S-400 Threat

To the OP:

- My personal belief is that US aircraft probably tried to avoid flying within the engagement zones of the S-400. Even if they did, I highly doubt the Russians would target US aircraft for fear of escalation. Storm Shadow range is >560 km low-low (Wikipedia) and JASSM-ER range is 1,000 km (Wikipedia), both allowing allied aircraft to remain well outside of S-400 engagement zones. I think the Global Hawk that did battle damage assessment flew within range of the S-400, but I'm not sure.

- I doubt the Russians in the S-400 were particularly worried. A strike on either S-400 site would cause Russia to escalate, which the US wanted to avoid. The S-400 site would almost certainly be heavily protected by other systems and always under some form of constant radar coverage.

- I would have thought that Russia would probably attempt to shoot down the cruise missiles. Maybe they would avoid using the S-400 for that to prevent giving out information, but the S-400 wasn't ideally positioned to do so anyway. More likely this would rely on other systems deployed in Syria if they were present.

EDIT: I think Cypress is in the range of the S-400 systems. Which is interesting because the S-400 apparently has an A2G mode, so there's the possibility that Russia could technically attack the airbase on Cypress with a SAM repurposed as a cruise missile.

I did some more searching. Probably best if you look at a map when reading this post.

Russia has S-400 deployed in two locations:
- Khmeimim air base in Latakia
- Russian naval facility in Tartus

The S-350E has also been deployed at:
- Masyaf

This is because Russian military bases are by the coast in this region.

The Barzah research center is in Damascus or around 150 kilometers from Tartus and more than 100 kilometers from Masyaf. This was targeted by 76 missiles, including 57 Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles (TLAM) and 19 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) air-launched cruise missiles.

The other sites, 29 missiles total including TLAM, Storm Shadow and SCALP, were near Homs. This is about 50 km from Masyaf and maybe 80 km from Tartus.

In both cases it looks like from the sea there is significant opportunity for terrain masking between major Russian presence and the targets. Terrain masking could also be done over the sea before the missiles reached land, by flying below the radar horizon and picking a time when Russian/Syrian naval/air elements were not present or could be bypassed. Taking a longer route however, could increase exposure time to smaller and more mobile air defense systems whose positions are not known.

Also note that all targets are relatively close to the border with Lebanon. Lebanon also has a lot of hills, and unless Syria stations air defenses in Lebanon or Lebanon works with Syria, this could limit warning time and early detection.

Another tactic could be to fly the missiles in multiple different routes to the target but with the some time-on-target, as well, limiting the effect that air defenses have. Typically radars can only face in one direction as well. No wonder some missiles came from the east. The missiles that came from the east would have been far from the Russian presense, but there is less opportunity for terrain masking here, maybe that's why they were stealthy.

Note: Distances are approximate.
Note 2: Terrain elevations guessed from eyeballing the satellite view. I don't have Google Earth extension either so I cannot see elevation data, hills usually are distinctive though.
Note 3: I did not exhaustively source data on Russian/Syrian SAM site locations.

EDIT: And here's a pretty good video on Russian air defences in Syria. Southfront is extremely biased, but this video was very informative. Basically confirms that the S-400 is used to deny airspace to most aircraft except those that are low flying, and instead force the adversary to rely on stand-off missiles, which systems such as the Pantsir are designed to shoot down, as the S-400s long range missiles are relatively scarce and cannot be everywhere at once. This is probably exactly what has happened, but it's not known if any Russian Pantsir's were involved yet.

a reply to: C0bzz

A medal for you! hell, two medals

a reply to: Forensick

By 2020 the Russian's will field the S-500 which is claimed to be much more capable with a response time of 3 to 4 seconds instead of the 7 to 9 seconds for the S-400. youtu.be...

youtu.be...

a reply to: 727Sky

I listened to about 5 seconds and by chance jumped on the section that claimed that more than a trillion dollars has been spent on the F-35 program. Then I looked at the comments.

Looks like you're spreading propaganda (again).

Why? Or are you just really really susceptible to it?

They should compare S-500 with Block IIA SM-3 combined with Sea-based X-band Radar, which is 5 times the range of the S-500. The radar in SBX can track an object the size of a baseball from 4,700 km away. But anyone can build a bigger missile with longer range with a bigger radar, there's nothing stopping for example, an AMRAAM from being mounted on top of an ICBM.

a reply to: C0bzz

Took you 5 seconds.

You need a mirror.

P

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: mightmight

I guess you were shown that there were 103 hits on target.... Right 🤔

Of course not and thats not necessarily the case anyway. A certain (small) percentage will fail to reach the target due to technical malfunctions. Its also possible that ordnance was self destructed in flight after the first waves hit their targets due to Russian AD not engaging them.

