The reason has to be the civil war. This forced a major change in the organization of the Syrian Armed Forces and the share of resources. The primary threat to Syria became jihadi militants and irregulars. Ergo, the Syrian Air Defense Force ended up at the scheisse end of the priority queue. Plus the rebels captured several airfields and air defense installations and destroyed or damaged a number of AD systems and killed, captured or converted their crews. Many of those bases have now been recaptured and are starting to be re-manned with new or upgraded systems received form Uncle Vlad. But they are still a low priority for a country that is only saved from bankruptcy by the charity of Tehran and Moscow. Then there is the Israeli Air Force. They have years of experience going up against Syrian SAMs and seem to be able to take them out easily, which make the SAM crews extremely nervous. There must be a lot of pressure on them to live up to the propaganda. And how well trained are they? There is also a rumor that some of the crews are partially manned by Hezbollah, supposedly to train them for a possible future transfer of systems to Lebanon.
The Russians, after first blaming the French Navy, have finally admitted it was their own allies that 'inadvertently' shot down their ELINT & RADINT capable IL-20M with 15 souls aboard. But they maintain it was Israel's fault for using the IL-20 to mask their approach. Maybe so, or not? We'll see if the radar tracks and timing are ever published. The S-200VE, 'Vega-E, SAM system that brought down the IL-20 was supposed to have been upgraded with IFF capabilities. They obviously did not work. Perhaps due to an ill-trained crew, or perhaps due to Israeli jamming, or perhaps the aircraft IFF transponder was broken or turned off or deliberately using a ghost signal. I am more inclined to think the SAM crews were in a panic and fired off some missiles on a 'ballistic trajectory' and 'without guidance' like they did back in April for the US/UK/FR missile strike. The warhead on the S-200 is 217 kilos (478 pounds), approximately half the weight in HE and the other half in 37,000 fragmentation pellets. It is triggered by either radar proximity fuse or command signal. I have no clue as to the blast radius.
I am neither a fan of Putin nor Netanyahu. But I do admire the Russian and the Israeli people, with the exception of the vicious right wing in both of those countries, and in my own country. Let's hope those yahoos don't get the US into a shooting war with Russia, if Putin or Shoigu decides to retaliate against the IAF with their S-400s they have in Syria and it escalates. Maybe 'moderate dog' Mattis can keep Trumpkin out of it, but the Congress would want in on it, both parties.
Is it really so unlikely that a well timed Israeli missile attack (pure speculation) could create a situation like this? The IDF air force has been playing cat-and-mouse with Syrian anti-air missiles for a year and a half and a f-u to Russia like this would probably make a lot of people happy not only within the IDF.
ReplyDeleteIt was definitely an arrogant f-u to Russia. The targets hit were close to Hmeimim Airbase, which is home to the Russian AF in Syria. Hmeimim is also the site of at least one of the S-400 SAM systems that the Russian aerospace industry spokesmen brag of constantly to gin up foreign sales. The S-400 radars were undoubtedly tipping off the Syrian SAM batteries with yet again miserable results. The other S-400 I believe is at the Naval Base in Tartus, which is also not that far from the Israeli targets.
DeleteAnd then there is the fact that the Israelis chose to come at the targets from the west. The Mediterranean just off the coast of Syria was crowded with Russian warships that had been staged there to warn off another US/UK/FR strike. So yes, this Israeli strike from that direction was a deliberate slap in the face to Russia courtesy of the real Mad Dogs, Bibi and Avigdor.
Longer than a year and a half. This has been going on at least since 2013:
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/05/israel-more-air-strikes-syria
I expect that we won't ever know the whole IL-20 story, but I strongly suspect that the Syrian AA & AD boys are now in line for serious training and equipment upgrades. Paid, no doubt, at Russian expense.
ReplyDeleteAel -
DeleteSurely you are right. But a bigger loser than Assad has been the Iran-Hezbollah connection. So I suspect some of that expense will be paid by Tehran. Maybe the IRGC will take over manning on some of the new SAM sites, you think?
