The Current Conflict In Syria

[Sandhi Yudha]

Russia is handing over S-300 units to Syria, the variant is unclear at this time (and it makes a pretty big difference). Russia is also stating that they will use EW assets against anyone attacking "objects in Syrian territory".

Интересный маневр
Россия передаст Сирии С-300

Yes, Russia is sending one or multiple S-300 units to Syria.
Rusland stuurt moderner luchtafweergeschut naar Syrië
I expect it will be operated by Russian crew.


Somewhere else i read this article.
Russian fighter jets intercept U.S. F-22 Raptor flying over Syria
Sep 24, 2018
in Aviation, News




A Su-35S air-superiority fighter jet of Russia’s Aerospace Force has intercepted and visually identified the U.S. F-22 Raptor Raptor combat aircraft flying over Syria.

A photographs posted by unofficial Russia’s military pilot Instagram account on 24 September has confirmed an intercept of the U.S. F-22 Raptor Raptor combat aircraft by the Russian Su-35S fighter jet.

Photographs, made by the infrared search and track fire control system of the Russian Su-35S, shows in infrared spectrum an F-22 Raptor fighter jet flying over Syria.

How genuine is the correctness of this report? It is taken from Russian fighter jets intercept U.S. F-22 Raptor flying over Syria which is just a blog, and not a news agency/newspaper/newschannel website...

 

[Feanor]

Russia has released a photo of the screen of an S-400 unit allegedly showing the Israeli F-16, the inbound S-200 missile, and the Il-20 directly inbetween the two. If this is correct, this would support the Russian version of events. Given where the incident took place, near Latakia, it would make sense that Russian sensors had an accurate picture of what was happening.

Новая официальная информация Министерства обороны России о сбитом в Сирии самолете Ил-20

Also new EW gear is arriving at Khmeimeem, and the reports are that the Syrians would get a single regiment of S-300PMU-2 systems from MoD surplus stocks. Along with the EW gear, 4 Su-30SM and 4 Su-35S fighter jets, accompanying 6 more Il-76 transports, have arrived at Khmeimeem.

Радиоэлектронный щит уже на базе Хмеймим: Минобороны разворачивает в Сирии средства РЭБ
Еще 6 Ил-76МД и 8 истребителей Су-30СМ и Су-35 прибыли в Хмеймим

 

[Todjaeger]

Russia has released a photo of the screen of an S-400 unit allegedly showing the Israeli F-16, the inbound S-200 missile, and the Il-20 directly inbetween the two. If this is correct, this would support the Russian version of events. Given where the incident took place, near Latakia, it would make sense that Russian sensors had an accurate picture of what was happening.

Новая официальная информация Министерства обороны России о сбитом в Сирии самолете Ил-20

Honestly, I found the information provided rather unconvincing. AFAIK, an S-200 missile uses SARH in the terminal phase, with a radar proximity fuse. That suggests to me that the Syrian S-200 operators had to be 'painting' the Russian IL-20 for the missile to home on that aircraft, as opposed to any of the Israeli F-16's. Similarly, while I do not know the RCS of either an Israeli F-16 or a Russian IL-20, I cannot imagine that the F-16's (even combined together in close proximity) having an RCS that approaches the RCS of a ELINT/SIGINT aircraft based off a large turboprop airliner from the 1950's. That would be like saying three F-16's flying in formation have an RCS close to that of a P-3 Orion... Further, many of the older style radars can provide operators with information to distinguish the sizes of various detected contacts based off radar returns.

With all that in mind, it looks more and more like Russia provided Syria with weapons it lacks the competence to use both safely and effectively. If Russia were to provide more capable GBAD systems to Syria like the S-300, then Russian aircraft would operate with an increased chance of there being another "friendly fire" incident. Personally, I suspect that if the Syrians were to successfully engage an aircraft with an S-300, then it would be more like to be another Russian aircraft than an Israeli one, unless the S-300 crew was also supplied by Russia.

