Saturday, April 8, 2017

Why Did Russia Not Stop The U.S. Missile Strike On Syria?

An S-400 air defence missile system is deployed for a combat duty at the Hmeymim airbase to provide security of the Russian air group's flights in Syria. © Dmitriy Vinogradov / Sputnik

Damien Sharkov, Newsweek: Could Russia Have Stopped The U.S. Strike On Syria?

Russian officials have led the criticism against the U.S. decision to strike a Syrian airfield Thursday with cruise missiles despite admitting they received advance notice of the military attack.

“Yes, this information was provided… via the existing channels,” Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, told state news agency Itar-Tass. Peskov refused to comment when asked by journalists why Russia did not intervene to stop the airstrike.

His silence was telling of crucial details that highlight Russia not only could have but perhaps was able to act with what CNN is reported to have been an hour’s notice prior to the strike. Its aftermath, with Russia accusing the U.S. of violating Syria’s sovereignty and a scrapped deal to prevent air clashes with U.S. jets, also puts Russian under more pressure than before to reign in Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The S-400 Russian air defense missile system is in operation in Syria by Russian military personnel .... and apparently it is more than capable to shoot down cruise missiles. The fact that the Russian military was given a one hour heads-up on this attack tells me that a decision was made to not engage .... and I am willing to bet that it was not the Russian military that made that decision, but Russian President Putin himself who told them to stand-down.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Russia doesn't have the capabilities in Syria to shoot down such a barrage. Even if they did, it would be a gross misallocation of resources.

Anonymous said...

I believe Russia a) didn't have the capabilities to withstand 59 tomahawks, as Anon pointed out, and b) they did not want to engage, as this would be technically a military engagement with the US

War News Updates Editor said...

Anon. Your point B is why the Kremlin said no.

Jay Farquharson said...

Actually, the US Tomahawk attack and route took place well beyond the S-400's claimed radius against low flying cruise missiles.

War News Updates Editor said...

You may be right on this one Jay. These cruise missiles are low-flying.

fazman said...

Most likley putun had doubts to the systems capability to deal with the threat, if succesful thwarting or diminishing the tomahawk attack would have done for Russian arms sales what the Sheffield did for exocet sales.
Syrian s300 was def in range, a subsonic threat?, these systems are either not operational or far over hyped.

fazman said...

The system is designed to specifically deal with this type of attack and with this u.s weapon specifically in mind.
I doubt that height played a factor, the iraqis downed plenty in the opening salvo of 91.

Jay Farquharson said...

The S-400 has a 60km range against Cruise Missiles.

They are deployed near Tartus and Damascus.

It's 147 km from Damascus to Shayrat and Shayrat is 70km closer to the Lebanese coast than Damascus. To target incoming cruise missiles at Shayrat, the S-400 range against cruise missiles would have to exceed 170 km to make an intercept.

It's 147 km from Tartus to Shayrat, and while Tartus is on the Med, it's easy enough to strike from the north west and not have a single cruise missile come withing 100 km of Tartus.

Andrew Jackson said...

To all stupid people from Canadia,if you can't stop them it's over, case closed the platfom is useless,LOL!

fazman said...

What lm reading here has it as 230km against ground hugging cruise?

fazman said...

What lm reading here has it as 230km against ground hugging cruise?

Jay Farquharson said...

230km detection range.

The S-400 is a radar, command center and 4 different missiles. The anti-cruise missile, missile 9M96E has a 40 km range, which allows a 60km "range" from TOL to intercept.

You need to refer to AirPower Australia.

Anonymous said...

Could be they just evaded them. Not unusual. But makes Russian planning and commitment look a bit weak

fazman said...

Thanks

fazman said...

Syria should invest in a couple of dozen chinese LD2000 cwis land based vehicles, well worth the bargain basement price to deal with tomahawks.

fazman said...

Ciws typo

fazman said...

Ciws typo

Stephen Davenport said...

They would be hard pressed to shoot down cruise missiles. Cruise missiles follow close to the ground using GPS.

fazman said...

Its the exact scenario theyve been designed for, think phalanx on a truck, range 3000 yards.

fazman said...

Its the exact scenario theyve been designed for, think phalanx on a truck, range 3000 yards.

Cyg said...

I'm wondering what is the success rate for these missiles during testing, and other attacks. It is said that 23 of 59 reached their target, and that the location of many others is unknown. Perhaps some were destroyed, and that fact hasn't been released.
A consideration.

fazman said...

Aorpower aust had s hood analyis, malfunctions from 91 to serbia average between 2 and 5% of those launched, not counting some that actually fail and dont leave launch cylinder.

fazman said...

Airpower aust lol, and good not hood@. I got stop typing at traffic lights.

fazman said...

Airpower aust lol, and good not hood@. I got stop typing at traffic lights.