Iran was already going to sell Syria their S-300 clone. Those shipments will also be sped up. Israel will seriously freak if Hezbollah ever obtains real AD capability.
DeleteIf Iran pays part of the freight, Israel will lose their ability to over fly Lebanon at will. This gives Russia leverage.
Ael -
DeleteI'm no expert, but to my non-AD mind the S-300 or clones thereof won't make much difference. The S-300 was fielded and became operational 40 years ago. And the design is ten years older than that. I understand that there have been several upgrades over the years, probably good ones. But as far as I can determine the missile itself still has the same old, same old clunky airframe. Probably great against B52, or taking down an AWACS bird, or Cold War ballistic missiles. But against highly maneuverable fighters, maybe not so good?
And does it still use Semi Active Radar Homing guidance, which requires an external radar to illuminate the target?
Maybe I'm wrong and one or some of those upgrades made it more maneuverable and/or gave it Active Homing guidance? Andy would know if he were around.
I think we're remiss if we don't consider that this isn't some sort of Israeli plot OR the effects of the civil war but just that the Syrian Arab Army is a shitshow and pretty much always has been.
ReplyDeleteThe Israelis whipped their ass pretty much consistently from '68 on, and they did poorly against the rebels until Iran and Russia stepped in. It's always tempting to overestimate the competence of these Middle Eastern armies - remember the "elite Republican Guard"? Yeah. So Occam's Razor seems to apply here; I'm betting that a sorry-ass AAA outfit just fucked up.
This is exactly my point. Israel isn't going to stop throwing high explosives into Syria any time soon. Syrian bird gunners aren't going to stop launching missiles at whatever they think is coming at them. Israel, furthermore, won't tell the Russians about their hijinx in time to clear the airspace. Therefore, Russian aircraft will be in the sky when the shitshow happens. Russia, therefore, must improve the Syrian AD and hopefully create less dead Russian aviators.
Delete"...that the Syrian Arab Army is a shitshow and pretty much always has been."
DeleteI would agree.
Poor morale
Shit gear
Shit officers
Shit training
Thrown into a high intensity fight
shit training
shit decision making
shit results
I think Israel has pretty much pegged Syria as a stone age army with advance weapons and the average Syrian strategy is dumped EVERYTHING WE GOT INTO THIS ZONE, RIGHT HERE!!!
Which of course would explain much of their history.
sheerahkahn
My admiration for Israel has waned significantly since as an eleven-year-old I repainted my little M3 halftrack in IDF colors as a tribute to the victors of the Six Day War.
ReplyDeleteNow it seems that the Israeli public - not just the Likudniks - is all-in on being an apartheid state. I understand the dilemma, but becoming the new Afrikaners doesn't seem like a good idea, either.
FDC -
ReplyDeleteThe Israeli Army did whip ass in 68. And the IAF did all right too, but they still lost 46 aircraft, most or all to Syrian SAMs.
And during the Yom Kippur War in 73, the IAF lost 102 warplanes (in less than three weeks). Again most losses were to Syrian SAMs.
It wasn't until the 82 Lebanon War that they smartened up. The Yom Kippur War had put the fear of God into the IAF. So for a decade they studied USAF Supression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) tactics, and added many new techniques and 'magic box' technologies of their own. The result was the 'Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot' where the IAF destroyed 29 of 30 Syrian SAM batteries in a single airstrike. The IAF only lost, or admitted lost, one UAV and damage to two F-15s.
I thought the Yom Kippur war was Israel's preemptive, "Oh no you won't!" war...or was that 63?
DeleteOy...my memory.
Sheerakhan -
DeleteIsrael's preemptive war was the Six Day War in 67. Of course they called it "preventive", not preemptive. Bush Junior and Deadeye Dick Cheney appropriated that term in 2003.
FDC -
ReplyDeleteI do agree with your Occam's razor comment. It was a fuck-up by a Syrian SAM crew. Definitely not one of the conspiracy theories still being whispered about: that the French Frigate was the shooter, or was a diversion - same type theories abound that Brits flying out of RAF Akrotiri also played a guilty role in order to avenge the Novachok vics in Salisbury. WTF are these tinfoil hat guys smoking?