 

[Feanor]

Honestly, I found the information provided rather unconvincing. AFAIK, an S-200 missile uses SARH in the terminal phase, with a radar proximity fuse. That suggests to me that the Syrian S-200 operators had to be 'painting' the Russian IL-20 for the missile to home on that aircraft, as opposed to any of the Israeli F-16's. Similarly, while I do not know the RCS of either an Israeli F-16 or a Russian IL-20, I cannot imagine that the F-16's (even combined together in close proximity) having an RCS that approaches the RCS of a ELINT/SIGINT aircraft based off a large turboprop airliner from the 1950's. That would be like saying three F-16's flying in formation have an RCS close to that of a P-3 Orion... Further, many of the older style radars can provide operators with information to distinguish the sizes of various detected contacts based off radar returns.

You know, your commentary matches perfectly with a Russian poster, who claims to have been an S-200V operator in the Soviet Army. He additionally suggests that due to required authorization from the command post to launch, and the nature of the system, if this happened they way Russia says it did, it indicates a huge failure on the part of both the Syrians and their Russian advisers.

Спутать Ил-20 с F-16 оператору ЗРК С-200В - все равно, что спутать "гвоздь" с "расческой"

With all that in mind, it looks more and more like Russia provided Syria with weapons it lacks the competence to use both safely and effectively. If Russia were to provide more capable GBAD systems to Syria like the S-300, then Russian aircraft would operate with an increased chance of there being another "friendly fire" incident. Personally, I suspect that if the Syrians were to successfully engage an aircraft with an S-300, then it would be more like to be another Russian aircraft than an Israeli one, unless the S-300 crew was also supplied by Russia.

Maybe. It's also possible that the S-200 that the Syrians operate isn't interoperable with current generation Russian systems, atleast without significant upgrades. Supplying them with the S-300 may remedy the situation by linking the Syrian IADS to the Russian one, possibly under Russian command. Supplying the crews is also more likely then would seem at first. Consider the tight schedule for delivering and deploying these systems. Consider also that the claim that the S-300PMU2 came from MoD storage is extremely unlikely. There might be, might be some S-300PM systems in storage, but the PMU2 specifically is an export version, and the most modern of the S-300 family. To put it in perspective, the S-300PMU3 is called the S-400. Not something likely to be found sitting in storage, when vintage S-300P systems are still around.

There's also no way to train Syrian operators and command staff to effectively deploy an entire regiment in mere days. Also, while the S-300PMU2 is a capable system, it requires supporting assets, including SHORAD, EW, ELINT, AEW, etc. The Syrians lack most of these (really all they could provide would be the Pantsyr-S1). Look at the way Russia deployed its S-400 in Khmeimeem. It has Pantsyr-S1, Tor-M1, a bundle of additional radars, significant EW gear, regular ELINT flights from the Il-20s, and regular visits from the A-50U (the closest thing Russia has to modern AEW). Compare that to a naked regiment of S-300PMU2. Add the statement Russia made about using their EW against anyone attacking targets in Syria. I'm suspecting that these systems maybe have Syrians driving the trucks, and guarding the perimeter, but with Russian officers manning all the more complex positions.

EDIT: Let's not forget that the Israelis have the F-35. I don't think Russia can reasonably expect to hand over the S-300PMU2 to the Syrians, and expect good things to come of it. Honestly, it would probably just end up with an embarrassing destruction of the system and assets by an Israeli strike. The only way they can use this system effectively is in conjunction with the Russian IADS around Latakia and Tartus.

 

[Todjaeger]

You know, your commentary matches perfectly with a Russian poster, who claims to have been an S-200V operator in the Soviet Army. He additionally suggests that due to required authorization from the command post to launch, and the nature of the system, if this happened they way Russia says it did, it indicates a huge failure on the part of both the Syrians and their Russian advisers.

Спутать Ил-20 с F-16 оператору ЗРК С-200В - все равно, что спутать "гвоздь" с "расческой"

https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/2693235.html

Me being me, I suspect either a PEBKAC or ID ten tee error, as it seems that the S-200 radar operators should have been able to tell just from looking at their screens whether the object(s) they detected where fighter-sized aircraft, or something significantly larger and with a correspondingly large RCS. It almost looks as though the Syrian GBAD system and the Russian IFF transponder systems were not functioning, while the S-200 operators were relying upon the (non-functioning) IFF system to prevent a friendly shoot down. If the above is accurate, then it would seem there are some fundamental problems in Syrian air defence processes and procedures, and having the best kit in the world would not mean much if one lacks competence.

