S300 Arrives in Syria

[gazzzwp]

First S-300 air defense systems already in Syria – Assad comments, page 16 — RT News

A game changer to the Syrian conflict according to many but how long before the Israeli Air Force try and destroy the batteries? I wonder how many will actually be delivered?

What are the indirect risks? Falling into the hands of Terrorist organisations for example particularly in the environment of an unstable country currently in civil war.

Then there is the possibility of an airliner being hit by a stray missile triggered by an Israeli attack since these missiles have a long range.

Lots of possibilities here. Have Russia taken a risk of being humiliated by an all out and successful Israeli strike? How will Russia then respond?

 

[RobWilliams]

Ok, I looked for other sources first because I don't really have much faith in RT.

BBC News - Syrian president Assad says army 'has balance of power'

The Syrian army has scored "major victories" against rebels and now holds "the balance of power" in the conflict, President Bashar al-Assad has told a Lebanese TV station.

He also suggested Syria may have received the first shipment of an advanced Russian air defence system.

<snip>

He said he was "very confident" about the victory of his forces, and said Russia had fulfilled some of its weapons contracts.

However, he did not specify whether this included the S-300 missiles - a highly capable surface-to-air missile system that, as well as targeting aircraft, also has the capacity to engage ballistic missiles.

I get that Russia vowed to send them the system, but until I hear concrete confirmation of either the delivery from Russia or evidence of their existance in Syria then all of this smoke and mirrors cuts no ice with me i'm afraid. It's been heard before; Assad has S-300s and they've never been confirmed, so it's mainly the confirmation that i'm after rather than his word.

 

[Quiller]

Does this matter?

Even if the missile system is delivered, why would it matter in the short run? One thing I have learned from this site and all the posts is a platform, by itself, isn't that meaningful. What matters is the integration of the platform into the overall battle plan and combat systems. It is doubtful that Syrian crews, even trained in absentia in Russia have become that proficient in operating these systems in live combat situations. That may mean Russian techs have to operate the systems on the ground in Syria. True, Russians have done this before, but not when the risks to their operatives were so apparent and so high. It seems unlikely that S-300's would be up to effective combat readiness before being attacked by Israeli assets, especially since these missiles could, if left intact and after training, could down aircraft inside Israel itself. I don't think dropping a batch of S-300's into the Syrian battlespace suddenly becomes a game changer without more.

 

[colay]

This former Defense Minister seems more worried about the risk to Russian marketing efforts. I don't see how Israel will tolerate a threat that can potentially reach into Israeli airspace.


Analysis: Israel could swoop on S-300 missiles in Syria, but with risks | Reuters

... Former Israeli defense minister Moshe Arens said Moscow should be mindful of the harm that seeing the S-300 defeated in Syria would do to exports of the system elsewhere.

Past clients include Cyprus, whose S-300, posted on the Greek island of Crete, may have given Israel's air force a chance for test runs during maneuvers over the Mediterranean.

"I'd be very surprised if the Russians deliver this system (to Syria)," Arens told Israel Radio. "It would become apparent that our air force is capable of besting this system, and that would not make for good advertising."

Playing down the strategic challenge that would be posed to Israel by a Syrian S-300, Arens added. "We are not afraid. This would simply change the situation, and we are not interested in the situation being changed to our detriment."

 

[gazzzwp]

Even if the missile system is delivered, why would it matter in the short run? One thing I have learned from this site and all the posts is a platform, by itself, isn't that meaningful. What matters is the integration of the platform into the overall battle plan and combat systems. It is doubtful that Syrian crews, even trained in absentia in Russia have become that proficient in operating these systems in live combat situations. That may mean Russian techs have to operate the systems on the ground in Syria. True, Russians have done this before, but not when the risks to their operatives were so apparent and so high. It seems unlikely that S-300's would be up to effective combat readiness before being attacked by Israeli assets, especially since these missiles could, if left intact and after training, could down aircraft inside Israel itself. I don't think dropping a batch of S-300's into the Syrian battlespace suddenly becomes a game changer without more.

I agree; it's too naive to think that delivery of a new batch of high tech hardware is immediately going to change the status quo. It needs expertise and experience to operate the batteries effectively.

Here's an interesting idea:

Could the Israeli's try out the system by putting some drones into the arena? No one will be too outraged if a drone get's downed, and it could reap benefits by finding weaknesses in the system. The drones could even take out the batteries. Who knows?

 

[ADMk2]

I agree; it's too naive to think that delivery of a new batch of high tech hardware is immediately going to change the status quo. It needs expertise and experience to operate the batteries effectively.

Here's an interesting idea:

Could the Israeli's try out the system by putting some drones into the arena? No one will be too outraged if a drone get's downed, and it could reap benefits by finding weaknesses in the system. The drones could even take out the batteries. Who knows?

