So what does the above photo have to do with anything? Well first check out this website.
Let me get you up to speed. The IDF struck sites in Syria. Supposedly they were time sensitive and it was a short fused mission so the Israeli's went in hard and fast.
They launched Popeye standoff missiles at the target and supposedly were able to destroy it....but.....
Syrian air defenses didn't lay down and die. They fought back and launched several anti-air missiles at the Israeli Air Force. This time though they were not only aiming at aircraft but also missiles.
And the Syrians claim that they were able to knock one down.
A degraded and damaged air defense system was able to knock down an Israeli stand off weapon.
Air power theory just took another hit.
It appears that attackers will need so many cruise missiles that they overwhelm defenders OR they need to develop supersonic and faster attack missiles.
Payloads over platforms. The US Navy is on the right track.
The Syrians *might* have shot down one missile. They failed to either shoot down an Israeli aircraft or prevent Israel from striking her target. How does the ineffective reaction of the Syrian IADS translate into Air power theory taking a hit?
ReplyDeleteok. let me say it again slowly. the Syrian air defense system has been seriously degraded and never was first rate. yet they were able to knock down a missile fired from an IDF jet on a surprise mission.
DeleteThe Syrians boast some of the most modern air-defense equipment in the world, including SA-11, SA-17, SA-22 and Pechora 2M. All of those systems were designed specifically to target high-performance aircraft and cruise missiles. The Syrians have primarily lost obsolete SA-2 and SA-3 sites to the Syrian rebels, and that equipment was likely deemed not worth the effort to evacuate by the Syrian government. The Syrians enjoy a close relationship with Russia (which have likely grown closer as Russian-Western relations grow colder.) That close relationship would almost certainly mean that Russia provides the Syrians training on the modern equipment they sell them. They probably aren't "first rate" compared to Russia, the U.S, or China, but they certainly aren't the dilapidated IADS that Libya had in 2011 or Iraq had in 2003.
DeleteAt the end of the day, the Israeli's still likely succeeded in destroying their target, and the Syrians only managed to shoot down one missile (maybe). In my mind this does not translate into an indictment against airpower.
There's also no solid evidence to suggest Syria actually 100% for sure shot down that missile. It is not surprising that a SAM-detonation at altitude was filmed. Once a SAM is launched - it will always explode whether or not it hits its target. What we're witnessing could be the explosion of a successful engagement, or it could be the missile self-destructing after its motor burned out.
DeleteSimilarly, the wreckage of the Popeye missile could be the result of it getting shot down. Or it could be the result of a fin failure. Or there was a problem with the missile and it was just jettisoned by the fighter. Or the weapon failed to fuse when hitting the ground and simply broke apart. Or the missile may have actually hit its target and we're just seeing the debris after the explosion (though I actually doubt this since there seems to be large chunks of the missile all in a rather small area). The point here being is that there is nothing in either video that definitely proves that the missile was shot down vice simply malfunctioning or even performing properly.
you're talking out of your behind. the Syrians defenses have been seriously degraded over the years and you know it. additionally they have never received first rate equipment from the Russians. they might have destroyed the target but no operation is perfect and neither was this one. besides. you can equivocate, spin, lie and outright twist the facts to fit your "truth" but the reality remains the same. a third rate military was able to successfully target an air launched air to ground missile and knock it out of the sky. what happens when air forces go up against a fully functional networked air defense system that is first rate?
Deleteyeah. i'll say it again and this time even more slowly. air power theory just took a hit.
There is photographic evidence they possess all of the systems I listed, their sale is a matter of public record.
Deleteand when was the photo taken? degraded means something. destroyed does too. just because you had something at the beginning of a conflict does not mean you have it at a later date!
DeleteThey also already had very poor air defense coverage over the majority of the territory they've lost. IADS coverage is densest over their capital, which is the area Israel struck. If there is any area of the country where you would expect a prompt response from the Syrian IADS, it's the capitol region.
Deletehttp://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Syria-SAM-Deployment.html
Absolutely no photos exist of separatists in control of any of the systems I listed. If rebels captured or destroyed any of that equipment it would be flaunted over the web.
DeleteAnd we have the Turks claiming their F-16's have been illuminated by SA-2, SA-5, SA-17 and SA-22 as recently as March 2014.
