Dayuhan asked:
I am not technically minded, so hopefully Entropy will be along shortly to add his expertise - and anyone else of course.
IIRC previous posts and other analysts have stated that without suppressing enemy aid defences (SEAD) the 'no-fly zone' option was unwise, even if the Syrian system was rather old-style, Soviet-built it still could kill. Removing SEAD is a technical matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppres...y_Air_Defenses
Earlier in this crisis I was puzzled by the absence of an overt move of NATO AWACS to the region, based either in Turkey or the UK base on Cyprus, followed by a build-up of a capability to act. This would have been a diplomatic signal of concern and the possibility of being built-up to actual capability. Perhaps an Anglo-French-US carrier exercise too.
IMO the 'no-fly zone' could not be as suggested Aleppo and nearby, a quick look at the map suggests no easy boundaries; so we are left with a
national 'no-fly' zone. Recalling the experience for many years with the two 'no-fly zones' in Iraq, they used a Parallel as the boundary, with regular overflights and occasional strikes on radar sites etc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones
Using Cyprus as a base, for NATO / US use, would pose a few issues, especially if Cyprus (not a NATO member, but in the EU) and or Turkey was none too keen. Nor should we overlook UK reluctance to do much more than diplomacy and "grandstanding".
A national 'no-fly zone' would require IMO access and support from Syria's neighbours. Lebanon made it quite clear even UN observers use of their airfield(s) was no-go; Iraq has its own reasons not to help and for Jordan, the consummate balancer, please don't ask.
Given the regional concerns over a possible Israeli / US strike on Iran, would any external SEAD campaign be a good thing, even AWACS activity could be challenged.
Quite quickly what appears to be an option gets more difficult and this may explain why it never gained traction.
Originally Posted by davidbfpo
Dayuhan asked:
Bookmarks