Yeah, I'd say it was definitely a fuck-up. Syrian Air Defense was in my portfolio years ago. Even back then I'd say they were mediocre at best. Like a lot of big third-world forces supplied and trained by the Soviets, they were overly centralized, insufficiently trained and not great on maintenance. The civil war did wreck that branch as well. The Syrian government's main problem was always manpower and, in addition to rounding up and drafting any males they could find, they pulled a lot of manpower out of air defense to fight the rebels. Who can blame them though, they didn't have much choice.
ReplyDeleteI was reading the comments (and left one of my own) over at Pat Lang's blog. I rarely ever comment there anymore. Maybe it's just me, but it's kind of a sad shit-show now. The paranoid theories over there are quite impressive.
I hope it is OK to quote your post here. Very interesting for a non-tech guy like me :)
Delete[quote Andy's post @ turcopolier]
Israel is certainly responsible for precipitating the incident, but the accusations that Israel somehow purposely caused Syria to shoot down the airplane - as if the Syrians were helpless to prevent it - are without merit.
Some salient facts:
Syrian air defenses either knew the location of the Russian plane or they didn't.
- If they didn't know the plane was there, then that is a problem of coordination between Russian and Syrian military forces. Given that the Russian and Syrian AD networks are supposed to be integrated, I'd say this is the less likely option.
- If the Syrians did know the plane was there, then the Syrians are to blame for poor fire discipline and probably incompetence. Deliberately shooting at enemy aircraft when a friendly aircraft is in the line of fire is a big no no in air defense doctrine (and a big no no as a general rule for any use of force), especially with a weapon as unwieldy as an SA-5.
Additionally, the SA-5 is a passive homing missile that guides to the target based on reflections from a ground-based illumination radar. If the operators saw that the missile was tracking on the wrong target then they should turn off the the radar so the missile loses guidance and misses. If the IL-20 was in the same resolution cell as the F-16's then they should not have fired in the first place. This is especially the case with the SA-5, which was specifically designed to attack large, slow moving targets like the Il-20. The SA-5 has a very poor track record against tactical targets like fighters.
So one of two things must be the case: The Syrians didn't know the IL-20 was there or they knew it was there and fired anyway.
- Also, did the IL-20 have an IFF system active and could the Syrians interrogate it? Usually airspace is used to separate missile engagement zones from friendly aircraft operating areas to prevent fratricide, but IFF is a very important backup. It could be the IL-20 left its oparea and was returning to base and the Syrians weren't informed. It's cases like these where IFF becomes critical.
- What was the Syrian weapons engagement posture and where was engagement authority? They have an equivalent to what we use in the west
-- weapons hold - can only fire in self defense or when directed at a specific target
-- weapons tight - can only fire at targets positively ID'd as hostile
-- weapons free - can fire at any target not positively identified as friendly.
The US has had it's own share of similar incidents and exercises and testing showed the danger of fratricide absent adequate airspace control and fire discipline.
[/quote Andy's post @ turcopolier]
Definitely ok with me, thanks!
DeleteAndy -
ReplyDeleteI saw your comment at Lang's blog. It seemed to me to be the only sane comment on the subject. You are right about the paranoia there. The Colonel banned me from there, three times, because he did not like my comments. So I don't contribute ideas to his blog anymore, except for every now and then when I get this overpowering urge to correct the record, under a different tag of course.
What is your opinion on the S-300?
Lang banned me many years ago because he concluded I was actually a cabal of Israeli provocateurs (seriously). I had taken a contrary position on something - I don't remember the details.
DeleteI contacted him privately and expressed my amazement and frustration that he would make such an accusation. After providing some bona fides, he apologized profusely and has never given me any issues since. But then again, that and other things I saw taught me that he doesn't respond well to criticism of his ideas, so I ended up limiting comments and self-censoring much of the time.
As for the S-300, it's scary especially the newer variants. It required an entirely different set of mission planning requirements to deal with and greatly complicated mission planning.