Maybe. It's also possible that the S-200 that the Syrians operate isn't interoperable with current generation Russian systems, atleast without significant upgrades. Supplying them with the S-300 may remedy the situation by linking the Syrian IADS to the Russian one, possibly under Russian command. Supplying the crews is also more likely then would seem at first. Consider the tight schedule for delivering and deploying these systems. Consider also that the claim that the S-300PMU2 came from MoD storage is extremely unlikely. There might be, might be some S-300PM systems in storage, but the PMU2 specifically is an export version, and the most modern of the S-300 family. To put it in perspective, the S-300PMU3 is called the S-400. Not something likely to be found sitting in storage, when vintage S-300P systems are still around.

There's also no way to train Syrian operators and command staff to effectively deploy an entire regiment in mere days. Also, while the S-300PMU2 is a capable system, it requires supporting assets, including SHORAD, EW, ELINT, AEW, etc. The Syrians lack most of these (really all they could provide would be the Pantsyr-S1). Look at the way Russia deployed its S-400 in Khmeimeem. It has Pantsyr-S1, Tor-M1, a bundle of additional radars, significant EW gear, regular ELINT flights from the Il-20s, and regular visits from the A-50U (the closest thing Russia has to modern AEW). Compare that to a naked regiment of S-300PMU2. Add the statement Russia made about using their EW against anyone attacking targets in Syria. I'm suspecting that these systems maybe have Syrians driving the trucks, and guarding the perimeter, but with Russian officers manning all the more complex positions.

EDIT: Let's not forget that the Israelis have the F-35. I don't think Russia can reasonably expect to hand over the S-300PMU2 to the Syrians, and expect good things to come of it. Honestly, it would probably just end up with an embarrassing destruction of the system and assets by an Israeli strike. The only way they can use this system effectively is in conjunction with the Russian IADS around Latakia and Tartus.

If there was a "Syrian" S-300, crewed by Russian air defence personnel, and also able to link with other Russian EW/ISR in the area, that could provide a significantly better IADS than Syria currently has. OTOH if Russians were to fire at Israeli aircraft from "Syrian" GBAD systems, that could negatively impact existing agreements between Israel and Russia, and it could become a question of which is more valuable to Russia, maintaining good relations with Israel at the cost of whatever Syrian/Iranian/surrogate assets were destroyed by Israeli strikes. Of course it is also possible that Russia were to decide that the potential value of a relationship with Israel is less than that of maintaining good relations with Syria, Iran, and their respective surrogates

If an actual Syrian crew were to be operating an S-300, aside from the risk that Israel might decide to attack the unit and suceed, there would be IMO a real risk that the Syrian GBAD unit might accidentally engage Russian or Syrian aircraft due to incompetence and/or failing to follow proper procedures.

 

[Feanor]

Me being me, I suspect either a PEBKAC or ID ten tee error, as it seems that the S-200 radar operators should have been able to tell just from looking at their screens whether the object(s) they detected where fighter-sized aircraft, or something significantly larger and with a correspondingly large RCS. It almost looks as though the Syrian GBAD system and the Russian IFF transponder systems were not functioning, while the S-200 operators were relying upon the (non-functioning) IFF system to prevent a friendly shoot down. If the above is accurate, then it would seem there are some fundamental problems in Syrian air defence processes and procedures, and having the best kit in the world would not mean much if one lacks competence.

