Why USA Is Worried of Syrian Air Defenses?

db2646

Banned Member
The following article below was in the Wall Street Journal this morning. The F22 has not been really tested operationally against any current adversaries. This will be an real test bed for the aircraft IMO if the USA decides to impose a no fly zone in Syria?

Wall Street Journal
May 9, 2013
Pg. 11

U.S. Is Warned Russia Plans Syria Arms Sale
By Jay Solomon, Adam Entous and Julian E. Barnes

WASHINGTON—Israel has warned the U.S. that a Russian deal is imminent to sell advanced ground-to-air missile systems to Syria, weapons that would significantly boost the regime's ability to stave off intervention in its civil war.

U.S. officials said on Wednesday that they are analyzing the information Israel provided about the suspected sale of S-300 missile batteries to Syria, but wouldn't comment on whether they believed such a transfer was near.

Russian officials didn't immediately return requests to comment. The Russian Embassy in Washington has said its policy is not to comment on arms sales or transfers between Russia and other countries.

The government of President Bashar al-Assad has been seeking to purchase S-300 missile batteries—which can intercept both manned aircraft and guided missiles—from Moscow going back to the George W. Bush administration, U.S. officials said. Western nations have lobbied President Vladimir Putin's government not to go ahead with the sale. If Syria were to acquire and deploy the systems, it would make any international intervention in Syria far more complicated, according to U.S. and Middle East-based officials.

According to the information the Israelis provided in recent days, Syria has been making payments on a 2010 agreement with Moscow to buy four batteries for $900 million. They cite financial transactions from the Syrian government, including one made this year through Russia's foreign-development bank, known as the VEB.

The package includes six launchers and 144 operational missiles, each with a range of 125 miles, according to the information the Israelis provided. The first shipment could come over the next three months, according to the Israelis' information, and be concluded by the end of the year. Russia is also expected to send two instruction teams to train Syria's military in operating the missile system, the Israelis say.

Russia has been Mr. Assad's most important international backer, outside of Iran, since the conflict in Syria started in March 2011, and supplies Syria with arms, funding and fuel. Russia maintains a naval port in Syria, its only outlet to the Mediterranean. Moscow also has publicly voiced worries that a collapsed Syria could fuel Islamist activities in its restive Caucasus regions.

Secretary of State John Kerry met with Mr. Putin on Tuesday in Moscow. The leaders said they would stage an international conference this month aimed at ending the civil war. U.S. officials couldn't say whether Messrs. Kerry and Putin or their teams discussed the arms sale.

British Prime Minister David Cameron is scheduled to visit Mr. Putin in Russia on Friday. The White House on Wednesday said Mr. Cameron would visit Washington on Monday to discuss issues including Syria's civil war and counterterrorism, plus trade and economic issues, with President Barack Obama.

The Obama administration has argued that Mr. Assad has to leave office as part of a political transition in Damascus. The Kremlin has maintained that he retains a large base of support and should be included in negotiations over a future Syrian government.

Should Mr. Putin's government go ahead with the sale, it would mark a significant escalation in the battle between Moscow and Washington over Syria. U.S. officials said they believe Russian technicians are already helping maintain the existing Syrian air-defense units.

The first air-defense deals between Russia and Syria date back decades. Russia in recent years has stepped up shipments to modernize Syria's targeting systems and make the air defenses mobile, and therefore much more difficult for Israel—and the U.S.—to overcome.

According to a U.S. intelligence assessment, Russia began shipping SA-22 Pantsir-S1 units to Syria in 2008. The system, a combination of surface-to-air missiles and 30mm antiaircraft guns, has a digital targeting system and is mounted on a combat vehicle, making it easy to move. Syria has 36 of the vehicles, according to the assessment.

In 2009, the Russians started upgrading Syria's outdated analog SA-3 surface-to-air missile systems, turning them into the SA-26 Pechora-2M system, which is mobile and digital, equipped with missiles with an operational range of 17 miles, according to the assessment.

