U.S. Downed a Syrian Plane, Now What?

The U.S. Shot Down a Syrian Plane. Russia Is Angry. Now What?

Russia threatens to retaliate against American planes. Could they?

Boeing
 
By David Hambling

Cold War Two is suddenly getting a lot hotter, as the U.S. and Russia escalate toward a conflict over Syria.

On Sunday, an Su-22 fighter-bomber of the Syrian Air Force dropped bombs on U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces. To the United States, that made the plane a clear and present danger "in accordance with rules of engagement and in collective self-defense of coalition-partnered forces," as a statement from the coalition command put it. A U.S. Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet engaged and shot down the Syrian plane.

Assad's government claimed that the Su-22 had been attacking ISIS terrorists and denounced the shoot-down as "blatant aggression." The Russians predictably took Assad's side, and have pulled the plug on the communications channel meant to "de-conflict" air operations in the region. More seriously, the Russians plan to shoot down any aircraft intruding into their area of operations. "Any aircraft, including planes and drones belonging to the international coalition operating west of the Euphrates river, will be tracked by Russian anti-aircraft forces in the sky and on the ground and treated as targets," it says.

If the Syrians made this kind of threat, the United States might shrug it off. But Russia is a different beast. As previously noted, Russia has recently beefed up defenses in Syria with some of their best surface-to-air missiles. The missile systems include the S-400 (also known as SA-21 , Growler or Triumf) and the S-300 (Grumble).

The S-400 in particular has a reputation as one of the most capable air defense systems in the world, and is a rival to the U.S. Patriot. It has a range of more than 200 miles, which effectively puts the entire area under its umbrella, including the air base at Incirlik in Turkey used by U.S. forces. The SA-400 can track at least a hundred targets and engage six of them at the same time. "Operating inside an SA-21 MEZ [Missile Engagement Zone] is a nightmare that will keep many U.S. and coalition aircrew up nights in the coming days, weeks, and months, " Air Force Intelligence Officer Tyson Wetzel wrote in November 2015.

The S-400 relies on radar, which means that, in principle, stealth aircraft can stay safe and unseen. But this is a question of degree. Stealth is not absolute, it only reduces the range at which an aircraft can be detected. While the ultra-stealthy F-22 may be able to operate safely in the shadow of the S-400, any other aircraft is liable to be targeted. "Any illusions about 'invisible' jets will inevitably be crushed by disappointing reality," Major General Igor Konashenkov told the Russian news outlet Sputnik last year.

Russia has already been humiliated in Syria several times. There was the shooting down of a Russian aircraft by the Turkish air force in 2015, which prompted these missile deployments. Then there was President Trump's major cruise missile strike on a Syrian air base in April. (In theory, the Russian missiles could have shot down some of the incoming Tomahawks, but they were not fired. This might be interpreted as weakness.) In May, coalition aircraft bombed Syrian government forces, and now a Syrian government plane has been shot down.

Putin may now have decided the time has come to draw a line in the sand—and to start shooting if the U.S. crosses it. The new Russian threat leaves coalition commanders with several options for pursuing their objectives without getting into a full-scale conflict with Russia.

The first option would be to not use manned aircraft. Instead, artillery, missile strikes, and ground forces, plus expendable unmanned drones, would support friendly forces. This would remove the risk of a shoot-down and might help de-escalate the situation. But it would markedly reduce the capability of coalition forces, and might be seen as betraying a lack of commitment.

A second and much riskier option would be to counter the Russian defenses by non-kinetic, non-destructive means. A key player here might be the Navy's EA-18G Growler, a version of the Hornet packed with electronic gadgets to baffle, blind, and confuse radar systems. A skilled operator can play video games on the enemy's radar screen, conjuring up false targets, disguising real ones, and blanketing it with fuzz and static. In combination with unmanned craft like the 300-pound ADM-160 Miniature Air Launched Decoy, which is indistinguishable from a manned attack plane on radar, these could distract defenses and ensure that missiles are not directed at actual stealthy aircraft on real missions. Such an approach would have to be 100 percent effective every time to protect piloted aircraft, something no commander could ever guarantee.

Normally jamming and decoys would be deployed as part of a SEAD, or Suppression of Enemy Air Defense operation. During such an operation, while the radar are still confused, they would be rapidly destroyed by AGM-88 HARM missiles ("High Speed Anti-radiation missile"), which home in on radar emissions, or by other guided weapons like the Air Force's JASSM directed at missile sites. It is extremely hard to see this sort of deliberate escalation occurring—unless U.S. aircraft were shot down.

A more left-field approach would be to tackle the problem of Syrian attack aircraft at its source. April's cruise missile attack took out an estimated 20 percent of Syria's combat aircraft. Further strikes could eliminate the Syrian air capability entirely, removing any need to get into dogfights with them.

Whatever approach the U.S. and allies decide on, there is always the possibility that the Russians take further actions themselves. This might take the form of a cyberattack or other deniable but dramatic action to send a message about their resolve over Syria and even the score.

If things really go wrong, escalation over Syria could quickly spiral into a world war. There may not be any good options for the U.S. anymore, just a choice between bad and worse. We have seen repeatedly that getting into a war is frighteningly easy. Getting out of one is a different story. Some careful thinking will be needed before America takes any further steps.