Hi,
sorry for the late reply, I've just seen your comment.

Yes, there are other ways to enforce a NFZ beyond dealing with an aircraft as it breaches the Zone. However, it would be wrong to see that as an option in Syria which simply removes the difficulties I outlined. Pse consider:

1. It takes more than a bomb crater to close a runway and it can be repaired (hence development of the JP233 in the Cold War). Closing all SAF MOBs would require signif & repeated effort. Ramp space & Risk?

2. A punitive approach would open up allied aircraft to ambush.

3. ROE. Yes, offensive action might be limited to that which is taken against a breaching aircraft. That may be a strong political constraint. The NFZ isn't happening in a vacuum.

4. Helos are a problem even if detected inside a NFZ. What if a Helo is being used for Casevac? Again, ROE can be a real constraint (e.g. as in the Balkans).

5. The major problems with the suggestion of a list of penalty targets are the risks associated with attacking them (if beyond the NFZ) and the very real consideration of campaign escalation. E.g. would allies be happy to attack a C2 node or Regime asset elsewhere in Syria because of a helo infringement? These are genuine legal and political issues that 'lateral thinking' might ignore.

Lastly, as an ex-mud-mover I'd say my 'historical paradigm of how to take aircraft out of the equation' would be to attack airfields....!

Paul