The U.S. is particularly worried about another modernized system Moscow provides—the SA-5. With an operational range of 175 miles, SA-5 missiles could take out U.S. planes flying from Cyprus, a key North Atlantic Treaty Organization base that was used during Libya operations and would likely be vital in any Syrian operation.

The U.S. has stealth aircraft and ship-based, precision-guided missiles that could take out key air-defense sites. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has privately told the White House that shutting down the system could require weeks of bombing, putting U.S. fighter pilots in peril and diverting military resources from other priorities.

According to an analysis by the U.S. military's Joint Staff, Syrian air defenses are nearly five times more sophisticated than what existed in Libya before the NATO launched its air campaign there in 2011. Syrian air defenses are about 10 times more sophisticated than the system the U.S. and its allies faced in Serbia.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
No really? Six whole SAM launchers is all it takes to prevent the USA from intervening these days?

How many launchers will there still be I wonder when each one cops more than 30 HARM / AARGM shots on the VERY first day?

:confused:

Edit: Still you never know. One single US strike aircraft might get shot down and the Eric Palmers of the world will declaim loudly how "obsolete" the West is...
 

PCShogun

New Member
Well, I am sure that Israel is not happy about this sale either. While the U.S. might intervene, Israeli warplanes have crossed the Syrian border and into their airspace on several occasions already. If the U.S. were to imply a no-fly zone, these launchers would need to be some of the first things to go.
 

db2646

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
Well, I am sure that Israel is not happy about this sale either. While the U.S. might intervene, Israeli warplanes have crossed the Syrian border and into their airspace on several occasions already. If the U.S. were to imply a no-fly zone, these launchers would need to be some of the first things to go.
Based on what I have read, Israeli warplanes did not cross Syrian airspace? I agree if the USA is going to implement a no fly zone that these launchers and other air defense systems are the first to get destroyed. However, is the USA going to use initially cruise missiles, B2 bombers and/or the F22 to destroy these targets?
 

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
AA threats are picked apart in layers. Platform selection will be based on many things. Since the NCA strategic objective impacts every single tactical decission, that is going to be the first thing the planners will have to work with. The threat assessment will affect platform selection, as will participating or supporting nations and there willingness or refusal to host support operations and so forth.
For example the US could do what it has done in the region before, start picking off AD assetts with Apaches. This would require somebody nearby to host support operations.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
No really? Six whole SAM launchers is all it takes to prevent the USA from intervening these days?
Four batteries would mean 32 launchers, 12 radars, etc.

How many launchers will there still be I wonder when each one cops more than 30 HARM / AARGM shots on the VERY first day?

:confused:
The point isn't to actually fight off a US SEAD/DEAD effort, or a US-led air war against the Syrian government. The point is to raise the price tag of the intervention to make it a less attractive option to the West.

Another thing to consider, presence of advanced systems, with proper support, would make a limited intervention more difficult, if not impossible. Currently the US could probably carry out airstrikes across Syria with complete impunity. With modern theater SAMs operating there you would have to destroy them before proceeding. It may be considered worth while to perform some air strikes, but not worthwhile to take the effort/expend the resources to actually fire those 30 HARM/AARGM shots per launcher/emitter.

Finally, lets consider that Israeli air strikes seem far more likely then US ones, and they would have a considerably harder time dealing with those SAMs then the US.

Remember if any country intervenes in Syria it will be, by definition, a limited war. I.e. it's not about absolutely being able to accomplish something, but about a simple cost benefit analysis.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Four batteries would mean 32 launchers, 12 radars, etc.
The article below is a bit confused. It mentions four batteries buts states specifically the deal is for 6 launchers and 144 missiles.


The point isn't to actually fight off a US SEAD/DEAD effort, or a US-led air war against the Syrian government. The point is to raise the price tag of the intervention to make it a less attractive option to the West.