I understand this is a "what if", but consider this scenario. Russian makes an agreement with Syria about de-confliction vis-a-vis Israeli strikes, in exchange for Russia doing nothing to stop the Isralies from striking (and whatever other under-the-table deals they have going on). Russia makes this agreement, knowing the level of incompetence of the Syrians, and wanting to, among other things, get friendly assets out of the way for when the Israelis drop PGMs with pinpoint precision while the Syrians light up the sky taking potshots at whatever. Israel in this case breaks the agreement, giving Russia only 60 seconds of notice and even maneuvers somewhat close to a Russian aircraft, while being engaged by Syrian air defense. The result, a shoot down of a Russian Il-20. In this scenario Russia's claim makes sense, the Israelis violated their agreement, and behaved in a manner that can be considered reckless, if we take Syrian incompetence as a given. So does the Israeli defense, that it's the Iranians fault for trying to hide assets near Russian positions, as well as the Syrians fault for their general incompetence.

If there was a "Syrian" S-300, crewed by Russian air defence personnel, and also able to link with other Russian EW/ISR in the area, that could provide a significantly better IADS than Syria currently has. OTOH if Russians were to fire at Israeli aircraft from "Syrian" GBAD systems, that could negatively impact existing agreements between Israel and Russia, and it could become a question of which is more valuable to Russia, maintaining good relations with Israel at the cost of whatever Syrian/Iranian/surrogate assets were destroyed by Israeli strikes. Of course it is also possible that Russia were to decide that the potential value of a relationship with Israel is less than that of maintaining good relations with Syria, Iran, and their respective surrogates

I think Russia has clearly demonstrated that they don't intend to protect Iranian assets in Syria for Iran's sake. Of course this may change, but I suspect if it does it won't be due to valuing Iranians friendship. Rather if anything it will be done as a way of sending Israel a message about the consequences of this shootdown. Russia of course has the option, assuming their IADS is good, of engaging the inbound munitions, while letting the aircraft escape. Russia also has the option of setting up no-fly zones, and even potentially evicting the Iranian ground presence from them (or not allowing them to set up shop there in the first place) to minimize future risks.

If an actual Syrian crew were to be operating an S-300, aside from the risk that Israel might decide to attack the unit and suceed, there would be IMO a real risk that the Syrian GBAD unit might accidentally engage Russian or Syrian aircraft due to incompetence and/or failing to follow proper procedures.

Let's see how long it takes for the first systems to be on combat duty. That will tell us a lot about whether it's even possible to prepare a Syrian crew in time.

 

[the concerned]

It's only media reports but a couple of statements claim Israel has promised to destroy any air defence system targeting their aircraft regardless of origin

 

[STURM]

I think Russia has clearly demonstrated that they don't intend to protect Iranian assets in Syria for Iran's sake. Of course this may change, but I suspect if it does it won't be due to valuing Iranians friendship.

It's a win, win situation for Russia. Iran plays an active part defeating IS and propping up ASSAD [both in line with Russia's interests]. Russia in turn makes it clear that its not protecting Iran and tries to ensure there is no Iranian on Hezbollah presence along the Golan [which ironically is Syrian sovereign territory]; in doing so it maintains a certain level of leeway with Israel and keeps Uncle Sam out of the picture.

 

[STURM]

Russia also has the option of setting up no-fly zones, and even potentially evicting the Iranian ground presence from them (or not allowing them to set up shop there in the first place) to minimize future risks.

Evicting the Iranians at this point doesn't benefit Russia. By doing so Russia would be seen to be capitulating to Israeli and U.S. demands. For me, deploying an S-300 to Syria carries a certain level of risk and even the potential for embarrassment; in the event that Israeli planes operate in areas covered by the S-300 and manage to neutralise it. The decision to send the S-300 no doubt was intended to send a clear message. Whether it turns out to be sound move really remains to be seen.

Of topic but if I recall correctly there were Soviet manned Gammon sits in Libya at one point in the 1980's and off course, a Soviet operated IADS network that saw action against the Israelis in the War of Attrition.

 

[STURM]

The UAE and Saudi have publicly called for regime change in Iran. This of course is related to a large extent in their failure to overthrow Assad and the mess they've got themselves into in Yemen. From the UAE Foreign Minister : "I ask that hypothetically but it's not really hypothetical. The Gulf countries, Israel, and the countries in the immediate vicinity are the ones at immediate risk." He of course did not specify what would be the possible reason for Iran too take such a risky step which would lead to massive U.S. retaliation. Only a day ago Trump at the UN General Assembly stated that regime change in Iran was not what the U.S. is seeking. Trump also heaped praise on the leaders of Saudi and Egypt.