Like anything else, it has weaknesses and there is still a substantial human element (training, proficiency, doctrine, etc) that can be exploited, but its presence in a theater requires a different strategy than the system's we've been going against for decades.
As always, there is a tech and capabilities race - for a long time, air power pretty decisively bested ground-based air defenses. I think with the SA-10 and it's follow-ons over the last three decades, that calculus has changed.
Andy -
DeleteYears ago, Lang did get some serious spamming and pushback calling him and his blog anti-semite after he had published a piece on the USS Liberty attack by the IAF. Which is why he started holding comments to decide what he would publish and what he wouldn't. I can sympathize with that. But he seemed to grow more and more overly suspicious. His politics are strange, and that seems to drive many conspiracy theorists to his site.
I actually like the guy's blog despite our many disagreements, as he and I have a lot in common. We are both old farts, both renegade Maine-iacs, both with some French-Canuck blood, both Viet-Nam vets, both interested in military history. And we both agree that the Bush/Cheney adventure in Iraq was one of the stupidest policy decisions ever made. So I'll keep checking in on his site despite the sometimes conspiratorial swamp that goes on over there.
Thanks for your insight on the S-300.
Mike,
DeleteA lot of the stuff he writes (not so much his other writers) is still pretty good. I still regularly read but, like a lot of sites now, I avoid the comment section.
He did tell one of the funniest Middle Eastern stories I've ever read about the various intelligence agencies. The gist was that they're looking for a rabbit, and the Americans spend millions in hardware and find nothing, the Russians kill two ferrets and a gopher, the French...anyway, the punchline is that the Syrian Mukhabarat is beating one of those little "Jerusalem" donkeys while hissing into it's ear "Confess! You know you're a rabbit!"
DeleteFDC,
DeleteYeah, I remember that joke too - it's a great one.
One byproduct of, I think, our US public's attitude towards our own armed forces (fawning adoration spackled over abysmal ignorance) is that We the People tend to have an exaggerated idea of military competence in general.
ReplyDeleteIf you've never wiped the sweat off your helmet band muttering "What a fuckin' fucked-up clusterfuck." it's easy to assume that military operations are always as organized and intelligently run as they are in fiction. So if something fucked up happens it can't be because some sleep-deprived sergeant who was dumber than a bag of goddamn hammers when he was operating at 100% panicked and did something stupid. It must be a Deep State plot! Israel! False flag!
That's way less confusing to the civilians..
And I haven't hit Lang's site in an age, which is kinda sad. He used to be one of the most sensible voices on the aether regarding geopolitics and military affairs in the Middle East. But - and this was before the place descended into the sort of crackpottery you report - over the late Obama years he seemed to lose his objectivity and began to run with some really odd interpretations and rants. Too bad. He used to be a good source of information.
I stopped a while back...just...don't know how to put my finger on it.
DeleteThe only thing that offends me is stupid...okay, wilful stupidness...alright, sometimes ignorant gets under my skin too, but it just seemed...things got stupid for no...rationally reason.
Perhaps he sipped the GOP koolaid, perhaps it was breathing the same GOP air...dunno...anyway, I threw my hands up and basically left.
Haven't returned.
But the thing I've seen in my readings and talks with veterans is that stupid get's Darwin'ly deselected rather quickly in a fire-fight. Of course, hearing one vet's description of his platoon leader, apparently there are exceptions to that rule.
Hence, the reason I like WO's, Gunny's, Sgt Major's, and Chiefs...they didn't get to where they were at by being stupid (again, ignoring the outliers who often defy rational explanation). Thus I think every military has these "uncommon-common sense" people in their ranks.
The issue is...in military's like Syria, Iran, Iraq, etc is that these people rise a little too much in their work, get noticed, admired for their leadership and savvy, and...without proof...I think they get...
t'ah...
"volunteered" for missions that have no possibility of success because their commander-for-life is a little concern that such competence is a threat to his position, or his image.
hence, I think Syria's military doesn't possess any of these people because they were killed off...and now all that's left is...yeah, Russian mercs, Hezbollah merc's, and Iranian merc's to support them.
