Why didn't the Russians shoot down any Tomahawks, given their sophisticated AA equipment, in Syria?

[Dominus Vobiscum]

For four independent reasons

1. They would have failed if they tried (and this is fully acknowledged now in Russian media)
2. It would have been a breach of agreed-upon protocols with the US in Syria
3. Russia’s intercepting US missiles would mean the US can destroy Russian missiles and possibly planes, not to mention the very expensive S-400 system.
4. Intercepting 59 cruise missiles would not only have stressed the abilities of Russian AA systems, but also depleted their (expensive) AA missiles that are in short supply. Given that Cruise missiles can throw off chaff and flares, shooting each of them down would require several simultaneous launches.

1. Several issues here

• Cruise missiles can fly very low - they hug the terrain. Because the earth is round, this limits the distance from which the missile can be seen (or detected using direct radiation). For an object at the altitude 100 m, the distance to horizon is 36 km (22 mi).
• Russian S-300 and S-400 systems are deployed much farther from the Syrian airbase in question. S-300 are shorter range and are deployed further.
• Another issue is that radars can be jammed, and the US has excellent jamming capacity over Syria.

2. The US and Russia agreed to notify each other before pending strikes in Syria, so as to avoid interference and harm to each other. The US notified Russia about the upcoming missile strike. So, it would have been a breach of protocol for Russia to interfere or tell Syria right away. And any such breach would open the doors for new strikes without warning, which can be dangerous.

3. The US has more strike-ready assets near Syria than Russia, and better/safer supply lines. Russia’s airbases are not particularly well defended, if push comes to shove. So, if Russia starts interfering with US missiles or airstrikes, the US would find it relatively easy to respond in kind, degrading the effectiveness of Russia’s forces and increasing the cost/risk of operation.

4. Russia’s AA systems in Syria are deployed to protect Russian troops, equipment and bases. Expending this expensive resource against US Tomahawk missiles launched at Syrian bases would have left Russian troops and bases less protected. Not to mention that the US would have gained experience dealing with Russian AA capabilities.
NB:
Mwandishi ni Mrusi Igor Markov, Kutoka mtandao wa Quora.

 

[HIMARS]

Uchumi wa Urusi si mzuri kihivo na ndio maana hajawahi tumia hayo madude yake

Kwa hizo 59 tomahawks angetumia zaidi ya 200mil dollars kuyatungua

 

[Dominus Vobiscum]

Uchumi wa Urusi si mzuri kihivo na ndio maana hajawahi tumia hayo madude yake

Kwa hizo 59 tomahawks angetumia zaidi ya 200mil dollars kuyatungua

Yes, yes and Yes. So we agree that "Quantity has a quality all its own" - Joseph Stallin.

 

[Duduwasha]

Russian wafurahie tu maisha maana waliambiwa wasepe kifo chaja no maneno maneno

 

[Bukyanagandi]

For four independent reasons


NB:
Mwandishi ni Mrusi Igor Markov, Kutoka mtandao wa Quora.

Mkuu unajuaje kwamba mleta habari ni Mrusi, mbona kuna majina kama hayo Ukraine na sehemu nyingine Ulaya mashariki, vile vile kumbuka Amerika kwenyewe kuna wahamiaji wenye asili ya Urusi wengi wao wanapinga Serikali ya Urusi na Putin - kwa taarifa yako jina hilo nakutana nalo kwenye International Networks - reamarks zake linapokuja suala la Urusi na Putin masaa yote ni -ve tu, wachangiaji wa kimataifa walisha mshutumu sana kwa uzushi wake na uongo - madai yake yote ni propaganda tu - tumemuzoea, FYI this is part of CIA disinformation, kwa watu wanao elewa vizuri masuala ya Intergrated Air Defence Systems zinavyo fanya kazi wanajua jamaa huyu ni mzushi tu anajaribu ku-water down formidable Air Defence Systems za wenzake - hana jipya.

 

[mohamedidrisa789]

kwani izo missile zilikuwa zinataka kupiga base za mrusi?

