S400 in Syria - tactical and strategic implications

Sorry but it's a long lengthy article that states nothing.

Bottom line the S-400 system is as good as it's radar system and at ground level the horizon is around 16Km if my calculation is correct any further distance you need air surveillance from AWACS and a digital link between the two.
Now even an AWACS at 10,000 meters has limited view due to restraints of power that can be diverted to the radar due to the generators on the engines.

Here is the tricky question is the radars on the AWACS strong enough to register a definite read of a stealth aircraft from background noise that is traveling at altitudes of 300m that is 200Km away?

If no then is an AWACS craft able to evade an air to air missile that had been fired by the stealth aircraft?

It's an dog eats dog business.

SamuraiBlue said:

Sorry but it's a long lengthy article that states nothing.

Bottom line the S-400 system is as good as it's radar system and at ground level the horizon is around 16Km if my calculation is correct any further distance you need air surveillance from AWACS and a digital link between the two.
Now even an AWACS at 10,000 meters has limited view due to restraints of power that can be diverted to the radar due to the generators on the engines.

Here is the tricky question is the radars on the AWACS strong enough to register a definite read of a stealth aircraft from background noise that is traveling at altitudes of 300m that is 200Km away?

If no then is an AWACS craft able to evade an air to air missile that had been fired by the stealth aircraft?

It's an dog eats dog business.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is sb.. The name of the game is who sees who first... And the AWACS is most definitely going to see the bogey first and vector fighters toward him. AWACS never fly alone.. Or at least not alone in the battle space w/o air cover nearby.

As to the s400 it depends on how it's deployed. Is it deployed as a single stand alone system or deployed as part of a comprehensive AD network. S400 utilizes sensors from other linked systems no different than many modern AD system. It is as strong as the strongest sensors and radars in the entire interconnected system.

kwaigonegin said:

I'm not sure what your point is sb.. The name of the game is who sees who first... And the AWACS is most definitely going to see the bogey first and vector fighters toward him. AWACS never fly alone.. Or at least not alone in the battle space w/o air cover nearby.

As to the s400 it depends on how it's deployed. Is it deployed as a single stand alone system or deployed as part of a comprehensive AD network. S400 utilizes sensors from other linked systems no different than many modern AD system. It is as strong as the strongest sensors and radars in the entire interconnected system.

Click to expand...

I think SB's point is the one with the VLO platform will have the standoff advantage and hence also first shot advantage.
The article also makes the point that in a highly contested environment, a multitude of assets will be brought in against the IADS. An example such as :

Brumby said:

I think SB's point is the one with the VLO platform will have the standoff advantage and hence also first shot advantage.
The article also makes the point that in a highly contested environment, a multitude of assets will be brought in against the IADS. An example such as :
View attachment 22477

Click to expand...

But that would be true if any system not just S400.

Nobody is going to be taking down any Russian S400 sites. That's crazy talk. We're not talking proxy wars here. These systems are live and active, manned by Russian personnel and located inside a sovereign country that is an ally of Russia.

It would be no different than Russian bombers taking out patriot batteries in Europe or china doing the same in japan etc.

The goal is to disable the cancer known as DAESH. It would be asinine if the anti DAESH coalition starts fighting and bombing each other... Not to mention escalating into a real war with the major powers.. In which case everyone then loses except DAESH!

and then there's the mid-range BUK system, that falls between the S-400 and TOR system

Are there any Russian BUKs deployed in Syria?

Also, I think Tors are Russian army only, and so don't often work directly with S3/400 systems.

kwaigonegin said:

Nobody is going to be taking down any Russian S400 sites. That's crazy talk. We're not talking proxy wars here. These systems are live and active, manned by Russian personnel and located inside a sovereign country that is an ally of Russia.

It would be no different than Russian bombers taking out patriot batteries in Europe or china doing the same in japan etc.

The goal is to disable the cancer known as DAESH. It would be asinine if the anti DAESH coalition starts fighting and bombing each other... Not to mention escalating into a real war with the major powers.. In which case everyone then loses except DAESH!

Click to expand...

Kwai, honestly, I would suggest you read John A. Tirpaks excellent "Russian Roulette" in the December 2015 Air Force Magazine, which is now free online. He's honest and to the point, this is without doubt the most fluid and volatile engagement that we have been involved in back to the Vietnam era.

Air Force Brat said:

Kwai, honestly, I would suggest you read John A. Tirpaks excellent "Russian Roulette" in the December 2015 Air Force Magazine, which is now free online. He's honest and to the point, this is without doubt the most fluid and volatile engagement that we have been involved in back to the Vietnam era.

Click to expand...

Good article he did give some thoughts although 90% of it are quotes and opinions from others mainly US politicians. I agree 100% this is do doubt one of the most complicated and violotile wars we've seen in my generation maybe since WW II because there are waay to many players with their own self conflicting interest.

It all boils down to 3 primary things in my opinion. Russia/Iran etc wants to maintain status quo pre Arab Spring etc. US et al wants to change the status quo and install a more western friendly regime... and of course the 3rd is ISIS itself where BOTH parties want to destroy but due to the conflicting interest of the earlier two points they are ineffective in addressing and demolishing this 3rd point.

To make matters worse, caught in the middle of all this are the so call 'moderates' .. the Syrian forces who are anti Assad but are not truly moderates themselves and is basically just the same side on a different coin as as far Islamic terrorist groups are concern.

US would be very naive to think that these so call moderates who themselves consist of dozens of many different groups and loyalties will remain pro US and install a democratic reformed government if or when the conflict is over. This harkens back to the old days of Mujahideens and we all know who they are the precursor of.