Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

Oh and apparently the Americans used AGM-158 as well, which first flew in 2009 and also hugs the terrain like Tomahawk.

But yet we are to believe that the Syrians killed 70 out of 103. yeh right Einsteins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM

[Pyrpolizer]

Of course it wasn't a Cruise Missile. There was nothing there. Nothing was hit, and there was no debris. you would think the Syrians would be able to find some Tomahawk fragments or debris, but nothing. That's because they pretty much all hit their designated targets.

Are you talking for the video or some other imaginary scene we don't know about?

The Cruise Missiles were hugging the deck no higher than 300FT

The Americans didn't use anything else other than Tomahawk! They launched Tomahawk Missiles only. They have the range to strike Syria from the Mediterranean.

Do you have the ability to understand that the Tomahawks used were only 33 out of the 103 missiles used?
Can you understand that nobody neither the article refers specifically to Tomahawks?
Do you know that each of the 3 countries that attacked used it's own missiles?
If yes why did you get stuck to the Tomahawk? We already heard you!

Oh and this was not a demonstration of what American Firepower is capable of doing. If there was such a demonstration, Damascus would be turned to glass.

If you want to know who tests their weapons, it is Russia.

Russia sent 2 Su-57 aircraft which are not even fully developed. There are only 10 prototypes and 2 were sent to Syria to test against American Technology. The Americans do not do such stupid things. The West know what their weapons are capable of and do not need to be tested in Syria to find out.

Are you trying to convince me that this show was not some sort of a factual test or if you prefer an advertisement to potential buyers?
If yes i think you don't have the common sense to realize what this was all about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-57

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18 ... s-to-syria

So please tell us more about the great satanical US, France and Britain trying to keep their weapons industry alive by testing their weapons when clearly they did not do such a thing but as it turns out, the Russians did. You couldn't get anymore stupid if you tried.

I am afraid you have to use the full power of your brain to work it out plus a lot of reading on the economy of each.
The 3 countries that participated rely heavily on their military-industrial complex to sustain the standard of living of their citizens.
Ask yourself why no other Nato member participated.

You would think that those responsible for the use of Chemical warfare qualify for the Satanical label but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Of course they qualify.All of them who produce Chemical weapons. What is Poltron doing in the UK? Do they produce chocolates?

Do you also believe that Russia has these unbeatable weapons which they claim to possess? Apparently they have the fastest missiles, which is not really the case at all. In fact it is completely wrong.

Do you have more irrelevant questions?

Look, if the Americans were going to test their capabilities, Syria and Assad would be finished.

Who said that? Are you constructing a new hypothesis after every paragraph? All I said it was a test on the specific missiles been used. Or if you wish an advertisement. Or a demonstration. Pick anything you want. Besides this was not a full scale war. In full scale war nobody would care intercept the bullets. He would fire directly at the source.

PS: do not take the idiot comment seriously. It isn't aimed at you or for anyone on a personal level. it is aimed at the delirious and stupid people who accept the Russian and Syrian propaganda that somehow they shot down 70 out of 103 Tomahawks. I was laughing at all the videos supposedly depicting the downing of Tomahawk Cruise missiles high up in the Damascus skies when these missiles Cruise at between 50m to 300m with Terrain Following TERCOM.


If you review the whole discussion you will find out you were laughing for no reason.
You know which persons laugh for no reason don't you?
As the Ancient Greeks were saying:
"γελαει ο μωρος καν τι μη γελoιον ει"- [the moron is laughing even when there's nothing to laugh about]

[Paphitis]

Of course it wasn't a Cruise Missile. There was nothing there. Nothing was hit, and there was no debris. you would think the Syrians would be able to find some Tomahawk fragments or debris, but nothing. That's because they pretty much all hit their designated targets.

Are you talking for the video or some other imaginary scene we don't know about?

The Cruise Missiles were hugging the deck no higher than 300FT

The Americans didn't use anything else other than Tomahawk! They launched Tomahawk Missiles only. They have the range to strike Syria from the Mediterranean.

Do you have the ability to understand that the Tomahawks used were only 33 out of the 103 missiles used?
Can you understand that nobody neither the article refers specifically to Tomahawks?
Do you know that each of the 3 countries that attacked used it's own missiles?
If yes why did you get stuck to the Tomahawk? He already heard you!

Oh and this was not a demonstration of what American Firepower is capable of doing. If there was such a demonstration, Damascus would be turned to glass.

If you want to know who tests their weapons, it is Russia.

