One wonderful blowback of the Israeli penetration, retrieval and subsequent penetration and bombing mission was that it pointed out to the world just how poor the Russian defense systems really are. More on this at Strategypage:
Russia: The Losers Lament
The September 6 Israeli air raid in Syria has been a major setback for Russian arms sales. The Syrians had invested heavily in new Russian air defense systems, and the Israelis apparently brushed right by them. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Russians have been trying to rehabilitate the reputation of their weapons. Throughout the Cold War, whenever Russian and Western (especially American) weapons met on the battlefield, the Russians lost. The Soviets tried to compete on price, but even "free" was not low enough for many countries. Using Soviet weapons came to be seen as a sure ticket to battlefield defeat. In the 1990s, Russia upgraded its manufacturing capabilities, and its weapons designs. Much Western technology was imported. By the late 1990s, sales were climbing. OK, the Iraqis went down real quick in 2003, but they didn't have any of the new stuff, nor did the Taliban in 2001. Sales continued to climb, until now. Russias arms customers are asking for answers, but so far the Syrian incident is being dismissed as nothing to worry about.
It will be interesting to see what the rest of the world does. The Islamic nations are heavily invested in Russian military systems. Oops...
I remember reading Russian reports, as the war in Iraq progressed, detailing American and allied failures and strengths and their recommendation that their customers invest heavily in new air defense systems.
At the time, I thought it a good strategy, both for Russia (sales are sales, whether they are butter or bombs) and for America. It is beneficial for America because a heavy reliance on one technology is easy to plan for and overcome. We, and obviously our allies, do not commit to air strikes without proper ground support to protect our expensive weapon platforms. A properly mixed defense strategy would have been more difficult to bypass.
I remember reading Russian reports, as the war in Iraq progressed, detailing American and allied failures and strengths and their recommendation that their customers invest heavily in new air defense systems.
At the time, I thought it a good strategy, both for Russia (sales are sales, whether they are butter or bombs) and for America. It is beneficial for America because a heavy reliance on one technology is easy to plan for and overcome. We, and obviously our allies, do not commit to air strikes without proper ground support to protect our expensive weapon platforms. A properly mixed defense strategy would have been more difficult to bypass.