tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-165290376032593437.post3235095049308431569..comments2023-09-26T09:28:50.128-04:00Comments on IMINT & Analysis: Comments, Current EventsSean O'Connorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12262754627111404755noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-165290376032593437.post-73127794835174524592013-06-13T17:54:19.240-04:002013-06-13T17:54:19.240-04:00Great to see the site back up and running. Really ...Great to see the site back up and running. Really like the Current Events section.NICOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14567491909555759918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-165290376032593437.post-47676333977737781662013-06-08T10:19:51.640-04:002013-06-08T10:19:51.640-04:00If the West/Nato needed to destroy a few batteries...If the West/Nato needed to destroy a few batteries of S-300 in Syria, how likely is it that F-22s would be needed/risked?<br /><br />I would imagine the most likely places for the batteries would be around Damascus? Which would mean they would be in range of ATACMS fired from either Turkey or Cyprus. <br /><br />I know that ATACMS were used for SEAD in Iraq, but that was against much older systems, but I would still imagine that they would be successful against the S-300 as long as enough missiles were fired to oversaturate a battery or two.<br /><br />Of course, the location of the batteries would be needed to known first, but again how likely is it that Syria could even try to keep changing the location of the batteries? In the middle of a civil war, they are going to need to make sure those batteries are well protected from the rebels. So I would have thought the places they could place them would be limited. Maybe even having to keep them permanently in the same sites. <br /><br />Or if for some reason the use of ATACMS missiles wouldn't work, then from what I have read, the deal is only for 144 missiles. So not out of the question for even a war of attrition, by using cruise missiles, MALD and some UAVs, until they have depleted all their missiles, or more likely those used together to oversaturate the batteries. <br /><br />I'm not trying to say that the S-300 isn't a top land-based strategic SAM, but just that like you said, a few batteries isn't going to defend against a modern air force. Even more so in a place like Syria is at the moment, where I would imagine they would have a hard time supporting it at all without a lot of Russian help.<br /><br />As for PR hit, if these batteries were oversaturated and destroyed by using either ATACMS or UAVs, cruise missiles and MALD decoys, Russia could try to say it was successful because it (and Pantsir-S1) shot down x number of missiles, but I would still think they would take a really big PR hit, with it being shown how a small number of batteries could be destroyed like that. <br /><br />I might be missing something and wrong, but in my opinion if Russia does send these systems to Syria then I would think it would more be a political statement of support for Syria that anything else. I actually favor the theory that they don't intend to actually send them while the civil war is still going on. Instead are hoping that this statement of support will make the west back off, and hope that the Syrian government can then defeat the rebels. <br /><br />PS. If it was Israel that decided/needed to destroy these batteries, then any around Damascus would most likely be within GMRLS range from Israel. So should be even easier to oversaturate, with each GMRLS launcher being able to fire 12 missiles, vs two ATACMS missiles. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-165290376032593437.post-82333775085796013782013-06-07T04:00:36.276-04:002013-06-07T04:00:36.276-04:00Nice to see you again here Sean!Nice to see you again here Sean!Robin Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05971474376267509219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-165290376032593437.post-4378121073376016182013-06-06T16:40:59.839-04:002013-06-06T16:40:59.839-04:00Ah so the only reason Assad hasn't been blowin...Ah so the only reason Assad hasn't been blowing up airliners right and left is that SA-2/3/6/17s are shorter-ranged.<br /><br />Tool.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-165290376032593437.post-74096728045696907292013-06-06T11:22:14.561-04:002013-06-06T11:22:14.561-04:00The S-300P does not need to be an SSM to be a thre...The S-300P does not need to be an SSM to be a threat to Israel. <br />Even if placed in Assad's Presidential Palace garden, it has the range to cover most of Israel, including all civilian air traffic.<br /><br />For the US/Europe a 'defensive' system is a problem only if they consider intervention, for a small neighbour it can be a serious offensive threat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-165290376032593437.post-18083041451661004822013-06-05T12:19:06.496-04:002013-06-05T12:19:06.496-04:00If Syria is getting new systems then they pretty m...If Syria is getting new systems then they pretty much have to get the S-300PMU-2. Nothing else is in production anymore as far as the P series goes.<br /><br />PTs from Moscow rings? Those would be pretty old, and there haven't been any deployed around Moscow for a really long time so they'd have sat in storage as well.Sean O'Connorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12262754627111404755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-165290376032593437.post-69307349557106778602013-06-05T03:48:55.073-04:002013-06-05T03:48:55.073-04:00Hey Sean, love the new "Current Events" ...Hey Sean, love the new "Current Events" format. Keep it up!<br /><br />Is there any firm indication on which exactly S-300 variant Russia is supposed to ship to Syria? I've read "opinions" that range from surplus -PTs (withdrawn from the Moscow rings) to PMU-2s or even V/VMs.<br /><br />Dimitrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17699023366193788600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-165290376032593437.post-57217598197571331722013-06-04T21:53:38.243-04:002013-06-04T21:53:38.243-04:00It isn't a move openly hostile to Israel. The...It isn't a move openly hostile to Israel. The S-300P is an air defense asset, not an SSM. The only way it is "hostile" to Israel is because it would deny Israel the ability to continue living in ignorance of the sovereignty of Syria's airspace. And no, that comment in no way implies that Syria is doing nothing wrong vis-a-vis its situation with Israel.<br /><br />Also, the system remains very effective, it's been modernized numerous times and the current S-300PMU-2 variant is probably the top land-based strategic SAM you could conceivably buy right this minute and get delivered within a year. It can be destroyed if you have the right tools for the job but even then it's nowhere near as simple as flinging a few ARMs at it from range. Plus, with the capability to find sneaky airplanes, you have to wonder who would take the bigger PR hit: Almaz-Antey, after the SAM battery is blown up, or Lockheed Martin, if it takes a few F-22s along with it.<br /><br />Also realize that any one of these geniuses who is buying one or two batteries is not going to realistically be able to stop a full-scale aerial operation by a modern military power. A small number of batteries can be oversaturated. This is partly why China likes to keep buying the things and then keeps putting them in the same places. Defense in depth with overlapping fields of fire for mutual support.Sean O'Connorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12262754627111404755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-165290376032593437.post-26433176051386703192013-06-04T19:49:51.133-04:002013-06-04T19:49:51.133-04:00Strange explanations about Russia's "read...Strange explanations about Russia's "readiness" to ship S-300 system to Syria. Actually Russia has been "shipping" this system to Syria since 2007 but oddly enough Kremlin cannot finish this task so far. <br /><br />I think that proper explanation is as follows: Russia cannot deliver S-300 to Syria because of two reasons: <br /><br />- firstly, now Kremlin cannot afford to irritate the West by making such move, openly hostile to Israel <br /><br />- secondly, now S-300 system is not very effective. It can be destroyed quite easily by advanced western air power (US, NATO, Israel). <br /><br />All in all Moscow doesn't want to pay political and economic price of delivering S-300 to Syria in its relations with the West and cannot show entire World that its "amazing" S-300 system can be defeated (huge blow to the future export contracts).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com