But if you look at the BDA (twitter.com...) - those sites got hit hard. Alot more han neccessary.

@C0bzz

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Whoisjohngalt

It is true. Syria have given the number and location.

They didn't shoot down anything other than decoys, all they had to shoot with were old S200's with stone age radars that were fully countered.

originally posted by: spy66
According to Syria they downed 71 out of 103 missiles tracked.

If this is true then there is no doubt that russia have helped Syria with upgrades. Because Syria mostly have very old radars and air defence assets.

71 hits out of 103 missiles tracked are very good stats for Syria on its own. If you considder what their inventorry is.

Russia mentioned today that they might sell the S-300 favoritt to Syria.
With this system Syria will be even more capable of reaching targets used to deliver missiles from Jordan airspace.

In full ECM A F22 can get within 60 NM of a S400. well within strike range of anti radar missles to kill them.

a reply to: yuppa

And you know that how?

I guess this had been done with the F-22?

Or you just stating some wishfull thinking🤔

a reply to: TinfoilTP

If you dont know what Syria used against our missiles... It is pointless to argue this with you.

a reply to: C0bzz

 I think Cypress is in the range of the S-400 systems. 

Don't believe wiki. Plus, missiles at the sites are worth far more tactically than used as a SSM. Far better to just use a purpose-built SSM of which they have plenty.

Another tactic could be to fly the missiles in multiple different routes to the target but with the some time-on-target, as well, limiting the effect that air defenses have...
Typically radars can only face in one direction as well...
maybe that's why they were stealthy

Bones probably used JASSM-ER because it was there, but it is a nice bonus. You can also try this sort of thing in reverse where your LO assets make ingress while your other forces assemble to parade in, maybe "accidentally" radiate on occasion, and generally hold the interest of the IADS. Grab 'em by the nose, and kick them in the pants.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TinfoilTP

If you dont know what Syria used against our missiles... It is pointless to argue this with you.

No evidence any were shot down that weren't decoys. Russia's anti air was a dudd.

If they were any good they would have at least turned them S400's on and shot stuff out of the sky, it would be a free chance to sell them, now nobody wants to buy that junk when the Russians themselves wouldn't show them off for their potential buyers.

They are selling S-300 next, and making S 500 for themselves. Iran was watching and I bet they don't want anymore stinking S200 or S300, probably not ever S400.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

You really need to get over this superiority complex. Russia makes some damn good defensive systems, and missiles and always has. The S400 was put into Syria top defend Russian bases and troops, not to defend all of Syria. If they had used them to shoot down missiles that weren't threatening them, the RC-135 and EA-6Bs in the area would have gotten all kinds of extremely useful information from it. There was no need to give us that kind of information, because none of their bases were in any danger.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Clearly you are highly misinformed about Russian missile technology. For obvious reasons no one wants a S-200. The S-300 is still a useful piece of defense. The S-400 Is most likely extremely capable of bringing down what it locks onto. Russia does not want to risk using it to target Tomahawks for reasons that Zaphod pointed out.The less we know about Russian missile tech the better it is for Russia.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Clearly you are highly misinformed about Russian missile technology. For obvious reasons no one wants a S-200. The S-300 is still a useful piece of defense. The S-400 Is most likely extremely capable of bringing down what it locks onto. Russia does not want to risk using it to target Tomahawks for reasons that Zaphod pointed out.The less we know about Russian missile tech the better it is for Russia.

Sounds like as soon as we get signals from it, we will know how to defeat it. So it is good only when the power is turned off ie same as a stone in a slingshot.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Its Odd that we dont know how to make our cruise missiles dominant against Syrias old systems. We had to use 105 missiles to reach three different target assets.

Dont tell me that 71 of them had technical problems or lost its cource and were self destructed. Because that implies that our cruice missiles sucks and are not reliable.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: yuppa

And you know that how?

I guess this had been done with the F-22?

Or you just stating some wishfull thinking🤔

The GREEKS have a S-400 system we tested them against. Im not just talking out of my Butt here. Although they have recently updated to the newer models of S-400. Still within JASSM range of a thousand km (when its in a NON ECM environment)


S-400
Operational range
400 km (40N6 missile)
250 km (48N6 missile)
120 km (9M96E2 missile)
40 km (9M96E missile)

Point is they arent invincible no matter how you try to spin it.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

That's not what either of us said. But if you can get signals from it, and have lots of time to sit and analyze them, you can develop a jamming pattern for it. It takes a good bit if time to do, but if we were to get signals from it now, we'd have that time.

a reply to: spy66

And you have seen all 71 missiles that were shot down right?

Oh wait, Syria said it, so it must be true.