Saudi, UAE officials call for regime change in Iran at US summit

Opinion: The ceasefire between Russia and Turkey proves how far Putin has come out on top in Syria

'The Syrian civil war long ago ceased to be a struggle fought out by local participants. Syria has become an arena where foreign states confront each other, fight proxy wars and put their strength and influence to the test.The most important international outcome of war so far is that it has enabled Russia to re-establish itself as a great power. Moscow helped Assad secure his rule after the popular uprising in 2011 and later ensured his ultimate victory by direct military intervention in 2015. A senior diplomat from an Arab country recalls that early on in the Syrian war, he asked a US general with a command in the region what was the difference between the crisis in Syria and the one that had just ended with the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. The general responded with a single word: “Russia.”

'It is difficult to remember now, when Russia is being portrayed in the west as an aggressive predatory power threatening everybody, the extent which it was marginalised seven years ago when Nato was carrying out regime change in Libya.'

 

[Feanor]

Some updates.

A Tu-214PU has arrived at Khmeimeem, bolstering the forces there. It's an airborne command post. This makes sense if Russia is beefing up their IADS.

Ту-214ПУ бортовой номер RA-64517 прибыл на Хмеймим

There's also info from Russian sources stating that the Il-20M wasn't downed by a missile targetting the aircraft, instead allegedly the missile clipped the engine rotor blades as it was flying by the Il-20M, as it was trying to intercept the F-16 behind the Il-20M.

Ил-20 погубила поразительная случайность, а ракет было две

 

[ngatimozart]

There's also info from Russian sources stating that the Il-20M wasn't downed by a missile targetting the aircraft, instead allegedly the missile clipped the engine rotor blades as it was flying by the Il-20M, as it was trying to intercept the F-16 behind the Il-20M.

Ил-20 погубила поразительная случайность, а ракет было две

Have they found the IL-20M wreckage or the black boxes? I find that a bit difficult to understand because the warheads proximity fuse wouldn't have activated in the presence of the IL-20M. Unless the warhead isn't fused until it reaches the range of the alleged target, but that range and bearing is continuously altering through time. Secondly, clipping a multi-engined aircraft prop blade doesn't necessary mean downing the aircraft. If it was the prop in an outer engine then the damage done to the aircraft maybe minimal apart from the loss of an engine and if managed quickly not catastrophic. If however one of the blades punctured a fuel tank, or an inboard engine things could get interesting, but again if managed quickly not catastrophic. Same with a prop on an inner engine where the added danger is a blade or debris entering the fuselage, damaging / destroying aircraft systems, like hydraulic lines, electrics, etc.

 

[Feanor]

Have they found the IL-20M wreckage or the black boxes?

There was info of a GUGI vessel en route to do so, but I don't think it's been done yet. Unless of course they did it and didn't tell anyone.

I find that a bit difficult to understand because the warheads proximity fuse wouldn't have activated in the presence of the IL-20M. Unless the warhead isn't fused until it reaches the range of the alleged target, but that range and bearing is continuously altering through time. Secondly, clipping a multi-engined aircraft prop blade doesn't necessary mean downing the aircraft. If it was the prop in an outer engine then the damage done to the aircraft maybe minimal apart from the loss of an engine and if managed quickly not catastrophic. If however one of the blades punctured a fuel tank, or an inboard engine things could get interesting, but again if managed quickly not catastrophic. Same with a prop on an inner engine where the added danger is a blade or debris entering the fuselage, damaging / destroying aircraft systems, like hydraulic lines, electrics, etc.

These are great points, I can't really say much here, since my knowledge is limited. I'm simply translating what the Russian source is saying here. Apparently the Il-20 disappeared off radars 4 minutes after the incident. Re-reading the statement more carefully, it says the "propellers" plural, were hit. Maybe it got more then one engine?