Russia sent 2 Su-57 aircraft which are not even fully developed. There are only 10 prototypes and 2 were sent to Syria to test against American Technology. The Americans do not do such stupid things. The West know what their weapons are capable of and do not need to be tested in Syria to find out.

Are you trying to convince me that this show was not some sort of a factual test or if you prefer an advertisement to potential buyers?
If yes i think you don't have the common sense to realize what this was all about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-57

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18 ... s-to-syria

So please tell us more about the great satanical US, France and Britain trying to keep their weapons industry alive by testing their weapons when clearly they did not do such a thing but as it turns out, the Russians did. You couldn't get anymore stupid if you tried.

I am afraid you have to use the full power of your brain to work it out plus a lot of reading on the economy of each.
The 3 countries that participated rely heavily on their military-industrial complex to sustain the standard of living of their citizens.
Ask yourself why no other Nato member participated.

You would think that those responsible for the use of Chemical warfare qualify for the Satanical label but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Of course they qualify.All of them who produce Chemical weapons. What is Poltron doing in the UK? Do they produce chocolates?

Do you also believe that Russia has these unbeatable weapons which they claim to possess? Apparently they have the fastest missiles, which is not really the case at all. In fact it is completely wrong.

Do you have more irrelevant questions?

Look, if the Americans were going to test their capabilities, Syria and Assad would be finished.

Who said that? Are you constructing a new hypothesis after every paragraph? All I said it was a test on the specific missiles been used. Or if you wish an advertisement. Or a demonstration. Pick anything you want. Besides this was not a full scale war. In full scale war nobody would care intercept the bullets. He would fire directly at the source.

PS: do not take the idiot comment seriously. It isn't aimed at you or for anyone on a personal level. it is aimed at the delirious and stupid people who accept the Russian and Syrian propaganda that somehow they shot down 70 out of 103 Tomahawks. I was laughing at all the videos supposedly depicting the downing of Tomahawk Cruise missiles high up in the Damascus skies when these missiles Cruise at between 50m to 300m with Terrain Following TERCOM.


If you review the whole discussion you will find out you were laughing for no reason.
You know which persons laugh for no reason don't you?
As the Ancient Greeks were saying:
"γελαει ο μωρος καν τι μη γελoιον ει"- [the moron is laughing even when there's nothing to laugh about]

yes and the other missiles were Shadow Storm and JASSM, which are pretty much the same as Tomahawks but with less range.

I was referring to the video Get Real posted which supposedly depicts the shooting down of a Tomahawk or Shadow, or JASSM. All of which we can almost touch with our fingertips from a 2 storey building and all of which just hug the terrain to shadow their approach.

Tomahawk is just a Cruise Missile that has a range of up to 3000 kms, whilst Shadow and JASSM are aircraft launched stand off cruise missiles at much closer ranges.

The chances of Syria shooting down 70 out of 103 is zilch. Sorry, but Syria has never even shot down a Coalition or Israeli fighter ever. It isn't going to shoot down 70 out of 103 Cruise Missiles.

Yes and you said that the satanic (go figure) US, UK and France were testing their weapons. What weapons did they test? Are you friggin joking. If the Americans wanted to test their weapons, they would put on a show and have CNN cover it. This despite the fact that Russia is the only country that sends prototypes to Syria so your characterization is incorrect and unfair. If anything, the Russians are testing their capabilities so that they can sell their SU-57. The Americans have already thousands of orders of their F-35 aircraft. They don't need to prove a thing. They have a proven track record of supplying equipment that is fit for purpose.

You also took the Russian bait and believed that the Syrians shot down 70 out of 103. Well then, how can they not even shoot down an Israeli F-16. I want someone to answer that question rather than avoid it. They are capable of knocking out Tomahawk, Shadow or Jassm and yet not 1 single F-16. Are you guys joking or what?

You would think that with the phenomenal strike rate of 70 out of 103, they would have at least 1 F-16 kill to their names, but they have fuck all, nada, zip, monon ta archidkia tous!

[Get Real!]

Paphitis' video a fake...

Recorded in Feb 2015 in Lugansk, Ukraine:

http://www.philenews.com/eidiseis/kosmo ... -sti-syria

[Pyrpolizer]

An exercise on efficiency for the tomahawks:
‘Low efficiency’: Only 23 Tomahawk missiles out of 59 reached Syrian airfield - Russian MoD

[repulsewarrior]

If Syrian air defense units were ineffective in stopping U.S. cruise missiles, and most information now points to that outcome (actually, it looks like the Syrians fired their missiles after the last missile had hit), this represents a significant blow to the Assad regime and to Russia’s ability to assist in an effective air defense in the region.
Read more at https://theaviationist.com/2018/04/14/r ... XSm33FQ.99

...interesting, as a contrast, worth reading.

