Russia's anti-aircraft weapons in Syria

London: Russia's military build-up in Syria includes surface-to-air missiles as well as combat aircraft with air-to-air capability, deployments that raise "serious questions" about Moscow's role in the region, US Secretary of State John Kerry says. Russian officials have said that the purpose of the build-up at a base near Latakia, Syria, is to combat Islamic State. The deployment of air defence systems and fighter aircraft weapons that can be used against a conventionally armed foe but have little utility against extremist fighters has spurred concerns that Moscow's goal is to establish a military outpost in the Middle East. It has also added to the Pentagon's worries about the risk of an inadvertent confrontation between Russia's military and the US-led coalition that is carrying out air strikes in Syria against Islamic State.

While Mr Kerry did not provide details, a US official, who requested anonymity, said a Russian SA-22 air defence system was in place in Latakia. The US observed elements of the system at the base in the last week and now the launcher and the missiles were there, too, the official said.
The US official added that the four Su-27 aircraft Russia flew to the base were armed with air-to-air missiles.

"What's the air-to-air threat there for them?" asked the official, who called the development "troubling". However, other US officials suggested the deployment might simply reflect the Russian military's standard defensive precautions as it established an air hub in a foreign country.
The prefabricated building that Russia has erected at the base can house 2000 military advisers and personnel. Ferrying weapons and equipment to the base has involved more than 20 flights by Russian Condor transport planes: almost all have flown to Syria by passing over Iran and Iraq.
Syria – and the migrant crisis it has spawned – has been a focus of Mr Kerry's trip to Europe.

After a meeting on Saturday with British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, Mr Kerry said it was vital to pursue a diplomatic solution to the crisis but Moscow was not putting enough pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to make him negotiate seriously. Both Mr Hammond and Mr Kerry emphasised that Mr Assad could not remain in power if there was to be a durable solution to the conflict, but they said the timing of his departure during a political transition in Syria would be a matter of negotiation. "It doesn't have to be on day one or month one," Mr Kerry said. "There is a process by which all the parties have to come together and reach an understanding of how this can best be achieved. "I just know that the people of Syria have already spoken with their feet," he said. "They're leaving Syria." Despite his concerns about Russia's military build-up in Syria, Mr Kerry said the Obama administration welcomed a role for Russian forces if it was focused on combating Islamic State and not on propping up Mr Assad. "IS is plotting attacks today against the West," Mr Kerry said. "So to the degree that Russia wants to focus its efforts against IS, we welcome that."

LINK

So Russia has surface to air missiles deployed to Syria? ISIS does not have an air force or any aircraft so what are these missiles for? They are primarily used in shooting down aircraft.

Last week Putin stated he would not take any responsibility for any incidents between the U.S armed forces flying various missions in Syria. These next few weeks in Syria will be very interesting. I foresee a U.S. airplane or two being shot down and what will Obama do? All talk and no walk. Obama is the weakest U.S. president we have had during any time of war.

Personally I don't understand why the U.S. is even involved in the Middle East? Anyone who has EVER believed the lie..... that due to the U.S. presence in the Middle East this has made the U.S. safer has bought into this lie. The same with the terrorist threat.... what threat? One, two radicals making a small move against the U.S.?

Please don't tell me that terrorist flew those planes into the World Trade Center..... no one is buying that either except those who took the red pill.

Russia had Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs) in Vietnam too, and they trained the "North" Vietnamese to use them to defend their country.

Should be interesting. In Vietnam, the SAM missile batteries took down their share of US aircraft, but they were nowhere as sophisticated as todays missiles.

Blah blah blah Russian SAMS are TEH HAXOR!! Yeah yeah nothing ever works as advertised especially those. Greece had some and they didnt detect stealth craft until well within its kill radius. they did it in both modes In a NON ECM environment...65 nm detection. in a FULL ECM environ it was 25 nm. within range of anti radiation missiles both times.

yeah, why are there russian sams?
or, what's more interesting, why are there US missile batteries deployed around russia?

With a neighbour like Turkey to the North and deciding it would create it's own zone I think Syria having some air defence might just be for insurance .I would imagine that any US runs into the area should be known to the Syrian Govt. ,just to reduce the chance of a mistake ...but sometimes mistakes happen ...It just came to me that Israel might want to give a little shout out too .just to be safe .

a reply to: anticitizen

why are there US missile batteries deployed around russia?

