The attack on Syria

[Hrothbern]

Although it is yet unclear wat kind of military attack will take place on Syria, it looks almost certain it will happen.
The question more being what kind of attack and involvement of Russian defense, especially the new S-400 system
That S-400 is a nice export product for Russia in terms of money and influence, and this Syria attack could be the right moment to put it to the test.
(and no other conflict in the near foreseeable future to test it as well)

Trump not afraid for that test... and considering the statements of Russia, they are ready for it as well

So I wonder how effective that S-400 system will be against cruise missiles.... and if aircraft are deployed, against aircraft

any insights on that ?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Although it is yet unclear wat kind of military attack will take place on Syria, it looks almost certain it will happen.
The question more being what kind of attack and involvement of Russian defense, especially the new S-400 system
That S-400 is a nice export product for Russia in terms of money and influence, and this Syria attack could be the right moment to put it to the test.
(and no other conflict in the near foreseeable future to test it as well)

Trump not afraid for that test... and considering the statements of Russia, they are ready for it as well

So I wonder how effective that S-400 system will be against cruise missiles.... and if aircraft are deployed, against aircraft

any insights on that ?

None. Until the missiles fly it's all speculation. I suspect the military leaders on both sides, as well as Putin, are pretty eager to see an operational test. Trump is just so stupid that he is in "my missile is bigger than yours" mode, so he will no doubt be going along. I'm fairly certain the leadership of the US military is smart enough to not put aircraft in potential harm's way and risk escalation, and hope they are accessing intel well enough to avoid killing any Russians on the ground should the S-400 not meet Putin's expectations.

 

[Hrothbern]

Speculative indeed how effective the S-400 is before they fly.
And only if there would be an outcome that enables both leaders toclaim that they won the military test, the status quo is not changed by the techs.

But if either the S-400 is really effective or totally not, one of the big guys is going to lose face !

The S-400 being ineffective enabling Trump to engage in conventional gliding scale miltary actions without (much) involvement of ground troops. Continuing the current US military postion, fitting "isolationism".
The S-400 being effective changing the game globally and on the direct term solidifying the Russian position in the Near East.

Looks to me that Putin has more to win here than Trump, because he has a chance to change the game with immediate benefits as well.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I find this all rather foolish and sad.

First the Syrians screw themselves up.

Secondly Iran and Saudi Arabia interfere in Syria's internal troubles.

Thirdly Russia and the USA join in.

And fourthly now the UK and France are muddling in.

Although I suspect that the Chinese leadership is quietly laughing.

 

[Zkribbler]

Under the War Powers Act, Trump can send US military forces into combat only under certain circumstances, none applicable here. Thus, I don't expect to see any air strikes. IMHO, missiles are not covered by the WPA, and so Trump could again use them.

Every President since Nixon has claim the WPA is unconstitutional, but only a handful have ignored it (Reagan, Papa Bush, Obama, & I think maybe Clinton in Serbia).

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Putin has the best deal here, even if the S-400 is not that good (and i think it indeed is) a single US aircraft shot down is a big political and marketing victory for the S-400 and Russia while 1000 ground targets accurately destroyed is only routine.

Does anybody like SA-21 Growler more? I find Russia nomenclature confusing.

 

[Hrothbern]

Under the War Powers Act, Trump can send US military forces into combat only under certain circumstances, none applicable here. Thus, I don't expect to see any air strikes. IMHO, missiles are not covered by the WPA, and so Trump could again use them.

Every President since Nixon has claim the WPA is unconstitutional, but only a handful have ignored it (Reagan, Papa Bush, Obama, & I think maybe Clinton in Serbia).

So... in effect there is a US hurdle to test out the S-400 against aircraft.

That would however still leave open the option to deploy UK and French aircraft for air strikes to test them against the S-400.

So perhaps the missiles come first and if they pass the test, it becomes perhaps tempting to test out the aircraft as well

 

[EnglishEdward]

So... in effect there is a US hurdle to test out the S-400 against aircraft.

That would however still leave open the option to deploy UK and French aircraft for air strikes to test them against the S-400.

So perhaps the missiles come first and if they pass the test, it becomes perhaps tempting to test out the aircraft as well

Theresa May would be a fool to do that, but wait maybe she is ...

 

[red_elk]

Israel has attacked Syrian airbase just a couple of days ago. Right after the report about chemical attack in Douma.
Allegedly, a pair of F-15 launched 8 air-to ground missiles from Lebanon airspace. 5 out of 8 missiles were shot down by Syrian air defenses, without S-400 involvement.
S-400 will probably not be used, if Russian assets won't be targeted.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Israel has attacked Syrian airbase just a couple of days ago. Right after the report about chemical attack in Douma.
Allegedly, a pair of F-15 launched 8 air-to ground missiles from Lebanon airspace. 5 out of 8 missiles were shot down by Syrian air defenses, without S-400 involvement.
S-400 will probably not be used, if Russian assets won't be targeted.