Another thing to consider, presence of advanced systems, with proper support, would make a limited intervention more difficult, if not impossible. Currently the US could probably carry out airstrikes across Syria with complete impunity. With modern theater SAMs operating there you would have to destroy them before proceeding. It may be considered worth while to perform some air strikes, but not worthwhile to take the effort/expend the resources to actually fire those 30 HARM/AARGM shots per launcher/emitter.

Finally, lets consider that Israeli air strikes seem far more likely then US ones, and they would have a considerably harder time dealing with those SAMs then the US.

Remember if any country intervenes in Syria it will be, by definition, a limited war. I.e. it's not about absolutely being able to accomplish something, but about a simple cost benefit analysis.
Precisely. There is no weapon system the US military is 'afraid' of. An S-300, 400 or 500 is just another system to be dealt with. Whether it is dealt with by an F-22A, a B-2A, a Tomahawk cruise missile, an AARGM launched by a Navy fighter or an ICBM launched from Continental USA is tactically irrelevant.

There is a process that the US will have to go through to decide if it should launch military action or not and such a decision is NOT going to be dictated by the presence of any particular 'fanboi favourite' weapon system.
 

db2646

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
The article below is a bit confused. It mentions four batteries buts states specifically the deal is for 6 launchers and 144 missiles.




Precisely. There is no weapon system the US military is 'afraid' of. An S-300, 400 or 500 is just another system to be dealt with. Whether it is dealt with by an F-22A, a B-2A, a Tomahawk cruise missile, an AARGM launched by a Navy fighter or an ICBM launched from Continental USA is tactically irrelevant.

There is a process that the US will have to go through to decide if it should launch military action or not and such a decision is NOT going to be dictated by the presence of any particular 'fanboi favourite' weapon system.
I have to agree with your assessment Feanor. However, I was not suggesting of using an particular weapon system? I think the USA is not totally worried of any adversarial weapon systems. They are more concerned of the political and diplomatic ramifications if Russia sold those weapon systems to Syria. The USA is capable of destroying any weapon system thrown against it with all those various weapon systems in its arsenal.

The USA is more or less thinking about the impacts of the weapon systems falling into the wrong hands if Syria decides to ship them someplace else? Then there will be an tremendous shift/impact on the balance of military power within the region. Some political entity will be gaining much military leverage and the weapon system would probably slow down somebody's military advantage in the region?
 

Beatmaster

New Member
Another thing to consider next to the political impact is simply damage calculations and possible casualties on US side.
Obviously the anti air assets that Syria might have are a factor to consider and i am sure that in a ideal situation they could provide a reasonable degree of protection, otherwise Syria would not have bought them agree?

However this nation is at war, and moving assets around is not that easy, so i am convinced that the anti air assets will not be able to perform at 100% (not to mention that radar systems might not work to their full potential as i assume that during this war some of the military infrastructure is compromised/ damaged) , which in turn gives a possible air strike by the USAF a considerable higher success percentage and a significant lower "danger" rating to the mission itself.
Its kinda obvious that the US has enough ways of bombing Syria so the Syrian air assets are no more then a factor to calculate and can be reasonable easy neutralized if the US seriously wants to carry out air strikes.

That being said, to my knowledge the S-300 (And later variants and upgrades) has never been put to action, and specially not against such a capable airforce as the USAF. (TBH i actually do not know if any of the S-300 or its newer versions ever did see combat so please correct me if wrong)
Anyway assuming that i am right and that these S-300 never seen combat then this could be a little more troubling for the USAF.
Because without hard data you can only estimate of what it could do.
Now this probably will not stop the US from going trough with it, but what might put a halt to this, is obviously Russia, because would allow Russia the US to bomb Syria in the first place? And i am not talking Diplomatically because correct me if wrong but did this Russian general Makarov (or Makarev not sure here lol:rolleyes:) not state on the public news that in a military event against Syria it would come to the aid of Assad?