«В это трудно поверить, но ракета сирийского комплекса С-200 не наводилась на Ил-20. Она просто задела винты самолета в полете по направлению к израильскому F-16,– рассказал газете высокопоставленный генерал ВВС РФ. – Ракет было две. Полет первой ракеты мимо себя экипаж видел и доложил об этом на землю. А вторая, предположительно, лишь задела самолет, разрушила винты, вызвала пожар – но не взорвалась. Экипаж боролся с пожаром, включал вторую и третью систему пожаротушения (первая включилась автоматически), докладывал обстановку на землю, но катастрофы не удалось избежать».

It also says that the impact cause a fire, and the crew fought the flames, activating secondary and tertiary fire-fighting systems (the primary went on automatically) and reported the situation to ground control, but ultimately failed to avoid the catastrophe.

EDIT: I apologize for the slow reply, I haven't had as much time lately.

 

[Todjaeger]

These are great points, I can't really say much here, since my knowledge is limited. I'm simply translating what the Russian source is saying here. Apparently the Il-20 disappeared off radars 4 minutes after the incident. Re-reading the statement more carefully, it says the "propellers" plural, were hit. Maybe it got more then one engine?

«В это трудно поверить, но ракета сирийского комплекса С-200 не наводилась на Ил-20. Она просто задела винты самолета в полете по направлению к израильскому F-16,– рассказал газете высокопоставленный генерал ВВС РФ. – Ракет было две. Полет первой ракеты мимо себя экипаж видел и доложил об этом на землю. А вторая, предположительно, лишь задела самолет, разрушила винты, вызвала пожар – но не взорвалась. Экипаж боролся с пожаром, включал вторую и третью систему пожаротушения (первая включилась автоматически), докладывал обстановку на землю, но катастрофы не удалось избежать».

It also says that the impact cause a fire, and the crew fought the flames, activating secondary and tertiary fire-fighting systems (the primary went on automatically) and reported the situation to ground control, but ultimately failed to avoid the catastrophe.

EDIT: I apologize for the slow reply, I haven't had as much time lately.

My take on it is that either the source is providing inaccurate information, or that there was a cascade of failures.

If the information that the missile (intact and prior to warhead detonation) struck one of the props, or alternatively one of the props struck the missile, that would mean the missile passed close enough to a wing and the fuselage to go into the 4.5 m diameter area where a prop rotates, without striking the much greater areas occupied by the wings and fuselage. Yes, it is possible for a missile to pass that closely, but the odds are not in it's favour. Secondly, as Ng pointed out, an aircraft can take a hit to and loss of a single engine and remain airworthy. If a single missile struck one of the props, and managed to then cause another prop to be struck as well as a fire to break out, that sounds as though either the missile or it's warhead detonated, perhaps both. Given that the S-200 missile has a proximity fuze and not a HTK or impact fuze, then the warhead should not have detonated. Therefore either there was an equipment failure and the fuze did detonate the warhead, or the remaining liquid rocket fuel/engine detonated from the impact. The detonation would then have to have been sufficient to scatter liquid rocket fuel and missile debris sufficiently to damage a second prop as well as spread or start a fire that onboard fire suppression systems were unable to negate, or the detonation would have had to knock out the fire suppression systems.

The more these factors come together, the less and less likely the situation seems. IMO it would be far more likely that the proximity warhead detonated near the IL-20 and the HE-frag warhead damaged one or more props and started a fire, than to believe that an intact missile struck a prop and caused the required cascade. After all, if the cause was an actual missile impact with one of the props, if the IL-20 was just 3 m in a different direction, the prop would not have been hit.

 

[Feanor]

My take on it is that either the source is providing inaccurate information, or that there was a cascade of failures.