 

[Nalendwa]

Mkuu unajuaje kwamba mleta habari ni Mrusi, mbona kuna majina kama hayo Ukraine na sehemu nyingine Ulaya mashariki, vile vile kumbuka Amerika kwenyewe kuna wahamiaji wenye asili ya Urusi wengi wao wanapinga Serikali ya Urusi na Putin - kwa taarifa yako jina hilo nakutana nalo kwenye International Networks - reamarks zake linapokuja suala la Urusi na Putin masaa yote ni -ve tu, wachangiaji wa kimataifa walisha mshutumu sana kwa uzushi wake na uongo - madai yake yote ni propaganda tu - tumemuzoea, FYI this is part of CIA disinformation, kwa watu wanao elewa vizuri masuala ya Intergrated Air Defence Systems zinavyo fanya kazi wanajua jamaa huyu ni mzushi tu anajaribu ku-water down formidable Air Defence Systems za wenzake - hana jipya.

So mkuu what's your opinion?!

Why didn't the Russians shoot down any Tomahawks, given their sophisticated AA equipment, in Syria?

 

[HIMARS]

 

[Nalendwa]

kwani izo missile zilikuwa zinataka kupiga base za mrusi?

You'd think wangesema au kufanya chochote given they were informed before the missiles launch, since they are on Assad's side.

 

[Nalendwa]

Teh!, yanakaribia kumfika baba Ivanka shingoni.
Sintashangaa kama anawataarifu wachina kupitia tweet...lol

 

[Dominus Vobiscum]

So mkuu what's your opinion?!

Why didn't the Russians shoot down any Tomahawks, given their sophisticated AA equipment, in Syria?

Anha madame,
It's true the Russian AA and Pantsir-S1 (S-300), are capable of shoot down the TLAM (Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles). Though that depends on a number of factors Including the mentioned above, i.e
-Location of the AA batteries, as you know TLAM are all-wealther and can fly in low Altitude,; while the Pantsir system designed for anti-aircraft radio horizon and the curvature of the Earth, means High altitude, hence hard to trace. I mean, For AA to take down TLAM they should be around that targeted location.. For the case of Syria, it's understood that The Russian deployed AA system to protect their base, at Latikia.
-Another point is, as elaborated by Markov above...Genuine facts.

 

[Dominus Vobiscum]

Mkuu unajuaje kwamba mleta habari ni Mrusi, mbona kuna majina kama hayo Ukraine na sehemu nyingine Ulaya mashariki, vile vile kumbuka Amerika kwenyewe kuna wahamiaji wenye asili ya Urusi wengi wao wanapinga Serikali ya Urusi na Putin - kwa taarifa yako jina hilo nakutana nalo kwenye International Networks - reamarks zake linapokuja suala la Urusi na Putin masaa yote ni -ve tu, wachangiaji wa kimataifa walisha mshutumu sana kwa uzushi wake na uongo - madai yake yote ni propaganda tu - tumemuzoea, FYI this is part of CIA disinformation, kwa watu wanao elewa vizuri masuala ya Intergrated Air Defence Systems zinavyo fanya kazi wanajua jamaa huyu ni mzushi tu anajaribu ku-water down formidable Air Defence Systems za wenzake - hana jipya.

Kaongea facts,regardless of his identity.

 

[Dominus Vobiscum]

kwani izo missile zilikuwa zinataka kupiga base za mrusi?

Unafahamu kwa nini Mrusi yupo Damascus? Kwanini ame-fume baada ya kichapo kile?

 

[malavanu]

For four independent reasons

1. They would have failed if they tried (and this is fully acknowledged now in Russian media)
2. It would have been a breach of agreed-upon protocols with the US in Syria
3. Russia’s intercepting US missiles would mean the US can destroy Russian missiles and possibly planes, not to mention the very expensive S-400 system.
4. Intercepting 59 cruise missiles would not only have stressed the abilities of Russian AA systems, but also depleted their (expensive) AA missiles that are in short supply. Given that Cruise missiles can throw off chaff and flares, shooting each of them down would require several simultaneous launches.

1. Several issues here

• Cruise missiles can fly very low - they hug the terrain. Because the earth is round, this limits the distance from which the missile can be seen (or detected using direct radiation). For an object at the altitude 100 m, the distance to horizon is 36 km (22 mi).
• Russian S-300 and S-400 systems are deployed much farther from the Syrian airbase in question. S-300 are shorter range and are deployed further.
• Another issue is that radars can be jammed, and the US has excellent jamming capacity over Syria.

2. The US and Russia agreed to notify each other before pending strikes in Syria, so as to avoid interference and harm to each other. The US notified Russia about the upcoming missile strike. So, it would have been a breach of protocol for Russia to interfere or tell Syria right away. And any such breach would open the doors for new strikes without warning, which can be dangerous.