[Get Real!]

If Syrian air defense units were ineffective in stopping U.S. cruise missiles, and most information now points to that outcome (actually, it looks like the Syrians fired their missiles after the last missile had hit), this represents a significant blow to the Assad regime and to Russia’s ability to assist in an effective air defense in the region.
Read more at https://theaviationist.com/2018/04/14/r ... XSm33FQ.99

...interesting, as a contrast, worth reading.

Worthless reading… like your junk posts.

[Paphitis]

Paphitis' video a fake...

Recorded in Feb 2015 in Lugansk, Ukraine:

http://www.philenews.com/eidiseis/kosmo ... -sti-syria

The video you are looking at isn't the same video that I posted. That is what you guys try to do - muddy the waters and throw ash in people's eyes. I do not deny that there are plenty of fake videos. The biggest victim of any war is the truth. Like the claim that Syria knocked out 70 out of 103 Shadow, JASSM, and Tomahawk is clearly a lie. And just like the very first video you stupidly posted is a fake. You tried to convince the gullible that Syia shot down a Cruise Missile because it showed a flare like object being launched into the air and explode. It didn't look like anything to me other than a flare. And the object self detonated at an altitude that we all know is far too high for a Shadow, JASSM, or Tomahawk. The mind boggles really.

But no one is able to explain this:

Syria claims to have shot down 70 out of 103 Tomahawks, JASSM, and Shadow but not even 1 single F-16 kill. Not one single F-15 kill either. Plenty have flown over Damascus but not even 1 kill.

That besides approximately the 20,000 + Coalition sorties over Syria without the loss of a single Airframe. Go figure hey!

[Paphitis]

An exercise on efficiency for the tomahawks:
‘Low efficiency’: Only 23 Tomahawk missiles out of 59 reached Syrian airfield - Russian MoD

Once again, that is what the Russians are claiming back in 2017 when Trump launched that attack. But how can they be low efficiency is what people need to ask?

Didn't the GPS or INS work that day? Did the Americans scuttle their own missiles? Were they shot down and if so how were they shot down at 30m above the ground? Or is this propaganda?

It is probably the latter. The first victim is always the truth. And the Russians have been playing the plausible denial game for many years now, but we all know deep down that they are NOT telling the truth.

We know, that the Coalition pretty much has lost no Airframe in many thousands of sorties over Syria. The closest we have to a loss is a Jordanian F-16 which probably had engine trouble over ISIS controlled territory (ISIS claim to have downed it) and our poor hapless pilot was burned alive in a cage (we all remember that provocation from ISIL). It would have been better to suicide. Now the Coalition has never been arrogant enough to claim that they wouldn't lose an Airframe, it just so happens that either we got very lucky or our pilots are very skilled people - it's probably a combination of many factors. We have always had Pilot extraction teams on standby waiting for a pilot going down in Syrian or ISIL territory.

Another incident we had is an Israeli F-16 came to grief in Israeli Airspace after being involved in Air operations over Damascus just minutes earlier. The Israeli's never admitted that it was shot down but that doesn't mean that it wasn't. The Israelis claim engine trouble, Syrians claim to have hit it. It's irrelevant because Israel still lost an Airframe out of the ordeal. But it didn't lose its pilot which is the most important of all. No one cares about the F-16, but having an Israeli Pilot in Syrian custody would have been a disaster for the Israelis, and the poor pilot too.

We also know that none of our pilots have ever been captured other than one Jordanian F-16 pilot that was captured by ISIL and was gruesomely burned alive.

You once again, take the Russian line because that is what you WANT to believe. However, let's face the facts.

If the Americans had such "low efficiency" they will just keep sending more missiles until they got the required number through. The cost really isn't even a consideration. It might be for Russia with its such low GDP, but it isn't for the West. The cost of a Tomahawk is just chicken feed. No one in the Pentagon ever looks at the cost of each missile. They are already paid for because they have been manufactured and there are thousands of them in our arsenals. In fact, Tomahawks don't cost a thing compared to losing a pilot. It costs more to train a pilot.

Secondly, if the Tomahawk was so ineffective, the Americans will just switch to something else - like the JASSM for instance. Don't tell me now that all of America's gear is "low efficiency". Please don't say it, because it will get even more ridiculous.

If that is the case,then how come there isn't even a single F-16 kill for Syria? So obviously our Air Forces are highly effective and yet our Cruise Missiles are not? then why wouldn't the Americans use F-22 to get over the inefficiency of their Tomahawks? That is what they would have done, and it would be a very high efficiency attack. Chances of shooting one down would be again, pretty much zip. You can poke all the S400s in the air you like, but all that will happen is that all the S400 batteries would have been destroyed in minutes. The Americans wouldn't send a plane over an airfield without taking care of the S400s before their F-22s arrived.