If the information that the missile (intact and prior to warhead detonation) struck one of the props, or alternatively one of the props struck the missile, that would mean the missile passed close enough to a wing and the fuselage to go into the 4.5 m diameter area where a prop rotates, without striking the much greater areas occupied by the wings and fuselage. Yes, it is possible for a missile to pass that closely, but the odds are not in it's favour. Secondly, as Ng pointed out, an aircraft can take a hit to and loss of a single engine and remain airworthy. If a single missile struck one of the props, and managed to then cause another prop to be struck as well as a fire to break out, that sounds as though either the missile or it's warhead detonated, perhaps both. Given that the S-200 missile has a proximity fuze and not a HTK or impact fuze, then the warhead should not have detonated. Therefore either there was an equipment failure and the fuze did detonate the warhead, or the remaining liquid rocket fuel/engine detonated from the impact. The detonation would then have to have been sufficient to scatter liquid rocket fuel and missile debris sufficiently to damage a second prop as well as spread or start a fire that onboard fire suppression systems were unable to negate, or the detonation would have had to knock out the fire suppression systems.

The more these factors come together, the less and less likely the situation seems. IMO it would be far more likely that the proximity warhead detonated near the IL-20 and the HE-frag warhead damaged one or more props and started a fire, than to believe that an intact missile struck a prop and caused the required cascade. After all, if the cause was an actual missile impact with one of the props, if the IL-20 was just 3 m in a different direction, the prop would not have been hit.

From what I understand, the warhead on an S-200s missile is large and highly destructive. If it went off, the aircraft would've gone down almost immediately, and certainly wouldn't have been able to stay airborne for 4 more minutes, or fight the fire, at least that's the way I understand it. Maybe the missile detonated, but far enough away from the Il-20M, that it only did damage to the propellers? I'm not sure. Russian sources did call this incident a chain of unfortunate coincidences on several occasions which fits with what you're saying, and certainly doesn't seem as wildly improbable as an S-200 operator not being able to distinguish the drastically different signatures of an F-16 and a large turbo-prop Il-20.

EDIT: Your and ngati's comments on this have been very insightful, so if you don't mind, I'll keep posting what crops up, and ask that you provide a bit of your insight and commentary to help clarify this mess.

 

[Todjaeger]

From what I understand, the warhead on an S-200s missile is large and highly destructive. If it went off, the aircraft would've gone down almost immediately, and certainly wouldn't have been able to stay airborne for 4 more minutes, or fight the fire, at least that's the way I understand it. Maybe the missile detonated, but far enough away from the Il-20M, that it only did damage to the propellers? I'm not sure. Russian sources did call this incident a chain of unfortunate coincidences on several occasions which fits with what you're saying, and certainly doesn't seem as wildly improbable as an S-200 operator not being able to distinguish the drastically different signatures of an F-16 and a large turbo-prop Il-20.

EDIT: Your and ngati's comments on this have been very insightful, so if you don't mind, I'll keep posting what crops up, and ask that you provide a bit of your insight and commentary to help clarify this mess.

I agree that if there was a detonation very close to the aircraft, it would likely have taken less than four minutes, after all a 217 kg HE-frag warhead would ruin anybody's day, unless perhaps they were sitting in a buttoned-up M1 Abrams, Leo 2 or Chally 2 tank turret. I have been trying to confirm the number of pre-formed fragments, but the only source I have run across with specifies numbers and weights is Wiki, and we know how reliable that is...

In general terms, anti-air warheads (air- and surface/ground-launched) with bursting charges are designed and fused so that the warhead detonates ahead of the target aerial object and in the object's flight path. The basic idea being that the bursting charge in the warhead would scatter fragments, creating a cloud of debris which the aerial object (aircraft, missile, shell, etc.) would then pass through and be damaged or destroyed before arriving at it's target or intended destination. With that in mind, it would be distinctly possible for an S-200 missile (likely the 5V21 missile) to have detonated near the IL-20, with fragments damaging or compromising one or more props/engines and then leading to the loss of the aircraft. Until the aircraft wreckage is located, retrieved and examined, it would be too early IMO to state with any accuracy whether or not any other portion of the aircraft was damaged by either warhead fragments or missile debris. Going off historical aircraft damage reports, many aircraft flown in combat missions during WWII, Korea and Vietnam suffered combat damage that the pilot/aircrew were unaware of until after the aircraft was back on the ground and a walkaround inspection was done.

