I think we are probably running ahead of ourselves until we know what the ROE's are leading to a hypothetical scenario of a Turkish plane being taken down. It is important to contrast with the recent downing of the Russian plane, where Turkey had made it clear upfront that the ROE's were any further cross border incursion will result in specific action against that intrusion. The Russians chose to ignore it. The question then is what ROE's had the Russians set that would justify a similar action? You just don't take out another nation's air asset because you feel like it. It must meet certain conditions.
There were protest by Turkey to Russia over previous incursions leading eventually to very specific ROE's issued by Turkey. The Russians just chose to ignore it. ROE's either have meaning or they do not.
I think you are getting hung up on ROE and what they entail. ROE are internal and generally unit and mission specific, not theater wide edicts issued for public consumption or as warning to neighbors. Mil-Mil lines of communication exist for the express purpose of coordination between forces. The Russians had this with Turkey prior to the Su-24 shoot down and ended it in the aftermath.
Now, you characterize the Russian's and Su-24 as making a deliberate choice to ignore the Turkish boundary, but I myself don't feel confident enough in the initial statements and then revisions put forward by Turkey to believe this without question. You may. My view is that Turkey acted irresponsibly, in support of it's own agenda in Syria (cross purposes to those of us living in the west), and against it's own publicly stated position on how brief airspace violations should be dealt with. There is a reason why aircraft are painted with insignia and intercepts are conducted instead of blind fire.
For reference, quotes from President Erdogan:
|
Given that S-400 are now brought in, what specific ROE's are there that warrant the application of it? This is where the irresponsibility comes in.
The point missing from your argument is that the event leading to the shot down was the cross border incursion. Turkey was not acting in a belligerent manner because it had given prior warning that it intends to implement the ROE's should there be further violation of its air space. In other words, no violation means no probable cause for any conflict. The question is what does Russia intends to accomplish with its S-400 and what are the ROE's for its usage? How is it going to differentiate between all these aircrafts when the S-400 radiates? How do you think the coalition aircraft will respond when its planes get painted? Presumably and hopefully the de-conflicting procedures are already in place. As I understand it today, coalition planes are specifically re-vectored to avoid sharing common airspace in the event of Russian planes in the vicinity as part of de-conflict procedures. The problem is when the S-400 radiates, it can cover a very wide area and that potentially can give rise to a multitude of problems and things can go bad very quickly.
What warrants the deployment of S-400 in Syria is the shoot down of the Su-24 by Turkey and Russia's need to protect against and deter a similar scenario going forward. That much seems self evident; what is not clear are the ROE issued to the battery operators and Strike/Fighter aircrew post Su-24 incident. As I said above, that is internal, mission specific and something we can only speculate about.
My guess would be that Russian forces will now operate on a higher state of alert and keep a close eye on any external aircraft headed towards the Syrian boarder, particularly from Turkey. They will identify (key point here), assess the threat and if deemed hostile, engage. Nothing unusual in that chain, however I suspect when it comes to threat assessment, any aircraft identified as Turkish and in proximity to the Syrian boarder will now have a much higher chance to be engaged as opposed to say a US or French aircraft. For obvious reasons.
In reality S-400, like any other combat system, does not operate alone and in a vacuum. The Russians will use ground, air and naval platforms to to monitor the skies and if Russia does end up shooting an aircraft down, I fully expect it will have been Turkish and properly identified by Russian Forces. Whether it is S-400, a fighter or a missile from a ship off the coast that scores the hit really does not matter.
I would just add that the presence of the S-400 seriously complicates already a very complex airspace. If Russia does not intend to it switch it on then why have it there? If it is switched on, how is it meant to work that it doesn't contribute to unwarranted accidents?
What exactly is the S-400 meant to accomplish that cannot be accomplished by any other means? How are Turkish planes meant to be somehow distinguishable from other coalition aircraft. Say a SAM supposedly got directed at a Turkish F-16 which turned out to be a F-22. Mistakes do happen, then what?
Yes S-400 brings an added complexity to the airspace but it's worse than that. As I said in the previous paragraph, Russian Forces as a whole will now be operating differently in Syria and that is a direct result of the Su-24 shoot down. The challenge in air operations has been brought about by that one Turkish action. I noted before that Russia did not bother to arm it's aircraft with short range AAM prior to the destruction of their Su-24 by Turkey, because those altitudes of operation were not part of the battlespace in the conflict with IS. Increased AAM loadouts and S-400 deployment are steps Russia has taken to deter similar scenarios and protect it's personnel. That is what is meant to be accomplished.
