Skip to comments.Report: Russia sends Assad 'ship killing missile'
Posted on 05/17/2013 11:16:12 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Report: Russia sends Assad 'ship killing missile'
Russia delivers Yakhont missiles, warships to Assad; Lavrov: Arms deal won't change regional balance of power
Russia sold advanced Yakhont antiship cruise missiles to Syrian President Bashar Assad, outfitted with an advanced guidance system that makes them more effective than the older version of the missile Russia sold to Syria, The New York Times cited two American officials as saying on Thursday.
These missiles will allow Syria to thwart any attempt by international forces to reinforce Syrian rebels by imposing a naval embargo or no fly zone, Nick Brown the editor in chief of IHS Jane's International Defense Review told The New York Times.
It enables the regime to deter foreign forces looking to supply the opposition from the sea, or from undertaking a more active role if a no-fly zone or shipping embargo were to be declared at some point, Brown said, Its a real ship killer, he added.
According to the Times report, Syria ordered the coastal defense version of the Yakhont system from Russia in 2007 and received the first units in early 2011.
Jeffrey White, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former senior American intelligence official, told the Times that by strengthening Syria's arsenal Russia was signalling its "commitment to the Syrian government."
In a separate report on Thursday, the Wall Street Journal cited US and European officials as saying that Russia sent at least a dozen warships to its Tartus naval base in Syria, in a move partly meant to send a message to Israel and the West not to intervene militarily in the country.
"It is a show of force. It's muscle flexing," the Journal quoted a senior US defense official as saying. "It is about demonstrating their commitment to their interests."
Facing international criticism for his country's decision to sell the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Syria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Friday contended that the arms deal would not alter the balance of power in the region.
During a meeting in Sochi, Russia with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Lavrov was quoted by AFP as saying "this does not in any way alter the balance of forces in this region or give any advantage in the fight against the opposition."
Lavrov claimed that Russia's arms deals with Syria do not violate international agreements. "I do not understand why the media is trying to create a sensation out of this," AFP quoted him as saying.
"We have not hidden that we supply weapons to Syria under signed contracts, without violating any international agreements, or our own legislation," he added.
Justice Minister Tzipi Livni on Friday criticized Russia for sending arms to the Syrian regime, stating that "the transfer of arms to Syria is clearly not positive and does not contribute to the stability of the region," according to AFP.
"Israel has the right to defend itself," AFP quoted Livni as saying.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu reportedly urged Russian President Vladimir Putin in a summit in Sochi on Tuesday not to sell the state-of-the-art S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria.
Israeli officials declined to comment on Lavrovs latest interview, which appeared to contradict a statement he made last week that Russia would not sell the S-300 advanced air defense system to Syria.
Michael Wilner contributed to this report.
Russian Yakhont anti-ship cruise missile. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
The S-300 is entirely compromised it seems. Many times it’s just flat out been ECM’d. I think these next ones are probably not much better against ECM. The USSR/Russians never really did much combat against ECM, and they always got slammed in real combat. Often to the point where their systems were probably worse than having nothing at all.
Looks like the US peace dividend has really paid off.
Smart strategic move, on the part of the Russians. The missiles might keep U.S. ships away; yet they aren’t a specific threat to the U.S., unless the U.S. becomes the aggressor, and makes the first move.
Turkey, Israel, Italy, France and even Spain and Germany have submarines in the Mediterranean sea. The latest Israeli and German U-boats are equipped with a mast-mounted gun system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_RMK30. The submarine can attack a vessel with that gun while staying submerged. Try to hit a submarine with a radar guided missile.
On the other side you don’t need to get so close to Syria to stop ships on their way to Syria.
I don’t think so. The problem Syria has a contested ground, not skies right now. You simply can’t operate such a sophisticated system like S-300 in an environment like that with rebels around.
Israel’s gone in many times and done their jobs. This isn’t the first time. The S-300 system is totally compromised by Israel.
LOL. Did Israel attack Greece, Vietnam, Venezuela or China? These are probably only four nations who has ever deployed S-300s outside Russia and Eastern Europe. None of Israel’s adversaries has one.
You certainly seem to be involved in the S-300 sales. Hmm. I’ll still say it’s clearly compromised.
You are PROBABLY right. Just tell me who and when did compromised it.
Please, bring any facts or it looks like you are spreading liberal lies aka ‘soviet junk myth’.
I think it’s clearly shown that the USSR era weapons are entirely ECM’d.