As a side note, proximity fuses were a problem for the early MIM-104 Patriot missiles, which was updated to the MIM-104C PAC-2, as the bursting charge detonation timing had to be adjusted to account for the much greater velocity of a ballistic missile/warhead vs. aircraft. What had been happening with older versions of the Patriot when attempting to engage ballistic missiles is that the bursting charge would detonate at the 'normal' time, causing the fragment and debris cloud to start forming, but the higher velocity of the ballistic trajectory would have the target missile/warhead clear the area of the cloud before it could form. This problem is also why some of the HTK and impact fuses were developed for BMD.

 

[ngatimozart]

It also says that the impact cause a fire, and the crew fought the flames, activating secondary and tertiary fire-fighting systems (the primary went on automatically) and reported the situation to ground control, but ultimately failed to avoid the catastrophe.

That's the other thing I can't understand, is how they have come up with so much detail. If the warhead detonated close inboard then the crew may not have had time to transmit any details at all, including a MAYDAY. Even if the warhead detonated further away, the crew will be to busy trying to save the aircraft and survive rather than transmitting a detailed report to higher authority. If anything a MAYDAY may have been sent giving the call sign, position and brief details of the emergency.

 

[Feanor]

That's the other thing I can't understand, is how they have come up with so much detail. If the warhead detonated close inboard then the crew may not have had time to transmit any details at all, including a MAYDAY. Even if the warhead detonated further away, the crew will be to busy trying to save the aircraft and survive rather than transmitting a detailed report to higher authority. If anything a MAYDAY may have been sent giving the call sign, position and brief details of the emergency.

Sorry for the slow reply, I've been busy.

I'm honestly not sure what to say. My knowledge here is extremely limited. It was an ELINT plane with a 15-man crew. So to my rather ignorant opinion it doesn't seem that improbable that one of them stayed on the radio while the rest fought the flames. However, I really don't know. I'm also starting to wonder about the silence surrounding the black box recovery. A GUGI vessel should have been on scene by now, and I would at least expect to see reports that they've begun the search, but instead - nothing. An ominous silence.

 

[STURM]

Syria Is the Epicenter of Great Power Competition | U.S. Naval Institute

An article written by a serving USN Commander. He raises good points but the article [well written as it is] is from a U.S. perspective. U.S. intentions are noble and are for the greater good of the region; yet Russia and Iran are up to mischief; that's the message [IMO] sent. He goes to great lengths to explain Russia's involvement and what its objectives are but neglects to mention what the U.S. strategy is and what it hopes to achieve now that it has failed in achieving its objectives; namely doing away with Assad, limiting Russian influence and ending Iranian involvement. He also says 'Collectively, these high-end capabilities allow Russia to project power well beyond Syria’s borders and demonstrate that Russia is competing with the United States and NATO alliance and not simply fighting terrorists'; he's absolutely right but he must as well also have said that the reason the U.S. got involved is not because of new found concerns over the well being of Syrian civilians or democracy in the region but because doing away with Assad is line with the interests of the Gulf States and Israel and it severely weakens and isolate Iran. In short both Russia and the U.S. are there because it serves their national interests; irrespective of whether those interests clash with the interests of ordinary Syrians or the region. He also says : 'Since 2001, the United States has experienced difficulty connecting military tactical and operational success with lasting strategic gains'; true but I would argue that this has been the case way before 2001.

On another matter; Trump's comments about the Saudis not being able to last long without U.S. support and about the missing Saudi writer must have come as a huge shock to the Saudis given that Trump, since being elected, has gone out of his way to ingratiate himself with them. After Obama [who really annoyed the Saudis by refusing to strike Iran]; Trump came as a huge relief to them. It remains to be seen if this will be the start of a shift in U.S./Saudi relations or whether things will eventually get back to normal [like they always do in U.S./Saudi relations despite occasional hiccups and statements made for a general audience. The question of course is what Trump hoped to achieve by saying what he did.

 

[John Fedup]

Whether or not Trump has a new direction for US-Saudi relations is, as you correctly point out, remains to be seen. What he says is often dependent on who he last talked to. One never knows with this guy, just look at how the NK issue got spun around. When he knows, I guess we will know, maybe.