Effect of S300 & S400 on any no-fly zone

[2007yellow430]

One of the things that both Trump and Clinton have advocated is that a "no-fly" zone be established in Syria. I just saw today, that Russia has established various integrated aviation defense systems, specifically the S300 & S400 missile systems.

I am curious as to how this will affect any US or European ideas about establishing any no-fly zones in Syria.

Art

 

[Boagrius]

It's an interesting question. Certainly the oft quoted range performance of a missile like the 40N6 would sugggest that an S400 complex could cover a sizeable chunk of Syrian airspace, thereby complicating matters significantly. Then again, I do wonder whether:

a.) The Russians would be particularly liberal with the expenditure of such potentially expensive "ammunition"

b.) The aforementioned range stats are truly representative of what can be reliably achieved against fast, maneuverable, networked flights of tactical US/western aircraft. I could see the true range rings been drawn around such systems being smaller in this case as compared to lumbering ISR assets, tankers and so on.

I imagine there are other posters here who can offer more insight than yours truly though

 

[ngatimozart]

From my earlier post (today) in the War Against Isis thread.

Deployment of mobile and interchangeable S-400 and S-300 missile batteries, along with other short-range systems, now gives Russia the ability to shoot down planes and cruise missiles over at least 250 miles in all directions from western Syria, covering virtually all of that country as well as significant portions of Turkey, Israel, Jordan and the eastern Mediterranean.
Russian air defense raises stakes of U.S. confrontation in Syria

It will put the kibosh on any US attempt to enforce a "No Fly Zone" anywhere in Syria and as the article suggests, this IADS has the potential to increase the possibility of a military confrontation between the US and Russia.

 

[Boagrius]

From my earlier post (today) in the War Against Isis thread.

It will put the kibosh on any US attempt to enforce a "No Fly Zone" anywhere in Syria and as the article suggests, this IADS has the potential to increase the possibility of a military confrontation between the US and Russia.

I'm trying to think if it would be possible for the US to get Patriot or SM6 into theatre in any meaningful way. My hunch says no, but it could take some of the relevance away from the local S300/400 batteries if so.

Definitely a big problem given that (I imagine) you'd basically have to destroy the SAM complexes themselves to reliably enforce such a no fly zone. I can't imagine the F22 fleet (perhaps the only available one capable of operating inside the IADS) is large enough to enforce one on its own.

 

[Toblerone]

If there is a serious military escalation Russia may launch missiles and potentially bring down a US aircraft. Then they will deny that their forces launched *any* missiles *at all*, silently putting the blame on the syrian regime. The syrian regime will deny it as well, a propaganda campaign will commence to muddle the waters, mentioning US-provided MANPADs in the hands of rogue rebels or accusing the USA or Israel of orchestrating a false flag operation, or providing radar evidence of no rocket being launched and the aircraft crashing due to technical problems or that it wasn't a manned aircraft possibly ... :jump2

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm trying to think if it would be possible for the US to get Patriot or SM6 into theatre in any meaningful way. My hunch says no, but it could take some of the relevance away from the local S300/400 batteries if so.

Definitely a big problem given that (I imagine) you'd basically have to destroy the SAM complexes themselves to reliably enforce such a no fly zone. I can't imagine the F22 fleet (perhaps the only available one capable of operating inside the IADS) is large enough to enforce one on its own.

IMHO it's too late for the US to call for, or unilaterally institute a "no fly zone" now. That should've been done ages ago and now they lost the moral and political authority too because of all the hand wringing that they have done. The article below suggests that in fact the US has lost control in the Middle East and that Russia is now the new sheriff there.

Israel Knows That Putin Is the Middle East’s New Sheriff

 

[Boagrius]

IMHO it's too late for the US to call for, or unilaterally institute a "no fly zone" now. That should've been done ages ago and now they lost the moral and political authority too because of all the hand wringing that they have done. The article below suggests that in fact the US has lost control in the Middle East and that Russia is now the new sheriff there.

Israel Knows That Putin Is the Middle East’s New Sheriff

I agree - as I said before the establishment of the Russian IADS would seem to make an act of war against the Russians (SEAD/DEAD) necessary to viably enforce such a no fly zone. Obvious non-starter there.

Then again I don't know that it'd be fair to call Russia the new sheriff in the Middle East overall. Granted - they've made their presence felt in Syria - but they're still ultimately consolidating a foothold they already had in that particular country for quite some time beforehand.

US naval power combined with numerous assets in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and around the Persian Gulf must surely give them better power projection potential in the overall Middle East region than the Russians could ever realistically muster, though..?

Just my 2c.

 

[Feanor]

IMHO it's too late for the US to call for, or unilaterally institute a "no fly zone" now. That should've been done ages ago and now they lost the moral and political authority too because of all the hand wringing that they have done. The article below suggests that in fact the US has lost control in the Middle East and that Russia is now the new sheriff there.