Oh yeah, and whatever yahoo dim-wit from the greater caliphate who sides with them.
The other component is what let's call the Despot's Dilemma.
DeleteTo maintain power he needs to have a competent-enough armed force to overawe the proles.
But...if that force is TOO competent, what does it need him for? Having a military that is the most functional part of his domain presents a huge risk of praetorian treason.
So the despot has to be on the lookout constantly to shorten any too-competent subordinates by a head, or take a big chance that they conclude they'll make a better Caesar than Caesar...
"So the despot has to be on the lookout constantly to shorten any too-competent subordinates by a head, or take a big chance that they conclude they'll make a better Caesar than Caesar..."
Deletesheerahkahn
Oh, yeah, I like that, which, oddly enough, is much better than what I wrote.
In fact, reading it again...
Dammit, Chief, that was far more eloquent and articulate than my rambling attempt...I need to improve my writing.
The poster kid for this was Saddam's Iraq.
DeleteIn a country with a fairly low technical base the skills for running a modern military were not widely distributed. So the mass of the conscript army was not very efficient.
But for the Ba'ath elite even this was risky. So the best qualified and trained individuals were pulled out into the politically reliable Republican Guard, making the regular units even worse trained and led.
Even THAT turned out to be a political risk, so Saddam formed the "special" Republican Guard, to help keep an eye on the "regular" RG...
The end result was a virtually militarily useless mass army and a semi-effective force that was too small to be militarily significant.
If you look at a lot of these Arab militaries you'll find a bunch of these "commando" or "special forces" units that are usually just politically reliable and hence better trained and equipped regular units there to police the rest.
Pat Lang did if I remember correctly too easily move to disrespectful and ad hominem answers to challenges or dissent. He didn't treat receiving feedback as a potential way to learn from others.
ReplyDeleteIt's one of the things I occasionally think about when I push back on comments at my blog - makes me wonder how often my way of replying is no good one.
I'm sure that is something we are all guilty of to some extent, but in my experience with Lang, there are certain lines one is not allowed to cross.
DeleteSven -
DeleteWell, you do sometimes have a 'tongue that bites' in your pushback. Nothing wrong with that. Why suffer fools? I sometimes wish I had that knack, or FDChief's flair for sarcasm. It is a fast way to chase away the fools and crackpots.
The downside of course is that it can immediately stop a discussion and lead to a circle jerk or mutual admiration society where you only hear concurrence or obeisance from the ass-licking-people. Why shut off dissenting opinion?
"Why shut off dissenting opinion? "
DeleteThe quality of a blog can easily be destroyed by too much nonsensical contributions which dilute the good stuff. Therefore, it is a tightrope act.
Ulenspiegel
Ulenspiegel -
DeleteAgreed. I would certainly delete any blatantly crackpot comments from my posts. It is probably not even worth leaving a comment like that stay up as a target of derision.
You guys are mostly against stupid wars and don't have much content at MilPub that attracts people who love stupid wars.
DeleteThe basic mechanism of my blog is that I have stuff that attracts such people, and once they were lured in I blast them with moderate pacifism reasoning and narratives.
I have read over and over again remarks about how supposedly my military stuff is [insert very positive rating here] and my political views are [insert opposite here].
BTW, regarding the lure in/blast with pacifism thing:
Just look at this and how extremely at odds with today's realities the intro is:
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2017/01/human-sacrifice-and-military-spending.html
Interesting, but simplistic analysis Sven. Lives are indeed an inherent part of the accounting. But not all lives are equal. Kids usually grow up to be taxpayers. Seniors have already paid their taxes but are now spending government money in order to keep themselves alive for a while longer. Simple arithmetic calculations can obscure as much as illuminate.
DeleteAlso, it is hard to get a man to understand something that his salary depends on him not understanding it.
Neither our societies nor our politicians nor our courts nor our economists nor our philosophers are able to agree on a way to determine an individual's value to society. They can at best give a partial answer.
DeleteThe German courts know but a binary human value system; the lives of those who illegally threaten the lives of others are worth less.
