Rate Article (4 / 1)

BEIRUT, LEBANON (10:25 A.M.) – The Russian military has released a full report on the US-led missile attack against Syria during the morning hours of April 14, part of which details what Syrian air defense systems were used and the effectiveness of such weapons.

According to the report, one hundred and three (103) US, British and French cruise missiles fired at Syria were engaged by a range of Syrian air defense systems including Pantsir-S1, Buk-M2, Kub, Strela-10, Osa, S-125 and S-200 that, in turn, replied with 112 surface-to-air missiles (SAM).

In order, the effectiveness of these air defense systems were recorded as follows:

  • Pantsir-S1: 25 missiles fired, 23 hits scored.
  • Buk-M2: 29 missiles fired, 24 hits scored.
  • Kub: 21 missiles fired, 11 hits scored.
  • Strela-10: 5 missiles fired, 3 hits scored.
  • Osa: 11 missiles fired, 5 hits scored.
  • S-125: 13 missiles fired, 5 hits scored.
  • S-200: 8 missiles fired, 0 hits scored.

The complete ineffectiveness of the S-200 to successfully engage any of the attacking cruise missiles has been put down to the SAM system’s biased design towards intercepting high-altitude aircraft, not low-flying missiles.

The statistics likely fail to account for Western cruise missiles that were downed or driven off target due to ‘soft-kill’ electronic warfare systems  – something which Russian sources will never confirm the use of.

In any case, going by official numbers, the interception rate of Syrian air defenses during the US-led missile attack stands at about 70 percent.

Advertisements
Share this article:
  • 393
  • 2
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • 1
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    396
    Shares
ALSO READ  Breaking: Syrian Army captures last town before Daraa city

Notice: All comments represent the view of the commenter and not necessarily the views of AMN.

All comments that are not spam or wholly inappropriate are approved, we do not sort out opinions or points of view that are different from ours.

This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion

Please treat this discussion with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge and interests through ongoing conversation.

These are not hard and fast rules, merely guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a clean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourse.

Improve the Discussion

Help us make this a great place for discussion by always working to improve the discussion in some way, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.

The topics discussed here matter to us, and we want you to act as if they matter to you, too. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

  • Name-calling
  • Ad hominem attacks
  • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
  • Knee-jerk contradiction

Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
TheObserver
Guest
Regular
Upvoted
TheObserver
Rate Article :
     

If true, that’s impressive for the older Russian missiles. The Russians could perhaps consider enhancing the detection and linking of such systems for their clients to extend the missiles life expectancy. Besides the upgrade and service charges, it also means that the Russians have opportunity to sell them more advanced systems later.

qqtf
Guest
qqtf

I don’t want to be cynical here. The s-125 & s-200 are the eldest (design ’50’s & ’60’s), while the other are from a younger generation (70’s and so on). It’s a selling argument for the s-300 (or s-400) which are the replacement systems for s-125 & s-200. Oversimplified the message is: our s**t works, but you need to buy the newest versions … . Did the US-side made any claim of efficacy and effectiveness of the strikes? The juxtaposition would have been interesting. In fairness, we actually do know that there were some hits on target, the other claims… Read more »