After application by order of Trump missile strike at the Syrian airbase of Shayrat in Homs province, the question often arises in social networks and the media - why Russian air defense systems - Pantsir, S-300 and S-400, Buk-M2 and Tory - did not protect the Syrian airfield from 59 cruise missiles , released by the destroyers Ross and Porter?
Very often, the question of why the S-300 and S-400 missed a wave of American missiles is asked - as expected - by Russian oppositionists and, of course, Ukrainian activists, hysterically rejoicing “the United States bent Russia over.”
However, military officials and experts explain that the Russian layered air defense system, in agreement with the legitimate government of Syria, has been deployed to protect Russian facilities - the airfield, bases, troops, infrastructure and forces of the Russian Aerospace Forces.
Some air defense systems were also transferred to Syria - however, they are controlled by the Syrians themselves, who (alas - also expected) did not have time to “turn around” without Russian help. The military also reports that Russia could, of course, shoot down low-flying high-speed targets with the same "Shells" - but the Russian Federation was notified by " hotline"about the strike in advance to evacuate your military and civilian personnel- in case he ended up at the Shayrat base.
Let's add that official representative The Russian Ministry of Defense, Major General Igor Konashenkov, stated that according to Russian objective control means (radars, satellites, drones), only 23 out of 59 missiles reached the Syrian airbase.
“The use of Russian air defense systems by the Syrian army in response to a missile strike by the United States would have led to a nuclear conflict, which did not happen only thanks to the composure of the Russian Supreme Commander", stated corresponding member Russian Academy military sciences Sergei Sudakov.
"Most main question, which everyone asks - why Russian air defense All these missiles were not shot down. The inhabitants believe that this should be done and thereby repel aggression. But, by and large, if we started shooting them down now, we might not wake up this morning. Because what could happen today is what is called " nuclear conflict"because it would be a collision of two nuclear powers in a third territory,” Sudakov is sure. “Donald Trump has approached a state called a “hot war,” the expert explained.
“Russian air defense systems are subordinate only to Russia and cover Russian military facilities, everything else is PR, which has no relation to reality. Therefore, Israel and Turkey periodically bomb Syria - we cover our airfield and our facilities. I think that it was accepted and political decision not to shoot down these missiles, because ultimately this would be a conflict between the United States and Russia at the level of repelling air defense," I am sure military expert Vladislav Shurygin.
“If it were not for the composure of the Russian Supreme Commander-in-Chief, the order to shoot down the Tomahawks would have been given. And this means the beginning of the war,” he explained. Shurygin also added that “the United States warned through diplomatic channels that they were going to strike, Russia also warned the Syrians, and they withdrew the train from the base and transferred equipment from there.” “In this case, Russia chose to leave its response to the future. Russia will definitely respond adequately,” he concluded.
The Russian Ministry of Defense categorically denied that the 29 missing missiles were intercepted by Pantsir systems at low altitude. “We did not work against US cruise missiles, we only protect our bases, aircraft and infrastructure. We were also warned before the strike, so that if Russian military personnel were found, they would have time to evacuate. Who promised that the S-300 would protect Assad’s airfields? Who one of the speakers outside the Ministry of Defense blurted out this - let him defend it, maybe even with himself. Well, if a person’s corpulence allows it," they said sources in the Ministry of Defense.
Tomahawk cruise missiles launched by the US Navy successfully passed the zone missile attack advanced Russian air defense system S-400 "Triumph", which was deployed in 2015 in Latakia to protect Russian facilities and official Damascus, The Aviationist reports, haqqin.az reports.
According to him, it is unknown whether the Triumph complexes, which Moscow positions as the most high-tech air defense in the world, managed to detect American Tomahawks, but there is no information that at least one of the American missiles was intercepted by Russian weapons.
The Aviationist emphasizes that, at least on paper, the S-400 can hit all types of air targets, including stealth objects - aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles aircrafts, as well as ballistic and cruise missiles that travel within a 400-kilometer range at an altitude of about 19 miles. Equipped with three various types missiles, they are capable of tracking up to 300 targets at a distance of more than 600 kilometers. S-400 - according to NATO classification SA-21 "Grumpy" - includes eight launchers and control stations. The flight speed of the anti-missile missile is 17 thousand km/hour.
Thus, according to the documentation, even American stealth aircraft will have difficulty dodging S-400 shells, the publication writes. Given that some of the Tomahawks flew so close to the S-400, it remains unclear why the Triumph did not intercept a single missile, the publication asks.
The publication provides a graphic image that shows the radius of the S-400 missile attack. It follows from it that from a technical point of view, the Tomahawks were within reach of the Triumph.
The Aviationist admits that the Russian military probably did not shoot down the cruise missiles because they were informed in advance by the Pentagon about the impending strike.
Newsader writes that Russian expert Vasily Kashin has a different opinion. He is confident that the S-300 and S-400 located in the region, in principle, would not be able to withstand a massive US strike.
“As a matter of fact, even if the S-300 division was at the base, provided it was 100% effective, it would not have been able to withstand such a strike,” his Facebook post says. - The firing range of the S-300 at low-flying targets such as the Tomahawk missile system is several times less than the firing range at aircraft at medium and high altitudes, which journalists like to talk about. This is just a few tens of kilometers. The S-300 and S-400 divisions in Khmeimim and Tartus cannot cover a distant target from Tomahawks in principle.”