My point here is regardless if its just BS or not or just propaganda, ill could imagine that this would be a much bigger factor for concern to the US then those few S-300 assets.
However fact is fact if Syria manages to successfully deploy their anti air assets, and lets assume for the sake of argument that these systems are 100% operational and that their internal network is up and running, then Syria could field a reasonable radar grid with adequate effectiveness, that being said lucky for the US pilots i believe that the Kremlin did deny the sale of the S-300, still there is a lot of speculations what "other" systems Syria might have and if the air force of Syria is still operational then this is also another factor to consider.

In the end it all comes down risk assessment and success ratio's, however there will always be a significant risk to US pilots and with the many unknowns in Syria this risk might be a lot higher then with other missions.

Edit:
After some searching around i found that Syria does have:

Pantsir-S1 (SA-22)
9K37M2E Buk-M2E (SA-17) (36-50 delivered in 2010?)
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Air_Defense_Force"]Syrian Air Defense Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Not sure here but are these systems capable of making US air strikes more difficult?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I have to agree with your assessment Feanor. However, I was not suggesting of using an particular weapon system? I think the USA is not totally worried of any adversarial weapon systems. They are more concerned of the political and diplomatic ramifications if Russia sold those weapon systems to Syria. The USA is capable of destroying any weapon system thrown against it with all those various weapon systems in its arsenal.
There are no political ramifications to attacking Syria prior to vs. post Russia deliveries of S-300s. Russia already sells the S-300 freely. And Russia has delivered modern SAMs to Syria in the past. This would not mark some new Rubicon. It would simply indicate that Russia still support Assad. Which the US already knows. US military action will have diplomatic and international political ramifications, but that is in no way contingent on Russian deliveries of S-300s.

The USA is more or less thinking about the impacts of the weapon systems falling into the wrong hands if Syria decides to ship them someplace else? Then there will be an tremendous shift/impact on the balance of military power within the region. Some political entity will be gaining much military leverage and the weapon system would probably slow down somebody's military advantage in the region?
These are expensive and complex weapon systems. Who could they ship it to? Iran? Unlikely. There's a good chance Russia will not take kindly to a transfer of that sort. Hezbollah? It's unlikely they'd be able to operate it. Besides they don't have any of the support assets necessary to make it effective. So there really is nobody they could give it to that could create a significant problem. Not to mention those systems wouldn't make a major difference to anyone in the region.

The article below is a bit confused. It mentions four batteries buts states specifically the deal is for 6 launchers and 144 missiles.
6 launchers (TELs) would mean 1 SAM. At 900 mil USD 4 batteries is about right.

Precisely. There is no weapon system the US military is 'afraid' of. An S-300, 400 or 500 is just another system to be dealt with. Whether it is dealt with by an F-22A, a B-2A, a Tomahawk cruise missile, an AARGM launched by a Navy fighter or an ICBM launched from Continental USA is tactically irrelevant.
Well no. It is tactically relevant. One of the reasons Russia could be deliveries those systems to Syria now of all times is because they want to see how the West destroys them. At this point in time the S-300 is previous-generation, and a variant of it has already been sold to the US, so it's definitely compromised. Might as well hand it over to your allies to see, in the event of an intervention, how the West chooses to attack it, and then learn from it to improve tactics and employment of the next-generation S-400 and its support assets. Syria had money for these systems earlier and wanted them, but instead Russia refused to sell and convinced them to buy MiG-29M fighters, Yak-130 trainers, and Buk-M2 division-level SAMs. So the "why now" aspect of it is certainly interesting.

The other side of the equation of course is that they're fairly desperate to prevent any widescale western intervention.

There is a process that the US will have to go through to decide if it should launch military action or not and such a decision is NOT going to be dictated by the presence of any particular 'fanboi favourite' weapon system.
Sure. Not any one. But the aggregate effect these systems have is that of raising the bar. In this individual case support assets are already present, to some extent, in the form of Pantsyrs, Buk-M2s, etc. Granted the Syrians hardly have the EW support assets, or enough of a remaining sensor grid to build any sort of regional air-defense, but locally they could still try to contest airspace, requiring multiple dedicated SEAD/DEAD sorties, rather then just at-will air strikes against relevant targets (the way Israel seems to be capable of now).