Pretty sure that hasn't happened, and it won't happen in the future thanks to a little country called China.

How dare the Syrian government set up defenses in its own territory.

so russia sends in a bunch of military hardware to secure their only overseas base (not sure on this actually) and the world flips out? no pro Russian by any margin but how is it news that in a combat zone the Russians may want to increase their firepower around their base,and keep their puppet in charge?

on the surface to air missile issue,what if they got intel that planes may be hijacked and want to be able to engage them? or perhaps isis is attempting to train pilots or plans to seize an airbase(lol good luck with that one)? i think the article got it right in the tiny snippet of this is their standard operating procedure ,send in ground troops to bolster security of the base then bring in anti air to make sure they can hold it if they have to defend it. id be far more worried about the russian boomer off syra then the anti air craft missiles that are probally destined to keep assaad in power

www.nytimes.com...

WASHINGTON — Russia has sent some of its most modern battle tanks to a new air base in Syria in what American officials said Monday was part of an escalating buildup that could give Moscow its most significant military foothold in the Middle East in decades. Pentagon officials said that the Russian weapons and equipment that had arrived suggested that the Kremlin’s plan is to turn the airfield south of Latakia in western Syria into a major hub that could be used to bring in military supplies for the government of President Bashar al-Assad. It might also serve as a staging area for airstrikes in support of Syrian government forces. “We have seen movement of people and things that would suggest the air base south of Latakia could be used as a forward air operating base,” Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said Monday.

seems they didnt even send much of a force (200 infantry 15 howitzers and dozen or so tanks) i think putin is doing what the west does,deploy new weapons for testing against less advanced fighting forces so that if any problems show up they show up against a foe thats not a threat to the mainland. and with the presence of ELINT forces they may be attempting to gather intel on new us/nato platforms operating in the area ,or by their presence attempt to deter these new platforms from being use

www.bellingcat.com...

Newly published images showing a Russian R-166-0.5 (ultra) high-frequency signals (HF/VHF) vehicle driving through Syria’s coastal region now leaves little to no doubt on Russia’s intentions in Syria. The R-166-0.5 provides jam-resistant voice and data communications over a long range, enabling Russian troops to communicate with their bases in the coastal strongholds of Tartus and Lattakia while operating far inland. The vehicle can be seen escorted by Syrian military personnel, likely belonging to the National Defence Force (NDF). Far more interesting however is the soldier sitting near the open hatch of the vehicle. Seemingly unaware that a photo is being taken, he is wearing the Russian Army’s standard digital flora uniform, once again proving that we’re truly dealing with Russian military personnel. On the rear of the vehicle, darker olive paint has been used to conceal the tactical number of the R-166-0.5, eliminating any chance to identify the brigade the vehicle belongs to. Concealing the tactical number or any other identification marks became standard practice during the Ukrainian conflict.

www.brookings.edu...

Russia’s apparent escalation in Syria is less dramatic than it seems, but it still represents another depressing development in the ongoing nightmare of the Syrian civil war. While it appears no Russian troops are engaged in fighting, the volume of military cargo delivered from Russia to Syria by sea and air has significantly increased in the last couple of weeks. President Putin did assert that it was “premature” to talk about direct Russian participation in the yet-to-be-built coalition against the various terrorist groups in the country. And even though Putin says it, it might still be true. Clearly, putting scarce Russians troops on the ground to fight in a hopelessly stagnant civil war is not Moscow’s preferred path. Instead, the recent escalation probably reflects an effort to establish a position of strength from which to bring Moscow back into the center of the diplomacy over Syria. It won’t work, though Russian assistance and weapons to the regime may make the situation in Syria even worse for the population.

this link takes a more pessimistic view on the issue and seems to imply that any russian involvement will end the same way it did for the west


www.businessinsider.com... only really posting this one for the map that shows just a few of the various factions involved in this Syrian quagmire

[url=http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/55ea4fba9dd7cc24008b86cb-1280-1094/screen%20shot%202015-09-04%20at%207.10.31%20pm%20(2)%20copy.png]map?[ /url]

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: anticitizen

why are there US missile batteries deployed around russia?

