I don’t recall s300-s400 being deployed and fail though. It always was some very old system and the downed plane was hit by s200.
"The obvious question that remains unanswered is whether Russia chose not to engage S-400s, or was simply unable to, whether because of American nonkinetic capabilities impacting those system or some other reason. Given the pre-attack notice given by the Pentagon to Russian forces through a deconfliction line, as well as the fact that no strikes were targeted at the air defenses themselves, analysts lean toward the former."
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/04/20/who-learned-...
In short, Russia has S400s in Syria. Russian government officials claimed Russia would shoot down the Tomawhawks. Russians knew the strikes were coming. Yet, they did not use the S400.
To me, there are no two ways about it - Russia did not have the capability to engage even the legacy Tomawhawk missiles.
The two countries just don't have a clear enough conflict of interest to want to get into a fight about it.
2. Russian government officials stated they would shoot them down.
3. Russia had NOTHING to lose by shooting down missiles in defense of an ally, e.g. no political risk.
4. Russia had everything to gain by demonstrating the capability to deter a NATO strike, especially given the context of using Syria to advertise its weapons.
Israel is a separate issue, if you want to discuss it. Very nice of Israel to get Russia's plane shot down by hiding behind it.
"If there is a strike by the Americans then... the missiles will be downed and even the sources from which the missiles were fired," he told Hezbollah's al-Manar TV. "
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-...
I am aware of what the source is. This did happen though, and you can find more sources if you want. If Russia had no intent, it shouldn't have bragged.
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/18/649064034/russian-surveillanc...
Before that incident, a Russian ground attack aircraft was shot down by Turkish F16s near the Turkey-Syria border.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-syrian-missile-wa...
The Arrow system has sufficient range to provide coverage over Syria it’s an expensive way to deal with the S400 threat but it can be used to provide additional protection.
Israel seems to be quite adept at beating Russian SAMs Russia doesn’t have enough assets in the region to risk engaging with the S400 because Israel would definitely target them if they are used as anything more than a scarecrow.
And last time Israel went on a mission to clear Russian SAM sites in Syria it didn’t end up well for the SAM site operators.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19
For the most part what Israel has been doing in Syria so far is a very limited engagement often not even from within Syrian airspace but rather using stand off munitions from Israeli or Lebanese airspace.
I’m pretty sure that Russia understands very well that other than a nuke on Tel Aviv they don’t have the logistics to have an engagement with Israel that does not end in total humiliation and the destruction of all Russian assets in the region.
At the end of the day if push comes to shove Israel can push 400 aircraft into Syria’s airspace and countless ground assets the numbers simply don’t favor Russia.
The Russian navy is also not in a shape to engage, other than their submarine fleet any naval assets they put in theater would be likely targeted and crippled if not destroyed this also includes their aircraft carrier.
At the end of the day if push comes to shove Israel can push 400 aircraft into Syria’s airspace and countless ground assets the numbers simply don’t favor Russia.
The Russian navy is also not in a shape to engage, other than their submarine fleet any naval assets they put in theater would be likely targeted and crippled if not destroyed this also includes their aircraft carrier."
This discussion has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with Russia not engaging US and ally Tomawhawk missiles, in which Israel is not involved.
"I’m pretty sure that Russia understands very well that other than a nuke on Tel Aviv they don’t have the logistics to have an engagement with Israel that does not end in total humiliation and the destruction of all Russian assets in the region."
Yea, but it can nuke Tel Aviv. And Israel can't nuke anything of consequence back, even with its illegal nukes.
It can also saturate all of Israel with conventional artillery. Even a fraction of its forces would overhwhelm the system immediately, and that's assuming it works against anything but SCUDs and slow moving toy rockets.
"and countless ground assets the numbers simply don’t favor Russia."
The last time Israel pushed "countless ground assets" into Lebanon to bomb their hospitals and destroy their tourist industry, Russian RPGs destroyed a number of Merkavas. Cry more about how those were "mobility kills."
In what magical world does an Israel vs Russia ground war "simply don’t favor Russia."?
"The Russian navy is also not in a shape to engage, other than their submarine fleet any naval assets they put in theater would be likely targeted and crippled if not destroyed this also includes their aircraft carrier."
Russia has the best ASMs in the world. This is widely accepted.
Your post is comical even before you consider that most of the technology Israel has is thanks to the USSR diaspora.
The US is the only nation to fire Tomahawks at targets in Syria, or anywhere else other than the US only the UK uses the system and it has never been use in combat.
Israel fires cruise missiles all the time at Syria from it's aircraft and the Syrians claim that their and their "allies" air defense systems shot down all the missiles however it seems that all those warehouses are still getting blown up so it doesn't seem that Russian air defenses are very effective at combating these threats.
>Yea, but it can nuke Tel Aviv. And Israel can't nuke anything of consequence back, even with its illegal nukes.
It can, it will however get a retaliatory strike; and ironically Tel Aviv is likely better defended against ballistic missiles than Moscow is.
>It can also saturate all of Israel with conventional artillery. Even a fraction of its forces would overhwhelm the system immediately, and that's assuming it works against anything but SCUDs and slow moving toy rockets.
From where? Syria? Syrian artillery would be defeated in hours, if Lebanon/Hezbollah would get into the conflict it would take days but Russia has no assets in the area to provide protection.
20 aircraft isn't enough.
>The last time Israel pushed "countless ground assets" into Lebanon to bomb their hospitals and destroy their tourist industry, Russian RPGs destroyed a number of Merkavas. Cry more about how those were "mobility kills."
What does this have to do with anything? Trophy was implemented due to the lessons Israel has learned in the 2006 war and according to Wikipedia out of 45 tanks hit; 5 were deemed destroyed/unsalvageable including 2 tanks that were blown up by IEDs large enough to demolish a building. Are you really going to argue that outside of diplomatic pressure that would end hostilities Lebanon/Hezbollah are going to stand their ground against the IDF? I'm not saying that Israel isn't going to suffer losses but they can bomb Lebanon back to the stone age the same can't be said in reverse.
>Your post is comical even before you consider that most of the technology Israel has is thanks to the USSR diaspora.
What does A have to do with B?