Replies

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 you are making a common mistake in regards to your statement about the Israelis 'neautralizing' the S-300. The 2007 Israeli attack on Syria (Operation Orchard) was a total success, with the Israelis using both jamming and cyber type electronic warfare to deceive (and in one case, absolutely incapacitate) the Syrian air defense. The Syrian IADS went dead.

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.