Sven -
DeleteI read that post last year but the economics (blood economics?) were way above my head. I do like your current post regarding the Wabanaki bow. I vote for the ‘ancient’ theory. They needed that extra performance to hunt moose before the Europeans arrived. Why develop it a hundred years ago when high caliber rifles were ubiquitous? Or maybe I’m just biased as our family history says my great-great grandma was a Métis from that region.
Lang was always a touchy, self-impressed SOB. I've been told he's gotten exponentially worse.
DeleteAel, "simplistic" is the wrong word. Opportunity costs are an incredibly powerful concept in economics. It's appropriate to use them this way.
DeleteI omitted rounding error issues with the marginal rate - that's an acceptable inaccuracy in the context and setting.
Hi Sven,
DeleteI think you're hovering on zero-sum thinking...the only thing that is currently saving your argument is Trump and his gutting of the Childrens school programs.
So...yeah, except it's not a submarine, it's Wall Street execs who got a huge ass tax break which took money away from other priorities, so now...American children are going to pay for that.
fuck...now I'm depressed.
Sven, I agree that opportunity cost is an important factor. I was arguing that not all lives are the same. For example, here in Canada, they cut off various organ transplants at certain ages. My dad, who is 90, won't get a new heart. Part of it is that recovery is harder when you are older, but the big reason is that they would much rather give that heart to a 50 or a 60 year old. Giving a heart to one person, means that a different person won't get it. Hence the opportunity cost analysis factors in the projected quality and quantity of life, not simply "one heart transplanted = one life saved".
DeleteCommander of the IAF, Amikam Norkin, is in Moscow. General Norkin and his delegation showed his Russian counterpart Israel’s initial investigation into the downing of the Russian IL-20M. Israeli sources say “The meetings were held in a good spirit. There was professional, open, and transparent dialogue…”
ReplyDeletehttps://www.timesofisrael.com/air-force-chief-briefs-moscow-on-downing-of-spy-plane-iranian-activities/
Norkin is an interesting character. Initially a draftee into the Tank Corps, he eventually went to flight school to join the IAF. And while Norkin's Wiki page does not mention Operation Orchard where the IAF destroyed Syria's al-Kibar nuclear reactor in 2007, it does suggest he was the Negev Squadron Commander during that time frame. If so, he part of the operation or at the least in on the mission planning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amikam_Norkin
TASS quotes the Times of Israel, but makes no comment of their own about good spirit, or how the dialogue went. I imagine it probably was professional, but also extremely tense.
http://tass.com/world/1022515
Thanks Mike, good stuff!
DeleteWe can scoff at the Syrian S-200 crews for knocking down the IL-20, but what about 'blue-on-blue' fratricide by other countries' air defense units. There have been many other incidents. The most famous was probably the shootdown of Italian Air Marshall and Governor General of Libya, Italo Balbo, by his own AAA at Tobruk. The City of Chicago has both a memorial to him and a street named after him.
ReplyDeletehttps://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51kn6Ma%2BmgL._SX383_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
But the Americans are not immune. In March 2003 a Patriot battery shot down a British Tornado. Two RAF Flight Lieutenants were killed. The RAF blamed it on three separate factors: 1] the Patriot's no-human-in-the-loop artificial intelligence and the crew passively accepting a missile launch by the AI software; 2] improper crew training for not recognizing any difference between a return-to-base flightpath and a missile attack (sounds similar to the IL-20 incident); and 3] possible IFF issues. One day later a Patriot locked its radar on a USAF F-16, but the F-16 pilot fired first with a HARM. And then a week and a half later a USN F/A-18 Hornet was shot down by a Patriot over central Iraq, killing the pilot.
In WW2 there were US air defense blue-on-blue casualties at Pearl Harbor, North Africa, Sicily and Belgium. The worst by far was Sicily when paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division in C-47 transports were fired upon by American ground and naval forces. "23 planes were shot down and 37 damaged, resulting in 318 casualties, with 60 airmen and 81 paratroopers killed."