Pretty sure that hasn't happened, and it won't happen in the future thanks to a little country called China.

yup, that's probably got to be the only country with no US/nato base around russia.

anyway, absolutely no problem with a huge russian military presence in syria. after all syria is russia's ally, and in bad condition with assad losing ground every day.
i'm rather surprised there isn't more russian engagement.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

imo the russian sams clearly deliver the message to the US led coalition to not try anything nasty over assad's territory. (US emphasized they want to get rid of assad)
after all the only planes in the sky are from the US led coalition.

a reply to: anticitizen

exactly they are in country to keep assad in power with out a doubt,and with the Russian support he is likely to stay in power (thus russia gets to keep their base).at this rate Assad will end up the next castro

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Russia is taking advantage of the situation. They know there is almost no chance of their system being bothered, while they can grab whatever intelligence they can. The F-22 is flying in the area, and there are systems that don't normally get used in use that the Russian crews can pick up with systems on their SAM batteries. This is the first time an F-22 has flown anywhere near a Russian missile battery.

Although many systems are described as air to air or SAMS doesn't mean they are only useful as anti aircraft, many such systems are also used to intercept rockets and missiles while in the air much like Israel's iron dome ....an anti air defence
Or patriot and rapier
Hell you shoulda seen all the anti air in Afghanistan and Iraq, no hostile aircraft but lots and lots of rockets and improvised missiles

a reply to: Zaphod58

not disagreeing, but why do they need the expensive f-22 against an enemy like ISIS?
i think the a-10, the apache, the ac-130 would do a good job in lighting everything up that moves with more than one wheel or with a black flag.

one ac-130 over palmyra after the terrorists announced they will destroy it and i think the monuments would still be there.

a reply to: anticitizen

Because it can and is doing things the AC-130 can't, besides surviving in contested airspace. The F-22s are using their sensors to act as both AWACS and JSTARS for coalition aircraft, without exposing those aircraft to any threats in the area.

The AC-130 is a great aircraft, in the right environment. Flying over Syria isn't that environment. Even the newest versions are vulnerable to defenses that other aircraft aren't. They have to operate at fairly low altitude, are slow, and with all that weight are fairly vulnerable to damage.

Put them in an area with a low threat picture and they're perfect.

F-22s over Syria:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And then there's always this

www.longwarjournal.org...

www.longwarjournal.org...

www.longwarjournal.org...

Interesting to see if theyre able to get any frames off the ground
The way ISIS is going I would think it possible
And let's face it the old Soviet stuff whereas looks like it runs on steam, with enough airframes and the simplicity of the engineering getting even one in the sky even if it's a few seconds of footage it will be a huge PR win, a magnet for recruiting and hey an extra excuse for the west to keep up the selective bombing

a reply to: Zaphod58

The air defense system is there by request and purchase from/by Syrian government
which technically makes them Syrian.
and while training will be provided by Russian instructors, it will be operated by Syria
I fail to see how Russia is in any way "taking advantage'
but lets discuss the details while ignoring the elephant in the room

a reply to: all2human

No, it's not there by purchase. The Pantsir-S1 that Russia sent to Syria is reportedly not one that they export. It is only used by Russian forces and is the most advanced version of the system. The ones for Syria aren't as advanced.

They're taking advantage because they have the opportunity to test their system against active US stealth systems, without having to worry SEAD units targeting their system while they're grabbing every bit of data they can.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Russia currently sells Pantsir-S1 to eight countries, including Brazil, Syria, United Arab Emirates and most recently, Iraq

www.defenseworld.net...

a reply to: all2human

Yes they do, but they aren't the same version used by the Russian military. The most advanced versions of their equipment is only for their use. They're still Pantsir-S1s, but they don't have the advanced equipment that the ones the Russian units use.

But as Victor Suvorov, a member of Soviet military intelligence who defected to the West, explains, the Gulf War performance is misleading because the Soviets provided greatly simplified version of equipment for export to foreign nations, called “monkey models.” Suvorov writes:

It is intended that the `monkey-model’ approach will be used not only for building tanks, but for all other sorts of equipment-rockets, guns, aircraft, radio sets, etc. In peacetime these variants are turned out in large quantities, but they are only issued to countries friendly to the Soviet Union. I have seen two variants of the BMP-1 infantry combat vehicle-one which is issued to the Soviet army and another which is intended for the Soviet Union’s Arab friends.

taskandpurpose.com...