Deletehttp://www.janes.com/article/37289/syria-uses-sams-to-harass-turkish-aircraft
Turkey also says that the West hates Muslims. they also want to see the Syrian govt overthrown and want the West in particular the US to setup a no fly zone over the country while they sit back and watch.
Deleteso tell about how the Turks are such good witnesses that you would use them in this discussion again
i didn't ask about the separtists having photos of the air defense systems. what i asked was what is the date of the photo that you claim shows the Syrians having this first rate, networked ADA system that is such a menace to IDF aircraft.
DeleteOne thing that is missing is have F15 actualy entered defended airspace ?Most likely not even close. We only know they fired stand off missles more than enough range to be lauched well outside Syrian borders .
DeleteWhile some sites are reporting the incident as if F15 flew into downtown Damascus dodging flak and SAMs all the way its way more likely missles were launched practicaly from over downtown TelAviv
which reinforces my position. how does the US strike. from distance. even our bombs are designed to glide now. SDB is suppose to be launched at range. cruise missiles launched at range. but what happens when air defenses can now shoot them down? suddenly your 25 mile standoff smart bomb is as useful as those much cheaper dumb bombs your granddad used. what happens when cruise missiles are no longer effective? you have to fly low and fast, dodging and weaving. you need fast, maneuverable jets. does that sound like something the F-35 is good at? does that sound like that tactics that our pilots are currently utilizing? if your answer is no then you win the prize. medium altitude strikes using stand off weapons EVEN FOR CLOSE AIR SUPPORT!!!! is how things are done these days!
DeleteMost modern ADS?
Deletefat chance.
They cannot even afford bona fide bombs for their aircraft to drop on the rebels. "barrel bombs" indeed.
Not to mention the fact that they cannot even adequately wage close quarters combat and combined arms tactics with armored vehicles and infantry (which is why there are rampant videos of their tanks being melted in the streets and no infantry to be seen), let alone implement a training and maintenance regimen that is absolutely essential for the operation of modern air defens systems.
One question that also have to be asked is one missile. Out of how many? For all we know, a thousand were fired and only one got hit, which is a success rate of 0.1% Or the other extreme, one fired, one destroyed. 100% success, but that does not mean that the 100% rate is going to carry over if more were fired.
DeleteThe devil, as always, is in the details. Which is severely lacking.
Actually you can see the contrails of high flying aircraft over the attacked area (near Damascus). So, the F15s were in the sky over Syria.
DeleteThose jets were at high altitude, and Damascus is only 34 miles from Lebanon. So it's possible those jets were still in Lebanese air space.
DeleteIf it would been some modern, low level, stealth designed long range weapon, no chance for Syrian air defence. Payload is important yes, to carry long range cruise missiles and glide bombs so you need need to fly close to the hotspot, like F-35 is designed in outdated scenario.
ReplyDeleteLooks like the 'missile' wasn't flying a low level profile which would have made detection and interception by SAMs a lot harder.
DeleteAnd don't forget the Growlers
ReplyDeletewhat give a nation the right to bomb other nation without declaration of war ? is this silliness even legal ? i doubt israel would do something like this without US approval and support.. but when the US support gone, what will become of israel ?
ReplyDeleteHeard Something about the US developing Scramjet engines for cruise missile giving them a flight speed of Mach 24. That might just run right through air defenses before the defenders can process what they are seeing.
ReplyDeleteright until enemy defenses start using lasers.
DeleteAhh scramjet, it will make low orbit trip having the same price as today's flight to Australia.
DeleteFair point Sol and since the US has already developed a laser that can take out a slow drone we could expect China or Russia to develop air defenses in the next 20-30 years.
DeleteThat can take out drones. :)
DeleteThe current laser craze is one that I think is premature. While it might work against thin skinned drones, an all up aircraft might be another story. There simply isn't enough mobile power capacitance yet to create one shot kill lasers, even the drones need time to burn through. 15-20 sec from propaganda videos.
Whatever happened to Keep It Simple, Stupid?
Well, that is specifically a Pantsir S1 system capability, anti-munitions mission.
ReplyDeleteand the Syrians did take delivery of several Pantsirs prior to the civil war.
while the Syrian AA system as a whole might have been degraded, there are probably some very active and capable nodes equipped with decent equipment.