I guess part of my point is that we should direct this discussion away from the US (other then within the context of whether it's even worthwhile for the US to intervene) and focus on the far more likely regional players. There's a reason that it wasn't the US asking Russia to refrain from selling those systems. If the US decides to intervene these systems will be a speedbump. But for Israel they could pose a dilemma.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
That being said, to my knowledge the S-300 (And later variants and upgrades) has never been put to action, and specially not against such a capable airforce as the USAF. (TBH i actually do not know if any of the S-300 or its newer versions ever did see combat so please correct me if wrong)
Anyway assuming that i am right and that these S-300 never seen combat then this could be a little more troubling for the USAF.
Because without hard data you can only estimate of what it could do.
Russia sold an S-300V battalion to the US, in iirc '95. Not to mention Greece (a NATO member) has the S-300PMU, the ones originally sold to Cyprus.

Now this probably will not stop the US from going trough with it, but what might put a halt to this, is obviously Russia, because would allow Russia the US to bomb Syria in the first place? And i am not talking Diplomatically because correct me if wrong but did this Russian general Makarov (or Makarev not sure here lol:rolleyes:) not state on the public news that in a military event against Syria it would come to the aid of Assad?
I doubt that. Do you have a source? There's also the fact that Makarov has made idiotic public statements in the past. Or perhaps not idiotic, but simply misleading and outright wrong.

After some searching around i found that Syria does have:

Pantsir-S1 (SA-22)
9K37M2E Buk-M2E (SA-17) (36-50 delivered in 2010?)

Not sure here but are these systems capable of making US air strikes more difficult?
More difficult? Yes. A lot? Not really. I seriously doubt whether the Syrians will be able to pair up their S-300s and Pantsyr-1s the way they have to be. The VVS had considerable difficulties doing it. They don't have any of the other support assets to make them work.
 

Beatmaster

New Member
Russia sold an S-300V battalion to the US, in iirc '95. Not to mention Greece (a NATO member) has the S-300PMU, the ones originally sold to Cyprus.



I doubt that. Do you have a source? There's also the fact that Makarov has made idiotic public statements in the past. Or perhaps not idiotic, but simply misleading and outright wrong.



More difficult? Yes. A lot? Not really. I seriously doubt whether the Syrians will be able to pair up their S-300s and Pantsyr-1s the way they have to be. The VVS had considerable difficulties doing it. They don't have any of the other support assets to make them work.
Makarov said that in one of those Russia today movie clips on their site.
I actually did try to find it, but other then slamming NATO over the missile shield and warning US over Iran i did not find it.

Anyway that being said what do you think that Syria is going to do if the US votes to do the strikes? i mean what can we expect? given the situation within Syria.?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Makarov said that in one of those Russia today movie clips on their site.
I actually did try to find it, but other then slamming NATO over the missile shield and warning US over Iran i did not find it.

Anyway that being said what do you think that Syria is going to do if the US votes to do the strikes? i mean what can we expect? given the situation within Syria.?
What will Syria do? If they're smart, turn off all their SAMs (save the occasional pot-shot), and hope they can survive it. If they're not smart, they will try to fight, and lose all their remaining air defense assets, very very quickly.
 

db2646

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
There are no political ramifications to attacking Syria prior to vs. post Russia deliveries of S-300s. Russia already sells the S-300 freely. And Russia has delivered modern SAMs to Syria in the past. This would not mark some new Rubicon. It would simply indicate that Russia still support Assad. Which the US already knows. US military action will have diplomatic and international political ramifications, but that is in no way contingent on Russian deliveries of S-300s.



These are expensive and complex weapon systems. Who could they ship it to? Iran? Unlikely. There's a good chance Russia will not take kindly to a transfer of that sort. Hezbollah? It's unlikely they'd be able to operate it. Besides they don't have any of the support assets necessary to make it effective. So there really is nobody they could give it to that could create a significant problem. Not to mention those systems wouldn't make a major difference to anyone in the region.