Who knows indeed. Who knows if an Israeli special forces unit, might capture this battery intact and ship the whole thing straight back to Israel and when finished, then on to America? Who knows if a Paveway II / JDAM might blow this whole unit to smithereens?

The whole idea that a single battery of surface to air missiles will make a difference to a modern airforce of the size and capability of the Israeli or US Air Force is laughable.

Good luck to you if you think otherwise.

 

[Feanor]

This is wrong. Assad made a questionable statement that said that Russia is continuing to fullfill all arms delivery obligations, and all contracts are still in force (probably in response to the selling off of MiG-29Ms meant for Syria, to Serbia), with some deliveries having taken place already. This was misinterpreted as describing the S-300 contract. Industry sources claim that the handover has not occurred, probably won't occur this year, possibly even at all.

 

[gazzzwp]

This is wrong. Assad made a questionable statement that said that Russia is continuing to fullfill all arms delivery obligations, and all contracts are still in force (probably in response to the selling off of MiG-29Ms meant for Syria, to Serbia), with some deliveries having taken place already. This was misinterpreted as describing the S-300 contract. Industry sources claim that the handover has not occurred, probably won't occur this year, possibly even at all.

This makes a lot more sense.

So the whole thing was simply media invention?

The Russians by putting one of their most feared and sophisticated systems in the middle of a civil war and vulnerable to one of the best trained air forces in the world was a huge risk and potentially a PR disaster. It would do the myth of high tech Russian military technology no good whatsoever.

 

[spikehades]

Russia would be better off giving Iskander cruise missiles to Syria. Assad can use these as a credible strategic deterrence against any aggressive Israeli moves.

 

[Feanor]

This makes a lot more sense.

So the whole thing was simply media invention?

Yep. Russian media is notoriously bad, going to the point of outright lying. So whenever you see news that seem incredible, look for additional sources.

The Russians by putting one of their most feared and sophisticated systems in the middle of a civil war and vulnerable to one of the best trained air forces in the world was a huge risk and potentially a PR disaster. It would do the myth of high tech Russian military technology no good whatsoever.

Well Russian military technology doesn't sell based on myths. It sells based on political connections, and Russian reputation as a reliable supplier to countries in questionable circumstances. Russian image as a reliable supplier took a bit of a hit when they sold Iran down-river (for the second time no less). This could be a great way to cater to the most loyal customers, by demonstrating that even if they're in the middle of a civil war, Russia will still make deliveries.

Anyways, the S-300s aside, an alleged arms request was leaked, from the Syrian military to Rosoborneksport. The document lists large quantities of small arms, and crew served heavy weapons, as well as ammo and other infantry equipment. The Washington post published the original doc and a translation.

[ame="http://www.scribd.com/doc/144517399/Syrian-army-weapons-request"]Syrian army weapons request[/ame]

These types of delivery would be a lot more relevant and helpful to the Syrians, if this is true.

Russia would be better off giving Iskander cruise missiles to Syria. Assad can use these as a credible strategic deterrence against any aggressive Israeli moves.

Iskander cruise missiles have yet to complete factory trials, never mind state trials. They're a prototype under development. They certainly aren't ready to be delivered. And even if they were they certainly wouldn't be a credible deterrent.

 

[spikehades]

Yep. Russian media is notoriously bad, going to the point of outright lying. So whenever you see news that seem incredible, look for additional sources.



Well Russian military technology doesn't sell based on myths. It sells based on political connections, and Russian reputation as a reliable supplier to countries in questionable circumstances. Russian image as a reliable supplier took a bit of a hit when they sold Iran down-river (for the second time no less). This could be a great way to cater to the most loyal customers, by demonstrating that even if they're in the middle of a civil war, Russia will still make deliveries.

Anyways, the S-300s aside, an alleged arms request was leaked, from the Syrian military to Rosoborneksport. The document lists large quantities of small arms, and crew served heavy weapons, as well as ammo and other infantry equipment. The Washington post published the original doc and a translation.

Syrian army weapons request

These types of delivery would be a lot more relevant and helpful to the Syrians, if this is true.



Iskander cruise missiles have yet to complete factory trials, never mind state trials. They're a prototype under development. They certainly aren't ready to be delivered. And even if they were they certainly wouldn't be a credible deterrent.

