In the same adress the nuclear-powered cruise missile has been specifically related to strategical deterrence and with only nuclear payload.
Reason is quite obvious: even with a conventional payload it would result as a “dirty” bomb and so be counted into the total sum of nuclear weapons allowed.

In any case more those weapons with exception of Kinzhal would pertain to Strategic Rocket forces or Navy, not Ruaf.

Send them to Russia as a form of payment for Su-35.

Oh my, ypu try to compare what reported by Sens with what was written by Izvestia and reported by Austin and you get everything and the contrary of everything …

Let’s add my own contribution of reports from 150th AD regiment and I think only possible explanation is that all those report from the ground describe just one facet of a protracted air battle involving different locations.

So Sens report both the findings of missiles in Israel &Lebanon that the (quite discording) version from their press, Russians describe what happened in T4 only (hence the attribution of the downing to S-200) where they have troops, people of Suweida just what happened at their own air base.
Sum them up and you still will not get a coherent picture but surely some more hints about how things went.

Mercurius, I think he intend to say that there has not been further actions in the days after the one in question.

So one part say to have caused incredible havoc and the other replies that the damage was instead quite limited and given that in the ME everyone lie as there will no tomorrow and the two states in question are champions in this sport, let’s stick to the very few facts we are certain of.

Despite all the media rumor of this one, there have been further engagements between the two, the most of them last year after the Air defence network was revamped, thanks to russian and iranian assistance but above all thank to the liberation of large part of Syrian territory thanks to the SAA,NDF and Hezb victories.
Making a simple sum, if I would believe to the reports of just one part, at this rate (I follow conflict day by day by the times of the battle of Al Qusayr, so I have missed no one of them) the IAF would have destroyed the Syrian Air defence four or five times according to their own declarations, while according to the one of Syrians, Israel would have gone bankrupt for the numbers of PGM they claim to have intercepted.

P.S. Said so, I gave a good credibility rating to the reports I have published in post #7267 (otherwise I would have published them ça la va sans dire): they come from sources on the ground and not from centralized propaganda outlet, Fire Brigate one report precisely damages and life lost (RIP to both) and let us guess between the lines of their not military language what type of missiles the regiment was equipped with i.e. Pantsir.

OH, my…

The issue is probably with the new twin launcher: http://i64.tinypic.com/6z1si8.jpg
Mounted here on a type 4/Strike Eagle CFT under an F-15C. Probably won’t fit and/or too heavy for an unmodified type 2 CFT.

The Strike Eagle CFT + twin launchers on fuselage+ four missiles on each wing: Instead the Silent Eagle the ANG would get the DRAG (not in LGTB sense) Queen it seems…

Levsha: nor one nor the other were ever tough for such a role, they were just ferries between Usa and Europe (or Vietnam until the conflict lasted).
Once arrived to a major hub their load was to be transferred , sometimes by C-130 but in the great majority of cases using the normal road or rail network to the front. The short-sightedness of such an organization was clear even before the end of the Cold War hence the money and the efforts spent on developing that exceptional, hyper-advanced but costly plane that is the C-17.

Still the damage done by such a gap between strategic lifting and tactical transport is still felt in many legacy NATO equipments, originally conceived with precise dimensional and weight limitation in order to be carried on the C-130 while on the other hand the NATO has still to rent AN-124 and IL-76 to airlift loads in Afghanistan, given that C-17 is damn too costly and scarce in numbers for everyday logistical support while C-141 and C-5 was all merciless retired ASAP.

@TomcatVIP

Are you aware how such a comparison is really the best compliment one can made to Russian designer school when it come in terms of reliability and usefulness?