More on Syria
by JIM STONE

This post from livejournal and translated from Russian, but from what I gather the Tomahawks used were "Block IV" of 2014 vintage. Apparently using 2004 redesign?

http//diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/474761.html

Either way, it seems as if the majority of them, despite being somewhat newer, were stopped in some manner of air defense. Can't be good, but of course, that depends on whose perspective you're taking.

Though the Tomahawks that were developed in the 80's and first used in the early 90's were good enough for permanent deployment, it would make sense that re-designs would be done with cheaper, newer, high tech parts. I do not think the million plus price tag is in any way justified, they should cost no more than $200,000. But that's another topic.

It was my understanding that every last one of the original Tomahawks was used long ago, and that anything we have now is new production. To say we are firing off 30 year old crap (as I have seen said several places) would be the same as saying the Army is running around with 50 year old Light Anti Tank Weapons just because the LAW happened to hit a niche that kept it from being deleted from the supply chain. Most likely any LAW that gets fired today is not more than a couple years old. The LAW is not powerful enough for any tank made today, but it is useful because it is the most accurate of any shoulder fired anti tank weapon made by any armed forces anywhere, and that makes it good for precise hits against things other than tanks. So it lived beyond obsolescence.

The Tomahawk is an expendable item that gets replaced as used, just like any other ordnance. And in the case of the Tomahawk, if they did find an old early 90's version in a warehouse somewhere, they'd probably use it, and it would work fine. EXCEPT AGAINST RUSSIA, Yes, I think Russia probably jammed them.

And if Russia DID jam them, then the Tomahawk obviously needs 1. GPS guidance for one part of the trip, 2. Inertial guidance to help it tolerate jamming, and 3. visual guidance for the entire trip. Obviously if 23 out of 60 made it, something needs to be fixed because the weakness was found.

I don't think people realize how good inertial guidance systems got before GPS was introduced. Back in the 80's jumbo jets still had auto pilot, but it was inertial guidance based. And it was good enough so that at the end of a trans-pacific flight the pilot would always be able to get visual of the runway at the end of the trip. It was not precise enough to land the plane, but if you could at least see the runway at the end of a long flight, that was pretty good guidance. And that would be good enough to prevent a Tomahawk from being sent seriously off course during a brief GPS blackout. The Tomahawk should have that if it does not have it now.

HERE'S A GOOD ONE Did the missing Tomahawks get gifted to Israel?
Russia officially stated that they did not intervene in the bombing. They disputed the caim that 59 were launched. The launch video does not show 59. they probably gave 40 to Israel and fired 19 at Syria. They were not jammed. They are not susceptible to jamming. They are not smart missiles, they are old fashioned dumb missiles."

Tomahawk is the smartest missile in full deployment on earth, nothing surpasses it. It will therefore have vulnerabilities. The only missile that would be truly dumb and have no vulnerabilities would be an old scud!

The attack on the Syrian airbase could be a false flag? A missile leaves a huge crater, no sign of craters there but only small ground explosions that left minor surface damage, there's no sign of penetration of an high speed flying object like a Tomahawk (about 550 mph). No response from the S-400 batteries despite the Russian knew, the base was evacuated before the alleged attack... Do you need more to qualify it as a false flag? At this point, from every image of film circulated, a missile attack is totally unproven and unrealistic

I did not see anything that looked like missiles actually did it, but I did not comment because I don't know how they arrived, or if they were programmed to slow down and do turns into targets at the end, (that would hide the missile strike appearance) but it really looked to me like kids put explosives here and there and set them off. The only explosion that looked like it would come from a cruise missile took out one end of a hangar. The rest? how do you explain nothing happening to the runway? It looked like ONE tomahawk hit and the rest was a bunch of crap. They did take off though, there is video of that, so maybe it really was just an apocalyptic failure.

If the missiles that did make it mostly went off 100 feet away from intended targets, nothing significant would happen. To blow holes in concrete you need to have the explosive on the concrete. Even 20 feet off the concrete with open air above would result in minimal damage. Maybe that happened, in addition to most not making it at all.