The Iskander cruise missile variant may not be in service but the theatre ballistic missile is. Here is what Wikipedia has to say:

"In flight, the missile follows a quasi-ballistic path, performing evasive maneuvers in the terminal phase of flight and releasing decoys in order to penetrate missile defense systems. The missile never leaves the atmosphere as it follows a relatively flat trajectory.[citation needed]
The Russian Iskander-M cruises at hypersonic speed of 2100–2600 m/s (Mach 6–7) at a height of 50 km. The Iskander-M weighs 4615 kg, carries a warhead of 710–800 kg, has a range of 400–480 km, and achieves a CEP (Circular error probable) of 5–7 meters. During flight it can maneuver at different altitudes and trajectories and can pull up to 20 to 30 G to evade anti-ballistic missiles. For example, in one of the trajectory modes it can dive at the target at 90 degrees at the rate of 700–800 m/s performing anti-ABM maneuvers.[3][6]"

So using the Iskander the Syrian government would not only be able to attack tactical targets; troop formations, forward bases, HQs, etc but it is accurate and survivable enough to target strategic interests too. Such as the Knesset, Knesset members homes (assassinate the Israeli leadership) , Dimona, air and naval bases, civilian airports, radar installations. It could even be used to neutralise iron dome and create an opening for a mass rocket and unguided missile attack from Hezbollah.

The Iskander (in large numbers) would be an effective knife at the Israeli leadership's throat.

 

[Feanor]

The Iskander cruise missile variant may not be in service but the theatre ballistic missile is.

...

Russia would be better off giving Iskander cruise missiles to Syria.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say:

How is this relevant?

So using the Iskander the Syrian government would not only be able to attack tactical targets; troop formations, forward bases

Only if they have relevant intel on those troop formations and tactical targets. Look at the problems the Russian military had with it in Georgia. The Iskander was plenty useful, but because of the time gap between when the recon Su-24Ms took the photos, and when the missiles came down, they ended up hitting an empty flea market, instead of the assembly point for Georgian reservists.

HQs, etc but it is accurate and survivable enough to target strategic interests too. Such as the Knesset, Knesset members homes (assassinate the Israeli leadership) , Dimona, air and naval bases, civilian airports, radar installations. It could even be used to neutralise iron dome and create an opening for a mass rocket and unguided missile attack from Hezbollah.

The Iskander isn't invulnerable to ABM, it's just harder to shoot down then classical operational-tactical missiles. They would need a lot of them to achieve significant effects. And given production bottlenecks, and the expensive price tag, I don't see how Syria can get enough to use as any sort of deterrent. There's also the fact that the Iskander has a fairly small warhead. It's not a WMD. So unless you're suggesting that Assad load them with chemical weapons, they will only be useful against relatively small targets. Finally, who cares? Assad's biggest problem is a bunch of rebels that are dispersed, armed with small arms and crew serves, decentralized, and lacking large bases. How does a high-end operational-tactical ballistic missile help him with this?

The Iskander (in large numbers) would be an effective knife at the Israeli leadership's throat.

How do you suggest Assad pay for these large numbers? And what kind of delivery timetable are you thinking of? Not to mention Russia will prioritize delivering these systems to their own armed forces, before exporting them to Assad. Finally, is Israel really his biggest problem? He's losing tanks by the handful to light infantry with RPGs, because his troops can't coordinate tank-infantry ops on the tactical level. It doesn't matter if he can flatten Israel, in fact it doesn't matter if he does flatten Israel. It won't stem the tide of foreign fighters or weapons, it won't placate the opposition forces, and it won't win him any favors with Russia or the west.

I won't go into the Russia-Israel relationship, that would make selling Iskanders to Syria problematic under the best of circumstances. But if you want another reason why these deliveries aren't possible, you can research that yourself.

EDIT: You want something interesting on the S-300 deliveries? They'll be coming out of MoD surplus stock, after overhaul and modernization. I.e. Russia is charging Syria similar prices to what China paid for new S-300PMUs, while delivering used ones. And this is while Syria barely has money to pay for anything. Consider what that says about Russian priorities in Syria.

 

[Lcf]

You want something interesting on the S-300 deliveries? They'll be coming out of MoD surplus stock, after overhaul and modernization. I.e. Russia is charging Syria similar prices to what China paid for new S-300PMUs, while delivering used ones. And this is while Syria barely has money to pay for anything. Consider what that says about Russian priorities in Syria.

Interesting. Can you provide sources for the S-300s meant for Syria?
As for the price, I've read an article somewhere a few years ago and, if I'm not mistaken, from the beginning of the 90s on several occasions the Chinese got eight batteries of PMUs and another 16 later on, all together worth around $1 billion and in 2003. they've finalized a contract worth another $1 billion, again, 16 batteries but this time it was PMU2.
That's several times more punch for pretty much the same money Assads paying for (presumably) four batteries. What am I missing?

 

[My2Cents]

You want something interesting on the S-300 deliveries? They'll be coming out of MoD surplus stock, after overhaul and modernization. I.e. Russia is charging Syria similar prices to what China paid for new S-300PMUs, while delivering used ones. And this is while Syria barely has money to pay for anything. Consider what that says about Russian priorities in Syria.