It seems many people don't get it how integrated SAM networks work. Large long range systems deal with planes while Pantsir S1 are primariliy used to defend point targets including long range Sams against primarily missles only secondary against aircraft as we are not in 1972 where Mk1 eyeball ,stick and rudder are the most advanced ground attack guidance system
DeleteSyria might be sinking in anarchy but Damascus is probably still quite well defended.
Exactly. And it would make sense for Syria to station its most modern SAMs around their capital.
DeleteBuk-M2:s. That is a pretty capable system. Ask any Nato pilot who took part in Adex 2005.
ReplyDeleteThe whole concept of stand off weapons is to launch weapon outside of enemy weapons range. Thats it, nothing more nothing less. Its irrelevant if stand off weapons hits the target, or it will just drain out enemy anti-air missiles stockpile and fighters/bombers would go close and personal.
ReplyDeleteAirpower is taking a hit in the context of it's application in modern warfare. This has been a slow march towards the inevitable. One has to look at this deeper than just Israeli fighters bombing Syrian targets. The fact is modern high air defense systems have significantly evolved over the last 20 years. Many integrated systems are now fully capable of full area denial. Modern Blue on Red is rapidly becoming a stand off from distance shooting match and any venture in the the 21st century version of "no man's land" is going to become cemetery. Stealth believers believe they can fly through this area undetected. The fundamental problem is that there is no such thing as stealth, as it really is about radar visibility. The better the radar tech gets, the more visible one is, and this does not incude IR systems or contrails made visible be flying at altitude above the clouds. The EW believers, employ jamming techniques at BVR and WVR to blind or deflect a missile shot. Thus missiles evolve with ramjet engines, two way data links and IR guidance. In both cases, it's a constant battle of one up man ship.
ReplyDeleteHence the current doctrine of low level penetrations. No matter how good a radar or SAM, they can't fire through terrain.
DeleteWhich once again proved that the best weapon is the human brain. Why bang your head against them technologically when you can reduce their effectiveness tactically?
name the last time low level flight was used to penetrate enemy air defenses. it was gulf war 1. tell me who the go to experts were on that mission. the Brits. tell me how they fared. poorly, the tornado fleet took heartbreaking losses...but they were the only people with the guts to go downtown and do the hard work. what has been the way of war for the last 20 years? mid level attack.
Deleteso my question to you is simple. who is maintaining proficiency in this "ancient" form of attack? i see no evidence that anyone is. not even our attack planes are doing it outside of the A-10 community and the USAF wants them dead.
Mid level these few conflicts is because they SEADed the air defences to death to the point where only hidden MANPADS were left as a threat. Once you cleaned up the higher altitudes, why not use it? Much safer.
DeleteNow if it was Russia or China or someone they sold something they should not have to, *cough S-400*, then the higher altitudes become more dangerous and going low is safer. It's all about evaluating your biggest threat.
As for Tornado losses, do you believe the crap spewed about a casualty-less war? If not, then expect to pay for gains in blood. As you said, at least they had the guts to do it.
For low level strategic, we have to look at how the B-1 guys are training. Don't have eyes in to that field, so someone else would have to take this question.
who said anything about a casualty less war? i certainly did not. what i did say was that the losses were heartbreaking...and they were. but let me hit you with this added widget. what happens when you have small air arms? you have no margin for error...especially doing something as risky as low altitude flying training. B-1s aren't doing low level stuff.. no one is. and thats the point. why you took off on a tangent is beyond me but the point remains. no one is training for low level attack and the US and its allies will pay a price for that.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe thing is that current strategic and tactical approaches have decoupled from platform costs and that is itself a huge problem.
DeleteSend 10 bloated, shiny chariots at the enemy with no margin lose 5 and now you're in serious trouble.
Send 100 simple, effective chariots at the enemy, lose 40, you still have 60 to fight another day.
The platforms we are building; F-35, LCS, are to expensive to even use.
Low level dash was stealth of the 70's-80's problem is in practice MANPADS and AAA improved so much that its now near suicidal IR missles are now extremely hard to jam (flares are only effective aginst old gen manpads ) AAA systems have radar/ir and optical guidance so impossible to jam Tornados are stil the best low level strike planes but when faced with 70's gear they suffered greatly ,since '91 airplanes didn't improve much but Sams and AAA did a lot.
Delete