perfect for the Middle East because the terrain is very flat.

As the missile nears its target, another system kicks in which compares a stored image of the target with the actual target, which the military claims ensures a high level of accuracy.

At $800,000 each, the one-ton missiles do not come cheap.
 
.
you don't want to mess with the best, the consequences would have been disastrous, russia was told in advance, if they hadn't, than they might have engaged them, putin is not fool.......
 
.
some serious questions have arisen regarding the s400 after this syria attack.

whats the point of a 6 billion dollar system if it can even protect you a airbase from 50 odd tomahawks
 
. .
Just because India owns S-400 you'll try your level best to prove it's worthless. :rofl::rofl::rofl: Send some babur & shaheen and test for yourselves. :pop:
Lolz then what the reason of deploying them . are they expecting isis to use cruise missiles or isis hv an air force? ( sadma laga ha kiya? ):sarcastic:
 
. . . .
LOL Russians didn't even try to intercept tomhawk with their S-400. If they would have tried to intercept and failed then only question regarding s-400 could have arisen.

Just because India owns S-400 you'll try your level best to prove it's worthless. :rofl::rofl::rofl: Send some babur & shaheen and test for yourselves. :pop:


China* :china:
wait what who even mentioned india in my comment. what are you going on about

no one even mentioned india and you have started ranting, what a werido !
 
.
LOL Russians didn't even try to intercept tomhawk with their S-400. If they would have tried to intercept and failed then only question regarding s-400 could have arisen.

Just because India owns S-400 you'll try your level best to prove it's worthless. :rofl::rofl::rofl: Send some babur & shaheen and test for yourselves. :pop:


China* :china:
Akash ? Wo prithvi wala? Rofl . dara ni yaar .
S-400 are for protection of Russian airbase, tell me if any of those missile hit russian airbase. (sadma to chikno :china: ko laga he)
fo
some serious questions have arisen regarding the s400 after this syria attack.

whats the point of a 6 billion dollar system if it can even protect you a airbase from 50 odd tomahawks
tomahawk cruise missiles are terrain hugging missile they can't be intercept due unique ability to fly very low and to change altitude,path,speed to match with terrain they are like impossible

for babur its an copy of tomahawk and have the same ability .

1999 when pakistan says it captured tomahawk missiles which was fired at the camp in afghanistan well it wasn't lying (tomahawk unable to recognize it target due ti low res cameras at that time and fall somewhere near pakistan border)
 
.
Either lack of capabilities of defence system (technical).
OR
Lack of interest due to some understanding with USA (political).
Nothing else ;).
 
.
some serious questions have arisen regarding the s400 after this syria attack.

whats the point of a 6 billion dollar system if it can even protect you a airbase from 50 odd tomahawks
They were giving Mr Trump some life line, more ever russia was given advance warning as such all the critical assets and ppl would have been moved out. As such this missile strike is a vain glorious namesake action good for nothing but local consumption.

Lack of interest due to some understanding with USA (political).
Nothing else ;).
exactly its all in the game.
 
.
I was wondering when an article questioning Russia's S-400 would come out. If you ask me, Russia had 10x's more to gain if they would've proved this system worked then to let it sit idle.

Advantages of using S-400 and being successful
1. increase the will of Syrian government to fight
2. increase Russia's allies trust in Russia to fight with them
3. increase the World's respect for Russia as a whole
4. increase orders for Russian military equipment (ex: S-400's)
5. increase enemies fear in Russia and it's allies
6. increase Russia's political power
7. increase Russia's sphere of influence
8. making a rift between the U.S. and some of it's allies
9. embarrassing Trumptard

Disadvantages of not using S-400 or using S-400 but being a failure
1. decrease the will of Syrian government to fight
2. decrease Russia's allies trust in Russia to fight with them
3. increase the World questioning S-400 and other Russian military equipment
4. losing lots of respect from the World and it's allies

Wtf is the S-400 in Syria for, Russia!?!? Because it's definitely not there to defend against the rebels.
 
.
They were giving Mr Trump some life line, more ever russia was given advance warning as such all the critical assets and ppl would have been moved out. As such this missile strike is a vain glorious namesake action good for nothing but local consumption.


exactly its all in the game.
Whats the reason of deploying such system when they hv to play politics ?
.
These strikes raise the serious concerns over s-400 & its capabilities . ( no matter if anyone believes its a political move) .
.
Russia is one of the biggest arm supplier
.why did they took the risk of losing customers just because of politics?
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom