As a result of recent events in Syria, discussions have resumed on modern air defense systems. Foreign military leaders made a number of statements about the Russian air defense systems, and in addition, the foreign press became interested in the topic. So, the American edition of The National Interest tried to give its assessment of the current situation around Russian-made air defense systems.
On April 23, the publication published a new article by its regular contributor Dave Majumdar under The Buzz and Security headlines with the loud headline "Russia's S-300 or S-400: F-35 Killer or Overhyped?" - "Russian S-300 and S-400: F-35 killers or overpriced dummies?" As the name implies, the topic of the article was Russian anti-aircraft missile systems, their combat effectiveness and third-party assessments.
At the beginning of the article, D. Majumdar pointed out that the American military department questioned the effectiveness of Russian-made air defense systems. And immediately after that, he offers his own interpretation of current events.
The author of The National Interest believes that the latest Pentagon statements about Russian weapons are connected with a desire to influence Turkey. Ankara has decided to purchase Russian S-400 air defense systems, and this does not suit Washington. At the same time, recent American statements contradict the observed facts. The United States and its allies are investing hundreds of billions of dollars in stealth aircraft and long-range cruise missiles, while Russian-made defenses against them are declared ineffective.
D. Majumdar also recalls that before the briefing on April 19, the US military usually considered the S-400 complex as a threat. Earlier it was argued that such a system is capable of creating an A2 / AD area (the so-called restriction and denial of access and maneuver) and exclude the work of the enemy.
The Pentagon officially announced that all the coalition's missiles hit their targets in Syria - despite the clearly dubious claims of the Russian side, according to which the Syrian air defense shot down most of the missiles. After the missile strike, Dana White, a spokesman for the US Department of Defense, said that Russia mistakenly claims the successes of the Syrian army. It is alleged that some of the missiles were shot down, but in fact all the intended targets were hit.
D. White also commented on the work of the Syrian air defense. According to her, all launched surface-to-air missiles were launched after the missiles of the United States and allies reached their targets. Also, a Pentagon spokesman noted that Russian air defense systems were ineffective. Two days after the missile strike, Russia and the "Bashar al-Assad regime" allegedly again demonstrated the ineffectiveness of air defense when it accidentally went into combat mode.
A spokesman for the Chiefs of Staff, Lieutenant General Kenneth F. Mackenzie Jr. later confirmed D. White's information. He said that during the missile strike on Syria, Russian air defense systems were active, but did not take any action and did not try to shoot down incoming missiles. The general indicated that the Russian side was monitoring the air situation. In addition, there was a long-range radar surveillance and control aircraft in the area. The Russian military decided not to participate in the current events, and K. Mackenzie cannot say why they acted in this way.
The representative of the Committee of the Chiefs of Staff confirmed the information about the low effectiveness of air defense on the territory of Syria, but made an important reservation. He admitted that there is a significant difference between the outdated systems in service with the Syrian army and the modern systems operated by the Russian troops. General Mackenzie also noted that the part of the Syrian air defense, which is controlled by the Russian military, actively worked and comprehensively counteracted the missile attack. In this regard, the general draws conclusions about the differences between different complexes under the control of the military personnel of the two countries. Although the Russian side has done nothing, it is directly linked to the systems in Syria.
Dave Majumdar believes that all statements by American officials about the ineffectiveness of Russian air defense systems are connected not so much with the recent strike, but with relations within NATO and the desire to keep one of the partners. In his opinion, all these words are addressed to Turkey, the wayward ally of the United States in the North Atlantic Alliance. Ankara wants to buy the Russian S-400 Triumph anti-aircraft systems, and Washington, in turn, is trying to dissuade it from such a decision.
Earlier, Dana White said that the American side held negotiations with Turkish colleagues, and they were warned of problems with the compatibility of technology. Thus, Russian-made complexes are unlikely to be able to work with standard NATO communications and command facilities. But in the end, according to D. White, the decision remains with Turkey. It will have to decide for itself which actions are in line with its strategic interests.
In the current situation, according to the author of The National Interest, there is an interesting problem. If we take on faith the words of the Pentagon representatives about the ineffectiveness of Russian anti-aircraft systems, then an unpleasant question arises: why would the United States invest hundreds of billions of dollars in stealth technologies and equipment using them? The effectiveness of Russian air defenses has long been used as an excuse for the outrageously high cost of stealth aircraft. And after recent statements, this argument is gone. It turns out that the threat to which subtle samples of technology were supposed to respond simply does not exist.