Yep, it's a hard problem. Despite all the technology we have today with our modern Air Forces we still use airspace as the primary means of deconflicting aircraft and air defense for fratricide prevention.
DeleteBack when we were doing Southern Watch the most important thing my aircrews wanted in their briefings were the MRR's - minimum risk routes - the supposedly safe routes to RTB to not get shot down by the Patriots.
WWII airspace had a lot of hot metal flying around. I look at the Regimental history and note the spotter pilots shot down by their own artillery fire. It wasn't aimed at them and it is a big sky and they were in little airplanes. Still, shoot enough rounds and your gonna connect sooner or later. Catching a 25-pdr round with your Auster would have been a quick way to go.
DeleteAndy -
DeleteI, for one, would love to hear more of the time when you were doing Southern Watch. As I recall that lasted for many years. Did you make multiple deployments for that? Which carrier(s)?
Ael –
DeleteYour comment reminded me of a certain A-4 pilot on FAC duty with a rifle company in Viet-Nam. He called in CAS on an area that was also under intense artillery and mortar fire. The FSCC questioned his judgement. His response was: ”Big sky, little bullets!” Luckily the CAS birds made it through unscathed.
Firing on the FA range at Ft. Lewis WA included a commercial air corridor to SeaTac than would shut down high-angle missions to prevent shooting down airliners...
Delete@mike;
Deletehttp://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/07/airspace-deconfliction.html
Mike,
DeleteYes, I did Southern Watch for two cruises - one in 1994-5 and again in 1997 on the Constellation (RIP). It was actually pretty boring. We called it "Groundhog Station" after the movie Groundhog day because it was so monotonous.
Southern watch lasted a really long time - basically an entire decade.
For a six month float we spent about 3-4 months in the gulf - the rest of it was transit time and port calls. As I recall, we were the first carrier to dock in Hong Kong in 1997 after the Chinese took over from the British. Uneventful except for the change of flags.
Thanks Sven -
ReplyDeleteI generally agree with your premise on airspce deconfliction. In a major peer to peer war it could possibly hurt more than help.
I am a bit leery though of "opportunity costs". Reminds me too much of Robert Strange McNamara, our previous illustrious SecDef, accountant extraordinaire. His name was mud to many in my generation.
BTW nice photo #2. Is that Berlin? If so where are the famous Flak Towers?
Moon of Alabama reports that the Russians are still unhappy about the shootdown. They are extending their closure of airspace off the coast of Syria.
ReplyDeleteHa'aretz confirms that Russia isn't happy and that the closures have been put in place (with a nice graphic map).
Ael -
DeleteI had watched that briefing by Konashenkov earlier this AM. I have a much different take-away opinion from moon-of-Alabama regarding what the Russians claimed in the briefing. Yes, they blamed Israel. But they confirmed the Israeli theory that the IL-20 was shot down well after the attack was over. Konashenkov says the shootdown happened at 22:07 Moscow time. The Israeli attack was at 21:40, almost half an hour earlier. And the Syrian response to the strike was at 21:53, which is sixteen minutes prior. I have to wonder what the glide time is for the GBU-39?
The most damning item in the briefing I thought was that Isaelis told the Russians that the strike was going to hit targets in northern Syria during the one-minute-prior deconfliction call. Instead of on the western coast of Syria, thereby putting the IL-20 in harms way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg9GliGS0RY&feature=youtu.be
Regarding the closures for the Russian Navy exercise: I thought they were only until midnight Zulu time on 26 September. Have they extended them beyond that?
"closing off airspace..."
DeleteI'm thinking Israel is going to respond with, "challenge...accepted."
and if they don't, I will truly be surprised.
sheerahkahn
Putin may send Antonovs loaded with Iodine pills to Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt at some time. I suppose the Israelis will then cease to bomb Putin's vassals
ReplyDeleteRumour has it that Israel misinformed the Russians as to the location of the strike (North Syria vs West Syria). The IL-20 was in North Syria and headed to the coast to get out of the strike area. (However, the strike was actually happening in West Syria and the IL-20 flew into the area of operations).
