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.
Bookmarks