Israel Knows That Putin Is the Middle East’s New Sheriff

Interesting article, but the author seems unaware of Israel's and Russia's special relations over the past two decades. The Israelis tend to play a straightforward tit for tat game in foreign relations, and it's a game Russia both understands and is more then willing to play. I think that, if Russia plays straight with Israel, both sides have much to gain from this cooperation. And there are signs that some agreements are already in place. When Russia deployed to Syria, they had a coordination center up and running with Israel on day 1. Yet getting one with the US took iirc two weeks of additional talks. When Israel bombed Hezbollah leadership in Syria, Russia didn't make any noise about it. When the US accidentally or "accidentally" hit Syrian positions, Russia raised hell in the UN and in the press. Given that Israel is fundamentally anti-Assad (going so far as to support jihadis against Syria) it will be interesting to see how these things develop over the next year. Right now it appears that many if not all of the pockets around Damascus will fall, freeing up additional forces for operations in the south. The SAA hasn't shown a great ability to manage multiple strategic offensive operations, and they've been mostly quiet around Deraa for a reason, but I don't think it can last permanently.

 

[ngatimozart]

If there is a serious military escalation Russia may launch missiles and potentially bring down a US aircraft. Then they will deny that their forces launched *any* missiles *at all*, silently putting the blame on the syrian regime. The syrian regime will deny it as well, a propaganda campaign will commence to muddle the waters, mentioning US-provided MANPADs in the hands of rogue rebels or accusing the USA or Israel of orchestrating a false flag operation, or providing radar evidence of no rocket being launched and the aircraft crashing due to technical problems or that it wasn't a manned aircraft possibly ... :jump2

I doubt if Russia would do that to a US, UK or French aircraft, or even a NATO one. The risks are to great of such a thing escalating out of control really quickly. The Syrians on the other hand are another story, however I think the Russians would not want them creating an incident because they have to much to lose.

 

[Blackshoe]

IMHO it's too late for the US to call for, or unilaterally institute a "no fly zone" now. That should've been done ages ago and now they lost the moral and political authority too because of all the hand wringing that they have done.

IMHO, the calls for the NFZ now are political theater to sound good on the campaign trail, knowing they'll never need to be executed.

 

[Ranger25]

IMHO, the calls for the NFZ now are political theater to sound good on the campaign trail, knowing they'll never need to be executed.

One would hope a trigger happy Russian Crew doesn't start a major conflict by taking a shot at a coalition aircraft.

The West would have limited options indeed

-do nothing and lose

-eliminate the IADS with combined TLAM/Air Strike potentially sea launched (SSGN?)

-what would a Russian Naval response be to sea based launches against their systems?

Let hope cooler heads prevail.

 

[the concerned]

I would have thought the moment that we try to establish any NFZ then Russia and Syria would shut the airspace over Syria declaring all aircraft hostile making anti isis operations more difficult.

 

[colay1]

This is an incident waiting to happen. There are US and Coalition troops on the ground and any Russian/Syrian airstrike in their vicinity will meet a response from US fighter aircraft. Russia says such an act would trigger their IADS to respond. The potential for the brown matter to start flying is high.

 

[Waseb Al-Qisuin]

Maybe I am missing the link here, but before thinking of the S-300 and S-400 regarding a no-fly Zone and if the russians would engage US aircraft with these, you may think one step back and realise that US Air Power would have to engage the russian/syrian Air Force that operates over Syria in the first place, in order to enforce this non-fly Zone. Is that likely? Soviet Pilots were flying against UN Forces or operating SAMs against Free World Forces in Southeastasia but that is not the same kind of escalation, enforcing a no flyzone on russians in Syria sounds like overall air-and navalwar to me.

 

[2007yellow430]

Maybe I am missing the link here, but before thinking of the S-300 and S-400 regarding a no-fly Zone and if the russians would engage US aircraft with these, you may think one step back and realise that US Air Power would have to engage the russian/syrian Air Force that operates over Syria in the first place, in order to enforce this non-fly Zone. Is that likely? Soviet Pilots were flying against UN Forces or operating SAMs against Free World Forces in Southeastasia but that is not the same kind of escalation, enforcing a no flyzone on russians in Syria sounds like overall air-and navalwar to me.

Wouldn't the situation arise when Russian or maybe Syrian planes were either rendering support or bombing, and US planes went to attack? Systems could be used before the planes got engaged.

Art

 

[Waseb Al-Qisuin]

Wouldn't the situation arise when Russian or maybe Syrian planes were either rendering support or bombing, and US planes went to attack? Systems could be used before the planes got engaged.

Art

Sure and US planners know that and to my thinking, if they plan a No-fly-zone they know that they would have to go against lots of russian infrastructure, naval and air assets to enforce that hence it would be overall air and naval war. I really cant see how it can end up else. It is quite obligatory that the russians defend their aircraft with the assets they have in theater. The US would certainly have to use an incredible amount of stand-off weaponry to defeat the IADS, and do the same as usual deploying decoys, EW and what else. It will be madness and lots of attrition.

 

[gazzzwp]

Sure and US planners know that and to my thinking, if they plan a No-fly-zone they know that they would have to go against lots of russian infrastructure, naval and air assets to enforce that hence it would be overall air and naval war. I really cant see how it can end up else. It is quite obligatory that the russians defend their aircraft with the assets they have in theater. The US would certainly have to use an incredible amount of stand-off weaponry to defeat the IADS, and do the same as usual deploying decoys, EW and what else. It will be madness and lots of attrition.

There is something else to consider. Syria always has been Russia's client. Imagine what the US response would be if Russia started intervening directly in the Yemen war.

The US has to respect this as matter of honour. Not that Russia's actions over Aleppo deserve respect but it is due I believe when looking at their involvement overall.