3. The US has more strike-ready assets near Syria than Russia, and better/safer supply lines. Russia’s airbases are not particularly well defended, if push comes to shove. So, if Russia starts interfering with US missiles or airstrikes, the US would find it relatively easy to respond in kind, degrading the effectiveness of Russia’s forces and increasing the cost/risk of operation.

4. Russia’s AA systems in Syria are deployed to protect Russian troops, equipment and bases. Expending this expensive resource against US Tomahawk missiles launched at Syrian bases would have left Russian troops and bases less protected. Not to mention that the US would have gained experience dealing with Russian AA capabilities.
NB:
Mwandishi ni Mrusi Igor Markov, Kutoka mtandao wa Quora.

Well said,tomahawk cruise missile is low attitude flying object to avoid radar detection, with the weight of 1.6 ton.

 

[SDG]

Uchumi wa Urusi si mzuri kihivo na ndio maana hajawahi tumia hayo madude yake

Kwa hizo 59 tomahawks angetumia zaidi ya 200mil dollars kuyatungua

 

[ze kokuyo]

Tomahawk ni very low altitude flying object,small radar cross section pia ikiwa kwenye mwendo haikimbii moja kw moja ila inazunguka zunguka(maneuvering) ili kukwepa radar detection.

 

[Consigliere]

So mkuu what's your opinion?!

Why didn't the Russians shoot down any Tomahawks, given their sophisticated AA equipment, in Syria?

Marekani walimtaarifu Russia kuwa watashanbulia Syria, na Russia wanakiri kutaarifiwa pia kuna mkataba kati yao unaoelekeza hilo kufanyika. Mitambo ya kujilinda ya Russia ni kwa ajiri ya Russian's bases tu na si vinginevyo.
Kama taratibu hizo zote zilifuatwa kwa nini wayatangue hayo makombora?

 

[HIMARS]

 

[Ndahani]

Anha madame,
It's true the Russian AA and Pantsir-S1 (S-300), are capable of shoot down the TLAM (Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles). Though that depends on a number of factors Including the mentioned above, i.e
-Location of the AA batteries, as you know TLAM are all-wealther and can fly in low Altitude,; while the Pantsir system designed for anti-aircraft radio horizon and the curvature of the Earth, means High altitude, hence hard to trace. I mean, For AA to take down TLAM they should be around that targeted location.. For the case of Syria, it's understood that The Russian deployed AA system to protect their base, at Latikia.
-Another point is, as elaborated by Markov above...Genuine facts.

Ni sawa na kutumia bunduki kuua mende.. very expensive project for nothing

 

[izzo]

Sababu ni mbili tu japo watu wanasema juu ya makombora ya Tomahawk kupita chinichini ambapo wanasema ni ngumu kuonekana kwenye radar lakini hoja hyo aina mashiko lakini sababu ni mbili tu ambazo Russia ameshindwa kutungua makombora 59 ya Tomahawk

1 Kwanza mission ya Russia nchini Syria si kumlinda Assad au kuilinda Syria dhidi ya mashambulizi kutoka nje mission yake ilikuwa ni

A Kupambana na waasi ambapo yeye Russia anasema ni vikundi vya kigaidi
B Kulinda Maslai yake ndani ya Syria ambayo ni Maslai yake kibiashara na uwekezaji

Sasa ww umeshatangaza kuwa ww uko pale kwa ajili A na B mwezio anafanya C unakuwa huna haki ya kuingilia


Sababu ya pili ni gharama kombora moja la Tomahawk ambayo ni long -range precision strike missile ambapo kombora moja ni 832,000 usd sawa na £667,000 ambapo makombora 59 US ametumia $49,088,000 sawa na £39,353,000

Gharama ya kutungua kombora la Tomahawk ya defence missile ni $1.5 milion so kama Syria kujilinda angetumia $88,500,000 ambapo ni gharama kubwa sana mfano mpaka sasa hv wizara ya Ulinzi ya Russia wametumia $483 milion ktk Ops zote za kijeshi ndani ya Syria ambapo kwa siku Ops zote wanatumia $ 8 milion sasa Ukiangalia gharama za kutungua kombora ya US kwa Siku moja ingekuwa zaid ya $88 milion wakati kwa siku Ops zote ni $8 milion

Sasa utakuwa mjinga sana kutumia zaidi ya million 88 kwa masaa 5 ambayo yametumia kurusha makombora 59 wakati Ops zote kwa siku nzima yani 24 hours anatumia milion 8 kama gharama za Ops zote