6 launchers (TELs) would mean 1 SAM. At 900 mil USD 4 batteries is about right.



Well no. It is tactically relevant. One of the reasons Russia could be deliveries those systems to Syria now of all times is because they want to see how the West destroys them. At this point in time the S-300 is previous-generation, and a variant of it has already been sold to the US, so it's definitely compromised. Might as well hand it over to your allies to see, in the event of an intervention, how the West chooses to attack it, and then learn from it to improve tactics and employment of the next-generation S-400 and its support assets. Syria had money for these systems earlier and wanted them, but instead Russia refused to sell and convinced them to buy MiG-29M fighters, Yak-130 trainers, and Buk-M2 division-level SAMs. So the "why now" aspect of it is certainly interesting.

The other side of the equation of course is that they're fairly desperate to prevent any widescale western intervention.



Sure. Not any one. But the aggregate effect these systems have is that of raising the bar. In this individual case support assets are already present, to some extent, in the form of Pantsyrs, Buk-M2s, etc. Granted the Syrians hardly have the EW support assets, or enough of a remaining sensor grid to build any sort of regional air-defense, but locally they could still try to contest airspace, requiring multiple dedicated SEAD/DEAD sorties, rather then just at-will air strikes against relevant targets (the way Israel seems to be capable of now).

I guess part of my point is that we should direct this discussion away from the US (other then within the context of whether it's even worthwhile for the US to intervene) and focus on the far more likely regional players. There's a reason that it wasn't the US asking Russia to refrain from selling those systems. If the US decides to intervene these systems will be a speedbump. But for Israel they could pose a dilemma.
I respectfully disagree that there will be NO political ramifications if Russia sells the S-300 to Syria. This is why: I would think that Syria will need the technical expertise of Russian soldiers or technicians to teach them how to operate the anti-aircraft weapons systems. Thereby if the USA decides to take out these weapon systems, a few Russian soldiers or technicians may get killed along the way as well as the destruction of the weapon systems. Hence the political and diplomatic impacts and ramifications.

As far as the weapon systems as mere speedbumps, I do agree that those will pose a minute speedbumps against the USA's various weapons of destruction!
 

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Quite honestly deciding how and when to enforce a no fly zone is much later in the decision making process. The important questions need to be answered first. What would a no fly zone achieve, to what benefit and to whom? The diret benefits are easier to observe and understand, it's the indirects that need considerable deliberation and I am sorry to say we do not have the best track record doing this. Simply establishing a no fly zone is not a goal, it's contributory to achieving a desired outcome/change in behaviour. Getting the west to agree on this is going to be the biggest hurdle. Unless the Russian government is vigorously defending Syria, I don't see their systems being there as any sort of show stopper. It sure hasn't been the case in the past.
 

db2646

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #17
Quite honestly deciding how and when to enforce a no fly zone is much later in the decision making process. The important questions need to be answered first. What would a no fly zone achieve, to what benefit and to whom? The diret benefits are easier to observe and understand, it's the indirects that need considerable deliberation and I am sorry to say we do not have the best track record doing this. Simply establishing a no fly zone is not a goal, it's contributory to achieving a desired outcome/change in behaviour. Getting the west to agree on this is going to be the biggest hurdle. Unless the Russian government is vigorously defending Syria, I don't see their systems being there as any sort of show stopper. It sure hasn't been the case in the past.
I agree. There is always a process that the US Government follows for such operation(s). Not only the US DOD is involved, the Intelligence Community, but I would think very much The State Department is also in the decision making. NATO in this case is also consulted and friendly countries in the region. Of course the President of the United States makes the ultimate decision whether to go or not to go.
 

My2Cents

Active Member
The important questions need to be answered first. What would a no fly zone achieve, to what benefit and to whom?
You have to think like a politician. It allows participating governments to look like they are doing something without too much risk of casualties that could cause fallout at home.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTmfwklFM-M

The real challenge will be when chemical weapons usage becomes to blatant that governments cannot continue to obfuscate on promised action.
 
Top