Photo Evidence Slams MSM Propaganda that Houthis’ Missile Not Hit US Hybrid Catamaran in Red Sea

The Aegis has not been proven against peer technology, or sub peer technology. Computer stimulations are mere games. Russians stated that a complex technology can be rendered inept by simple countermeasures.

Also, the Russians seem to think that they have budgeted enough air defense to counter whatever the U.S. throws at them in terms of cruise missiles and aircraft. I do not believe that the Russians bluff. They have watched us operate 4 times, twice in Iraq and Libya so they know our playbook quite well.

We have never seen how they would respond to our methods even once. Does the U.S. navy still have battleships? The only thing that I can think of is if we just tossed in the old fashioned naval shells. They probably could hit them but it would be quite expensive.

no battleships anymore. They were a nightmare in terms of costs and maintenance problems, as they were getting too old and basically broke down all the time.

Thanks for the reply. So then if our only weapon of attack are $1M Tomahawk cruise missiles or air launched missiles. The S3/400 will likely be a cost effective counter. I was thinking that had we swarmed a Syrian target with cheap, long range weapons that we could overwhelm their defenses (just thinking tactics, not endorsing that action).

Politically, the Russians should have very little issues shooting down cruise missiles since it would involve no loss of U.S. personnel. Having to target a capital ship doing a long range bombardment is a different matter. The Russian Gen. in his statement pretty much said that a stealth aircraft flying over Syrian govt territory would be considered hostile threat.

I believe he was referring to stealth planes dropping munitions, not simply flying over. I sincerely think that most US military personnel in the area is cool-headed and abides to the US government rules of engagement, which for now totally exclude bombing the Syrian armed forces. I believe though that there is some particular element(s) in the chain of command that ordered the Deir-ezzor bombing, and is basically being influenced by actors outside the US administration, and that may even order some actions that could lead to retaliation and escalation. That could be very dangerous: what could happen if there are shootdowns because of such “rogue” mission, maybe with loss of life? The US president would be forced to two options: escalating even more, or publicly declaring that he has not full control on the armed forces actions (with all the consideration such choice would bring). The movie “Dr. Strangelove” comes to mind..

I believe the S300 deployed more inland for improved air coverage while the S-400 is deployed on the coast line. I think the Russians deployed more than a battery of of S-300. If I was I their shoes, I’d make sure I can engage at least 200 major targets at one time. The Russians most likely are going to confront the cruise missiles with electronic warfare ( since they are slow) than use an assortment of missiles that make sense for particular situations. They do not have to use the S-300 or S400, they can allow the cruise missiles to come close and engage them from 1-10 miles, or they can steer them away from the target. Yes, Iowa class battleship has the 18 inch guns, they were recomissioned when the Soviets deployed the Kirov battle cruisers ( they are currently all decommissioned) its guns are good to soften up costal defenses, however, without adequate air cover a 2000 lbs bomb would neutralize it.

but it has proven its ability to shoot down airliners when the USS Vincennes brought down an iranian airbus in the 80ies, killing all the occupants (290 people killed). Notice that after the incident, the US ship crew were awarded medals and promotions.

Yes, I remember that, Iranians thought the US was siding with Iraq, and subsequently the war between Iran and Iraq came to an end. It was an ugly war.

I appreciate this sight for the stories varying point of view. I like the fact it is the opposite of what I find elsewhere. That being said, I find that many times the one sided point of view is so dominate that it can become what I sought to avoid! But I see here you post with rational thought and a good sense of reality. Refreshing to find.

I didn’t say that the Iranians would win. I said that the Iranian missiles would be a serious challenge and we seem overly complacent in our belief that our technology is invincible.

The only thing that I said was that it shows that the missiles have both the guidance and firepower to target and damage our ships. MANPADs and TOWS are also examples of low cost systems that pose a challenge to relatively expensive systems as well. They can be countered but have done significant damage under the right circumstances. In a big conflict we might get a surprise or two.

I did not think that the Houthis would be doing this well at this point. As far as I am concerned, they can start taking Saudi scalps for what the KSA has done to their country.

US ships are defended by anti-missile missiles like the SM series and point defense cannons, they have electronic and physical countermeasures that are very effective against older types of rocket threats. An old engagement as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Latakia

The saudis/UAE and their mercenaries like Sudan are the more ineffectual fighting forces on this planet. It defies logic that so well-equipped forces can fail in every conceivable way, from the soldier level, to naval warfare, to strategic planning, to defending against cruise missiles they just fail.

Imagine if they had to face a serious threat like Iran, they would be swept away like a hankerchief in a hurricane.