Approximately six years ago, a question arose that has since remained a topic of intense debate among defense analysts and military enthusiasts alike: Did a Russian-made S-200 missile successfully strike an Israeli Air Force F-35?
- Soviet S-200s delivered to Ukraine are ballistic fire adapted
- Shrapnel in the rear fuselage of Prigozhin’s Embraer Legacy 600?
- Why did Russia increase the Iskander-M nuclear missile production?
Despite the passage of time, this query, shrouded in a cloak of ambiguity, continues to generate a whirlwind of speculation and conjecture. Notwithstanding Israel’s denial, the following encapsulates some of the critical data points currently available to the public.
The unfolding of the event
In a decisive move on the 16th of October, 2017, the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, issued a directive to the Israeli Air Force [IAF] to launch an airstrike on Syria. This action was taken as a retaliatory measure in response to the Syrian forces’ attempt to target an Israeli espionage aircraft.
In a strategic move of notable significance, the Indian Air Force [IAF] mobilized its esteemed Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This state-of-the-art aircraft, the epitome of modern warfare technology, was brought into operational readiness, showcasing the IAF’s robust capabilities and commitment to maintaining security. Subsequently, a significant deviation from the anticipated course of events transpired.
In the narrative propagated by Syria, it is claimed that an Israeli Air Force [IAF] F-35 was struck and consequently damaged. Contrarily, Israel has reported that the damage to one of its F-35s was not a result of enemy action, but an unfortunate encounter with a bird. “In the course of a routine training exercise, it was discovered that the aircraft had sustained two hits, which were determined to be the result of a collision with a bird. A thorough evaluation and assessment of the damage were undertaken in collaboration with the aircraft’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. Subsequently, the aircraft was dispatched for standard maintenance and repair procedures. It is projected that the aircraft will be restored to full operational capacity within the forthcoming days.”
There appears to be a high probability that both the Syrian and Israeli parties were alluding to the same incident involving an airframe. However, their accounts diverge significantly when it comes to explaining the circumstances that led to the damage of said airframe.
Should this be the circumstance, it could be inferred that one narrative holds truth while the other narrative is potentially fabricated. However, the question remains: which one?
Was it a missile or a bird strike?
Without possession of comprehensive data, which is beyond the reach of anyone, it is imprudent to adopt a firm position on this matter. It is evident that Israel has categorically denied the allegations, and the consensus among experts suggests that the missile never achieved its intended impact.
It is a matter of public record that the S-200, constructed in the 1960s, finds itself significantly outmatched when pitted against contemporary stealth fighters. Remarkably, the S-200 proved its efficacy against the era’s prominent airframes. This included the F-4 and F-111, both lacking stealth capabilities, as well as the Saab Viggen.
In stark contrast, the F-35 stands as the most costly defense platform ever conceived. This state-of-the-art machine is meticulously engineered to evade contemporary anti-aircraft defense systems, infiltrate highly disputed air zones, and elude surface-to-air missile attacks.
It is crucial to understand that the S-200 and the F-35 represent distinct eras of military technology. To compare them directly would be incongruous due to the significant advances in technology that separate their periods of development.
It is imperative to note that the S-200, a formidable surface-to-air missile, is a kinetic marvel designed specifically to neutralize enemy aircraft. The possibility of the S-200 successfully engaging an F-35 cannot be dismissed outright. Furthermore, the coinciding release of these two reports arouses a certain degree of intrigue.
The assertion that the Syrians had made concerning their S-200 was seemingly brought forth before the claim of the Israeli bird strike. If the sequence of events were such that the Israelis had initially reported a damaged jet, followed by the Syrians claiming responsibility for the inflicted damage, it would present a different narrative. However, given the reversed order of these claims, where the Syrians made their assertion first, it casts a slight shadow of doubt on the subsequent Israeli claim, thereby raising pertinent questions.
It is plausible that the Israelis might have a motivation to distort the truth. The F-35, representing a substantial financial commitment from the Israeli public, is a point of national pride. If this advanced piece of military hardware were susceptible to Soviet-engineered SAM technology that dates back six decades, it would undoubtedly be a cause for national chagrin.
It is not merely a matter of embarrassment, but also a matter of suggesting an overall susceptibility to a population that remains perpetually vigilant regarding its own survival. The assertion of the Syrians concerning the F-35 signifies a potential weakness in the armor, a point that the Israeli government would be judicious to minimize.
Undoubtedly, there exists a certain impetus for the Israelis to shape the narrative. This essentially translates to an acknowledgment of the ambiguity surrounding the incident. Despite this, the majority of experts are in agreement that no F-35 was struck. Those Israelis who are privy to the actual facts remain unlikely to reveal the truth shortly. Consequently, the enigma that has pervaded this event since 2017 is destined to persist indefinitely.
Follow us everywhere and at any time. BulgarianMilitary.com has responsive design and you can open the page from any computer, mobile devices or web browsers. For more up-to-date news, follow our Google News, YouTube, Reddit, LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook pages. Our standards: Manifesto & ethical principles.