After that, D. Majumdar recalls the cost of the most famous programs in the field of stealth aviation. The Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit bomber development and construction program cost taxpayers $ 45 billion. The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor project was worth nearly $ 67 billion. The cost of the current Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program will eventually reach $ 406 billion. The United States Air Force has not yet published financial plans for the project of the new Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider bomber, but, according to various estimates, $ 56 billion will be spent on this project. Importantly, these figures only reflect the development and construction costs of the aircraft, but do not include operating costs.
In addition to aircraft, the United States is developing aircraft weapons with specific features and capabilities. Unobtrusive long-range cruise missiles are being developed, the most famous of which are the JASSM-ER and LRSO. Together with them, other types of weapons are being developed that can overcome the developed air defense.
Almost always, Russian-made anti-aircraft systems are considered as a potential threat to such missiles. And again the question arises: what is the point if the air defense systems of Russia are actually useless? You can recall the threat in the face of China, but this does not remove such questions. The National interest reminds that Chinese anti-aircraft systems are basically copies of Russian-made products.
D. Majumdar believes that at the next hearings in the Committee on the Armed Forces, the senators will again have to hear the disturbing stories of the military leaders about the threats posed by the Russian anti-aircraft systems S-300, S-400, etc. Once again, such a threat will be used to justify the outstanding budgets of various projects and programs. Probably, the speakers will again talk about the Russian A2 / AD zones in the Kaliningrad region, Crimea and other regions. Thus, the cycle will be restarted.
* * *
Recall that the reason for the recent discussions of the effectiveness of Russian-made anti-aircraft systems was a NATO missile strike on targets in Syria. On the night of April 14, aircraft and ships of the United States, Great Britain and France launched a total of 105 cruise missiles of four types. The results of such a strike are still a topic of controversy at the international level, and new information is constantly emerging to correct the existing picture.
Already on April 14, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that the Syrian air defense had succeeded in intercepting 71 missiles. The strike was carried out on a dozen targets, and most of them were not injured. In addition, in a number of cases, the missiles that broke through did not hit important objects, but auxiliary structures.
A few days later, the American military department announced its version. According to the Pentagon, only three Syrian targets were targeted. It was argued that all the missiles successfully reached their targets, and the Syrian air defense was powerless. As a result, all the intended targets were successfully hit with multiple hits of different types of missiles. It was after these statements that American officials began to talk about the ineffectiveness of Russian-made anti-aircraft systems.
As Dave Majumdar rightly notes, such statements are hardly connected with Russia. Rather, their addressee is Turkey, which wants to buy Russian-made weapons. The history of the Turkish tender for the acquisition of foreign air defense systems has been dragging on for several years, and almost from the very beginning is accompanied by disputes between officials. Earlier, Washington, dissatisfied with the desires of Ankara, warned it about problems with the compatibility of foreign equipment with NATO systems. Now there is an argument about the lack of effectiveness of Russian products.
In addition, statements about ineffective air defense systems can damage the reputation of the US military. Previously, they considered such systems a threat and a reason for creating not the cheapest aviation technology. Now it turns out that there was no threat, and all past spending can be considered meaningless.
The picture of events changed dramatically on April 25, following a briefing by the Russian Ministry of Defense. According to updated data from the Russian military, Syria was able to shoot down 46 enemy missiles out of 105 launched. Only 22 missiles broke through to their targets. However, the main news at the briefing was the wreckage of various missiles produced by NATO countries. The Russian military presented fragments of SCALP, Tomahawk, etc. missiles, on which the characteristic traces of the striking elements of anti-aircraft missiles were clearly visible. These traces confirmed the effective work of the air defense.
Now the Pentagon needs to comment on the data from the Russian military. At the same time, he should be aware of the risks to his reputation. Agreeing with the Russian version, the US military admits the ineffectiveness of the weapon. Continued support of the version about ineffective Russian air defense systems, in turn, will expose the most modern models of equipment to be unjustifiably complex and expensive. And then, according to D. Majumdar, new hearings in the Senate should be expected, at which Russian air defense systems will once again turn into the most serious threat and a reason for increasing the budget.
Russia's S-300 or S-400: F-35 Killer or Overhyped? Http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-s-300-or-s-400-f-35- killer-or-overhyped-25513.