You’re going to accuse me of liberalism? When I’m saying our ECM wrecks Russian stuff? Israel’s attacked Syria in the last few weeks that were defended with s-300s and were in and out. I’m not going to google the other Israel ECM overrides for you though. The latest one is enough.
First, Syria has no s300s deployed. Second, no antiaircraft system is 100% invulnerable.
And there is no evidence to prove if ECM wrecks Russian stuff more effectively than say Chinese, German or American stuff.
As for a Soviet junk myth it is 100% related to liberalism. It is based on careful misinterpretation of Arab-Israely and Gulf War facts to make up an idea of total inferiority of enemy weapons. It is all about to convince public into thinking that military doesn’t need any improvement.
The main problem there are few facts to really back that myth because both Arab-Israely and Gulf War were more about superior strategy, tactics and training than about equipment. As for a Gulf War it was nothing but shooting a fish in a barrel. Iraqi air force and air defences were stuffed to withheld Iranian attacks. They had no chance against a thousands aircraft coalition force and still Iraq killed about twice as many coalition aircraft in actual combat than coalition shot down Iraqi planes.
If we are still talking on equipment it also worth mentioning that not only poorly trained Arab forces used not just Soviet equipment but a 20 to 40 yo Soviet equipment or locally-made counterfeit copies. 1980s Abrams vs 1950s T-55 is a bad example of inferiority of contemporary Russian technology. Here comes a relative success of jamming against derelict and tiny air defences.
That same Soviet weapons worked pretty well for competent forces against legacy or newer American stuff manned by incompetent adversaries (see Iran-Iraq, India-Pakistan).
The reality is no one knows how newer antiaircraft systems are working being deployed properly and manned with trained personnel.
Last time a sufficient systems contemporary to facing them American assets were tested in Vietnam. There were ECMs at the time as well, but USAF&USN lost about 3000 jets anyway.
ECMs has improved for decades but so did SAMs. I don’t think there are airmen lining to check it out.
“Smart strategic move, on the part of the Russians. “
Scenario one. The Syrians lose control of a few launchers and the rebels launch the missiles at Russian ships. This would take technical help from the outside, but it’s doable.
Scenario two. The Israelis send in a team, take a launcher and fire it at a Russian ship(s).
Scenario three. The Syrian command structure breaks down and the commander of a battery fires at what he believes to be enemy ships but they turn out to be allies.
Scenario three is most likely.
asswad asswad. asswad asswad
(Well, it should since it was a joint project...)
Honestly, do you work for Almaz?
That is fact.
However, for some reason that has been taken to mean that the Israelis neautralized the S-300. Well, what is also fact is that the most advanced SAM system the Syrians had then was the Buk missile defence system, which is a short-to-medium range missile system. This is the same system that the Israelis further punked in May this year when they bombed targets around Damascus.
Now, the S-300 is a very different system from the Buk. Kind of similar to comparing the Littoral Combat Ship with an Arleigh Burke destroyer.
Anyways, if the system is 'clearly compromised' and that having nothing is better than having the S-300, then I wonder why Israel paid Russia to not transfer the S-300 to Iran a couple of years ago, and why Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu flew to Russia last week (May 14) to meet Putin to ask him not to transfer the S-300 to Syria. Quite peculiar behavior considering the system is worse than having nothing. It may also be interesting to compare the results of the NATO exercise MACE XIII where a Slovak owned S-300 was challenged by NATO forces in the exercise, and by the time it was neutralized it had expended all its missiles with successful shots.
Anyways, the Buk is a totally useless system when put against a modern airforce. It is the most modern system used by Syria. The S-300, on the other hand, is quite effective. It is not used by Syria, and Netanyahu met Putin last week regarding the proposed sale of the system (again, interesting to send him for a system 'worse than nothing'). Does that mean the system is invincible? Heck no. Like any other component in an integrated air defense system it can be incapacitated/destroyed. For instance there are some nice electronic attacks that target the radars (since the radar is simply a big radio wave transmitter). However, a nation having a system like the S-300 means a greater chance of your pilots getting shot down, and this is why Israel (and the US in the case of Iran) has not taken the threat as lightly as you seem to be. They can still hit Damascus even if they got the S-300, but it would come at a cost!
And to a patriot if meeting Putin means the S-300 doesn't go to Syria (or making a payment means no delivery to Iran), then that is worth it. Far better than confusing the S-300 with the Buk and saying having a S-300 comprised IADS is worse than having nothing.