Could also be preparation for a post war negotiation strategy.

Russia is lending Assad the money for the purchase. If he wins they can ‘renegotiate’ the debt to bring the effective price down. If he loses they can try to collect from whatever government arises, before finally accepting a lesser (but close to actual) amount to drop the issue. The higher ‘price’ gives them some options.

 

[Feanor]

Interesting. Can you provide sources for the S-300s meant for Syria?
As for the price, I've read an article somewhere a few years ago and, if I'm not mistaken, from the beginning of the 90s on several occasions the Chinese got eight batteries of PMUs and another 16 later on, all together worth around $1 billion and in 2003. they've finalized a contract worth another $1 billion, again, 16 batteries but this time it was PMU2.
That's several times more punch for pretty much the same money Assads paying for (presumably) four batteries. What am I missing?

They didn't have China over a barrel. And the Chinese deal had little political significance.

S-300 production is shut down. The Soviet era factory has been shut down. S-400 production is currently being done by the experimental production facility, the same one that builds prototypes, etc. All S-300P sales are currently out of MoD or industry inventory. No new builds are available. The entire S-400 production line is bought up by the MoD through 2017.

Could also be preparation for a post war negotiation strategy.

Russia is lending Assad the money for the purchase. If he wins they can ‘renegotiate’ the debt to bring the effective price down. If he loses they can try to collect from whatever government arises, before finally accepting a lesser (but close to actual) amount to drop the issue. The higher ‘price’ gives them some options.

Are they lending? I haven't heard anything about a credit line. Supposedly they halted some deliveries because Syria couldn't pay. I'd be very surprised to see them open a credit line now of all times.

Here's the DID article on it.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/syria-buying-mig31s-mig35s-for-1-billion-03391/

 

[Blackshoe]

Are they lending? I haven't heard anything about a credit line. Supposedly they halted some deliveries because Syria couldn't pay. I'd be very surprised to see them open a credit line now of all times.

Here's the DID article on it.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/syria-buying-mig31s-mig35s-for-1-billion-03391/

There are reports that Russia is now printing money for the al-Assad regime, so there seems to be some financial/economic interaction going on.

 

[Feanor]

There are reports that Russia is now printing money for the al-Assad regime, so there seems to be some financial/economic interaction going on.

Oh I'm sure there's financial and economic interaction. But there's a difference between letting Assad borrow a printing press, and giving him a 900 million dollar credit line. Though it would be interesting to see what the details of the arrangement are.

Meanwhile it looks like arms deliveries to Syria have been resumed, and 3 ships with arms have sailed, but their exact path, location, or cargo are uncertain.

 

[Tico90]

"A game changer to the Syrian conflict according to many but how long before the Israeli Air Force try and destroy the batteries? I wonder how many will actually be delivered?

What are the indirect risks? Falling into the hands of Terrorist organisations for example particularly in the environment of an unstable country currently in civil war.

Then there is the possibility of an airliner being hit by a stray missile triggered by an Israeli attack since these missiles have a long range.

Lots of possibilities here. Have Russia taken a risk of being humiliated by an all out and successful Israeli strike? How will Russia then respond?"

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Russia sell an S-300 unit to America in the '90s? It would seem to me that doing that would make the missile system less useful, as the opponent now knows every electronic attack vulnerability the guidance system has, and can test the missile's kinematics to discover the limits of its abilities and methods to evade it. They also know the characteristics of its search radar, methods to evade detection, how to jam the radar successfully, etc.

Obviously, that doesn't make the SAM useless by any means, and the S-300 is still certainly a threat, but it does reduce its usefulness, and it makes SEAD/DEAD missions easier.

 

[STURM]

What are the indirect risks? Falling into the hands of Terrorist organisations for example particularly in the environment of an unstable country currently in civil war. .

Good luck to any ''terrorist'' who captures an S-300 and manages to figure out how to actually operate it.

Obviously, that doesn't make the SAM useless by any means, and the S-300 is still certainly a threat, but it does reduce its usefulness, and it makes SEAD/DEAD missions easier.

At the end of the day, if Uncle Sam gets involved, S-300s will complicate things a bit but will not be a game changer. Syria's ground AD network and its air arm would still be unable to change the outcome.

 

[2007yellow430]

Good luck to any ''terrorist'' who captures an S-300 and manages to figure out how to actually operate it.



At the end of the day, if Uncle Sam gets involved, S-300s will complicate things a bit but will not be a game changer. Syria's ground AD network and its air arm would still be unable to change the outcome.

Without knowing which model they got, commenting on their effect is speculative. As I understand it, there are at least 5 different versions, some quite a bit more capable them the earlier models. Has anyone found information of which version they got (if any)?