The S400 isn't the big game changer here at all. The Americans have always had the capability of dealing with the S400 and defending their planes from them. The Americans have gotten the odds down to such a level that there is probably more chance of their pilots winning the weekend lottery that get shot down over Syria. Sorry but these are the facts.

Pull the other one Einsteins.

[Robin Hood]

An exercise on efficiency for the tomahawks:
‘Low efficiency’: Only 23 Tomahawk missiles out of 59 reached Syrian airfield - Russian MoD

Once again, that is what the Russians are claiming back in 2017 when Trump launched that attack. But how can they be low efficiency is what people need to ask?

Didn't the GPS or INS work that day? Did the Americans scuttle their own missiles? Were they shot down and if so how were they shot down at 30m above the ground? Or is this propaganda?

It is probably the latter. The first victim is always the truth. And the Russians have been playing the plausible denial game for many years now, but we all know deep down that they are NOT telling the truth.

We know, that the Coalition pretty much has lost no Airframe in many thousands of sorties over Syria. The closest we have to a loss is a Jordanian F-16 which probably had engine trouble over ISIS controlled territory (ISIS claim to have downed it) and our poor hapless pilot was burned alive in a cage (we all remember that provocation from ISIL). It would have been better to suicide. Now the Coalition has never been arrogant enough to claim that they wouldn't lose an Airframe, it just so happens that either we got very lucky or our pilots are very skilled people - it's probably a combination of many factors. We have always had Pilot extraction teams on standby waiting for a pilot going down in Syrian or ISIL territory.

Another incident we had is an Israeli F-16 came to grief in Israeli Airspace after being involved in Air operations over Damascus just minutes earlier. The Israeli's never admitted that it was shot down but that doesn't mean that it wasn't. The Israelis claim engine trouble, Syrians claim to have hit it. It's irrelevant because Israel still lost an Airframe out of the ordeal. But it didn't lose its pilot which is the most important of all. No one cares about the F-16, but having an Israeli Pilot in Syrian custody would have been a disaster for the Israelis, and the poor pilot too.

We also know that none of our pilots have ever been captured other than one Jordanian F-16 pilot that was captured by ISIL and was gruesomely burned alive.

You once again, take the Russian line because that is what you WANT to believe. However, let's face the facts.

If the Americans had such "low efficiency" they will just keep sending more missiles until they got the required number through. The cost really isn't even a consideration. It might be for Russia with its such low GDP, but it isn't for the West. The cost of a Tomahawk is just chicken feed. No one in the Pentagon ever looks at the cost of each missile. They are already paid for because they have been manufactured and there are thousands of them in our arsenals. In fact, Tomahawks don't cost a thing compared to losing a pilot. It costs more to train a pilot.

Secondly, if the Tomahawk was so ineffective, the Americans will just switch to something else - like the JASSM for instance. Don't tell me now that all of America's gear is "low efficiency". Please don't say it, because it will get even more ridiculous.

If that is the case,then how come there isn't even a single F-16 kill for Syria? So obviously our Air Forces are highly effective and yet our Cruise Missiles are not? then why wouldn't the Americans use F-22 to get over the inefficiency of their Tomahawks? That is what they would have done, and it would be a very high efficiency attack. Chances of shooting one down would be again, pretty much zip. You can poke all the S400s in the air you like, but all that will happen is that all the S400 batteries would have been destroyed in minutes. The Americans wouldn't send a plane over an airfield without taking care of the S400s before their F-22s arrived.

The S400 isn't the big game changer here at all. The Americans have always had the capability of dealing with the S400 and defending their planes from them. The Americans have gotten the odds down to such a level that there is probably more chance of their pilots winning the weekend lottery that get shot down over Syria. Sorry but these are the facts.

Pull the other one Einsteins.

You seem to be suffering from a severe bought of verbal diarrhoea! Your opinion is just that ..... a warped view, based on your perception of events which is somewhat clouded by your own arrogance and self opinionated crap!

BTW: An attack on Akrotiri would not invoke Article 5 ..... as it was NATO member countries that were the aggressors, broke International Law and the UN Charter. Do you honestly believe that the other NATO countries that did not support this action would risk a war with Russia just to avenge an air strike on an airfield? Such an attack would be a response to an illegal act of war.

I just hope this does not escalate to the point where Russia shows YOU just how wrong you are!