Key word right there. If the missiles were the conventional (solid fueled) type, I find it highly, highly dubious they were shot down. Given the low success rate of patriots and iron dome against unguided and slow home made rockets fired from the ground on simple ballistic trajectories, I find it not credible that the Syrians/Russians had a 60% success rate against modern, very fast missiles fired from aircraft. If they were cruise missiles (much slower typically and larger) I could maybe believe it.

Anyways this brings me to the point I came here to make -

It doesn't matter how effective the S-400 is against a potential strike because regardless of the outcome, Russia will claim they were a great success while the US will claim the opposite. Very few people will ever know what actually happens.

Here's hoping this is all idle speculation that is never proven out and there is not a US strike for the Russians to attempt to intercept.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Ditto. In these cases best way to know is to find a middle point between the two ever false versions. Or look for planes that crashed due to "mechanical failure".

 

[red_elk]

Key word right there. If the missiles were the conventional (solid fueled) type, I find it highly, highly dubious they were shot down. Given the low success rate of patriots and iron dome against unguided and slow home made rockets fired from the ground on simple ballistic trajectories, I find it not credible that the Syrians/Russians had a 60% success rate against modern, very fast missiles fired from aircraft. If they were cruise missiles (much slower typically and larger) I could maybe believe it.

Given that they were fired from Lebanon airspace and targeted the airbase somewhere in the middle of Syria, they were most probably cruise missiles.
Also, Syrian air defenses show unusually high effectiveness recently, e.g. shutting down one of Israeli fighter planes earlier this year.

And obviously, to calculate success rate, we need to know how many interceptor missiles were fired.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Ditto. In these cases best way to know is to find a middle point between the two ever false versions. Or look for planes that crashed due to "mechanical failure".

Mechanical failure is the best excuse because it's super, super plausible. Prolonged flight in combat conditions is taxing as hell on the engines and airframe.

Given that they were fired from Lebanon airspace and targeted the airbase somewhere in the middle of Syria, they were most probably cruise missiles.
Also, Syrian air defenses show unusually high effectiveness recently, e.g. shutting down one of Israeli fighter planes earlier this year.

And obviously, to calculate success rate, we need to know how many interceptor missiles were fired.

Well and we also need super effective lie detectors because again, neither side is going to be completely truthful about what happened.

 

[luiz]

What I don't understand is what Trump plans to achieve with this hypothetical strike. Let's say Syria used chemical weapons. This is bad. Assad and his thugs are bad men. But what will bombing them achieve? Which opposition group will gain from this, if any? Or will it just prolong and embitter an already too long and too bitter conflict? I don't see a win scenario here.

Unless the West is going to occupy Syria and impose some democratic regime a la Iraq (great précédent there), isn't it better to just let Assad win?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Speculative indeed how effective the S-400 is before they fly.
And only if there would be an outcome that enables both leaders toclaim that they won the military test, the status quo is not changed by the techs.

But if either the S-400 is really effective or totally not, one of the big guys is going to lose face !

The S-400 being ineffective enabling Trump to engage in conventional gliding scale miltary actions without (much) involvement of ground troops. Continuing the current US military postion, fitting "isolationism".
The S-400 being effective changing the game globally and on the direct term solidifying the Russian position in the Near East.

Looks to me that Putin has more to win here than Trump, because he has a chance to change the game with immediate benefits as well.

The most likely outcome is "inconclusive and claimed as success by both sides." The US can, and most likely will since they have to up their game from the last strike, launch a few hundred missiles. S-400 will get some, and Putin will talk about those. Others will get through and blow stuff up in Syria. Trump will talk about those. Is there some limits on this outcome? If only 10% of the missiles are brought down do you think Putin wouldn't claim victory? If only 10% get through do you think that Trump won't? Short of 100% one way or the other the outcome will be "victory" on both sides.

 

[rah]

Both sides would win anyway because they'd get "real" data, which is sometimes hard to come by.

 

[red_elk]

It's already become a large military playground for several countries.
Israelis bomb Iranian military advisers, Iranians shoot down Israeli jets. Americans complain about Russians jamming their drones, Russians say American aircraft patrolling near the naval base, trying to trace submarines.
Everybody are checking capabilities of adversaries.

 

[Commodore]

It's already become a large military playground for several countries.
Israelis bomb Iranian military advisers, Iranians shoot down Israeli jets. Americans complain about Russians jamming their drones, Russians say American aircraft patrolling near the naval base, trying to trace submarines.
Everybody are checking capabilities of adversaries.

I guess Syria is just being used as the intelligence collection/training ground in preparation for when the "big one" finally kicks off.

 

[innonimatu]

Am I the only one who fears that an attack will lead to escalation, to potentially very destructive escalation?

 

[Ajidica]

Am I the only one who fears that an attack will lead to escalation, to potentially very destructive escalation?

Depends what you mean by destructive escalation and destructive for who.

Nuclear exchange or conventional war between US and the Russian Federation? No.
Escalation of conflict through poorly disguised "proxy" forces? Quite possible.
More death, destruction, and suffering visited on the people of Syria? Certainly.