ReplyDeleteThat warning was reported as being a one-minute warning anyway. I doubt that the Il-20 would have been able to evade it.
DeleteMy private suspicion is that the Israelis tested some tactic or ECM gear that caused the missile to change lock.
It's easy with modern electronics to enable the autopilot to maneuver the aircraft such that a free-flying decoy (or in this case an Il-20) is in the line of sight (to the illumination radar at least, but also the SAM) and gets the lock.
This is particularly easy when dealing with semi-active radar homing missiles such as the SA-5 that use no information about target distance and (in case of old types such as the SA-5's) use no information about the target speed.
That link I posted had a infographic, purportedly from the Russian MOD apparently showing where the various planes flew. The one minute warning on the hotline was before the *bombs* started landing, not before the SAM hit the IL-20 (which happened a while later). When the warning came in, the IL-20 booked it out of northern Syria and headed toward the coast (West Syria) where it turns out all the action was happening. Ouch.
DeleteRussia says S300 systems will be in Syria within two weeks. Plus they are going to give Syria Russian IFF codes and technology. Lots of training going to be needed.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't think that is going to stop the IAF from hitting Iranian or Hezbollah targets in Syria. They will be more careful. They may stay away from targets in Latakia. But no way they will stop completely. They have already said four or five days ago that the S-300 would not stop them.
Like Andy said above it is scary, but "it has weaknesses and there is still a substantial human element (training, proficiency, doctrine, etc) that can be exploited."
With a few exceptions, the IAF use stand-off weapons. For a lot of strikes the aircraft don't even need to enter Syrian airspace. The reason the Syrian's fire so many SA-5's is because that's the only system with the legs to have any chance of hitting an aircraft.
DeletePlus, periodic one-off strikes greatly favor the striker in terms of planning and execution.
The effectiveness of Syria S300's in stopping these Israeli strikes will depend on a lot of factors, but I agree they are unlikely, by themselves, to stop the IAF.
To me, it seems like Syria should have a pretty good idea about what kinds of targets Israel will strike. I'm frankly surprised they haven't put more effort toward laying a trap or even mounting a more effective defense. But then again, the Israeli's are really good at this and there's still a civil war going, so Syria still has bigger fish to fry.
You would think laying a flak trap would have occurred to the SyADF by now. Didn't the Serbs lay an ambush for that so-called stealthy F117 they shot down in 99?
ReplyDeleteThe NVA used flak traps effectively. It wasn't only in the north against airstrikes and the Jolly Green rescue choppers. They were using that in the south also against medevac birds, OH-6 loach scouts, OV-10 spotters, quick reaction birds, etc.
The Viets got that tactic from the Soviets. They, the Soviets, were pretty good at it. During WW2 they gave out Ace awards not just to fighter pilots, but also to AAA gunners. Much of the senior leadership of Viet AAA and SAM units were trained in the Soviet Union in PVO (Anti-Air Defense) schools. And in the north there were Soviet technical advisors for the SA-2 systems.
And with the 102 Israeli aircraft lost to AAA and SAMs (109 including rotary wing) in the Yom Kippur War, my guess is that a portion of those were lost in flak traps also.
Back in '73 the SA-6s either surprised the Israelis (radar warning receivers were uncommon until the 80's) or forced them to low altitude where ZSU-23-4 among less deadly (very) short range air defences were waiting.
DeleteThe clear skies with really good visibility helped the defenders, as they needed no really good search radars to become aware of incoming targets. Moreover, J79 engines were smoking a lot.
The Israeli losses would have been even greater if they hadn't used the trick of extending the exhaust pipes of A-4s so tailchasing missiles (especially SA-7) would detonate prematurely (they discovered this trick in the 60's, one advantage of their then very diverse aircraft inventory).
Sven -
DeleteThe IAF back then did have early model RWRs. But those were for the SA-2 radars and not for those of the SA-6.
The IAF undoubtedly adapted quickly. But probably not fast enough as that war only lasted 19 days. And the great majority of the 109 downed aircraft were shot down in the first three or four days.