For his part, military expert Viktor Murakhovsky, in an interview with the BBC Russian Service, expressed his point of view on why the S-300 and S-400 did not prove themselves. When asked whether it was possible to shoot down the missiles, he replied: “It is physically impossible. There is such a thing - the radio horizon. The radio waves that the radar emits cannot bend earth's surface, and there is no direct visibility from the Khmeimim airbase to the Shayrat airfield. The distance there is about a hundred kilometers, and the Earth is curved.”
At the same time, representatives Russian authorities They explain the refusal to use the S-300 and S-400 even more simply: according to them, these complexes are designed to protect Russian objects, not Syrian ones.
“The Russian air defense system in Syria is organized on the principle of objective cover. Anti-aircraft missile systems S-400, S-300 and anti-aircraft missile and gun complex"Pantsir-S1" provide reliable protection from the air of Russian bases,” said Igor Konashenkov, a representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense, adding that another S-300 and Pantsir air defense group is protecting the Russian naval base in Tartus.
Military expert Igor Korotchenko was even more succinct.
“The S-300 and S-400 cover only Russian Armed Forces facilities there. Assad’s troops are responsible for the air defense of Syrian targets,” he wrote on Twitter.
Illustration copyright Reuters Image caption Footage taken at the base shows burnt out hangars with planes in them.
The United States used 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles to strike the Syrian Shayrat airbase. These precision-guided munitions can penetrate missile defense enemy is an expensive weapon: each missile costs the American budget about a million dollars.
Thus, the Americans decided to punish the regime of Bashar al-Assad, which they accuse of using chemical weapons against residents of the small village of Khan Sheikhoun, resulting in the death of more than 70 people, many of them children.
It is difficult to judge what damage was caused to the airbase - conflicting information is coming from Syrian sources on the ground, from official Damascus and from the Russian military.
However, it can be assumed that the missiles destroyed several aircraft, warehouses and other buildings at the airfield.
How did this happen?
On the night of April 7, the US Navy destroyers "Ross" and "Porter" from the waters Mediterranean Sea fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Syrian airbase of Shayrat in Homs province.
The air base belonged to Syrian government forces, but Russian Air Force aircraft used it as a “jump airfield” during combat sorties.
Information about casualties of Russian military personnel or damage to Russian military property was not officially reported.
The United States warned Russia about the upcoming strike, and perhaps if there were Russian specialists, then they managed to evacuate. A Pentagon spokesman said that during the planning of the operation, the US military did everything to avoid the deaths of Russian and Syrian troops.
The US airstrike killed 10 military personnel, the report said. Syrian army. The Syrian state news agency SANA reports the death of nine civilians, including four children. According to the agency, the deceased lived in a village near the airbase. Many houses in the base area were seriously damaged.
On Friday morning, after the attack on the airfield, it became known that Russia was suspending the memorandum with the United States on preventing incidents and ensuring the safety of aviation flights during the operation in Syria.
Image caption Cruise missile "Tomahawk"It was this mechanism that the Americans used to warn about shelling of a base where Russians could be located. Communication channels remain between the two countries, but this one, closed after the shelling, was created specifically for the rapid exchange of operational information.
Is there a missile defense system in Syria?
Russian missile defense systems S-200, S-300, S-400 and Buk-M2 are deployed at the Khmeimim airbase in Syrian Latakia. The main task of these complexes is air cover of Russian military installations.
In addition, they are periodically located near the coast guided missile cruisers"Moscow" and "Varyag", which are also equipped marine version S-300 - Fort air defense system, although these ships are not there now, judging by open sources.
Finally, the air base also houses short-range systems that protect, among other things, long-range air defense systems, including from cruise missiles.
Syrian troops air defense equipped with long-range S-200VE complexes, Buk-M2E medium-sized systems, as well as various systems near radius.
Illustration copyright Reuters Image caption The strike was carried out by destroyers stationed in the Mediterranean SeaThe S-200VE systems were deployed in mid-March to intercept Israeli fighters that were carrying out strikes in Syria, but not a single missile hit the target. One interceptor missile.
Why weren't the Tomahawks shot down?
Russian complexes located in Latakia are capable of combating cruise missiles, including the Tomahawk class, but only with those heading towards an object in close proximity to them.
The Shayrat airfield is located at a great distance from Latakia (about 100 kilometers), and cruise missiles flying at low altitude are simply impossible to track with radar.
Illustration copyright Reuters Image caption Shayrat Air Base in April 2017The interception was also complicated by the short approach time of the missiles, as well as their large number - a total of 59 Tomahawks were fired.
The airbase itself, apparently, was not covered from the air by systems capable of shooting down cruise missiles.
On Friday afternoon, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said that “in soon"a set of measures will be implemented to strengthen and increase the effectiveness of the air defense system of the Syrian armed forces in order to cover the most sensitive objects of the Syrian infrastructure."
He did not say which complexes would be deployed. It is also unknown which facilities Russia will strengthen the defense of.
What is the damage?
Information about the damage to the air base is very contradictory.
The Russian Ministry of Defense said the strike destroyed a logistics warehouse, a training building, a canteen, six Mig-23 aircraft in repair hangars, and a radar station.
Previously, Russian state media reported that nine aircraft were destroyed in the airstrike. Syrian journalist Thabet Salem told the BBC, citing activists in northern Syria, that 14 aircraft were destroyed, as well as runways and warehouses.
Illustration copyright Reuters Image caption The US announced that the strike on the air base was retaliation for the use of chemical weapons by SyriaFinally, after a short time After the strike, the Syrian military said the base suffered "severe damage."
Correspondent of the Russian state TV channel Vesti 24 Evgeny Poddubny, who is in Syria, visited the base on the morning of April 7.
The footage he shot showed damaged hangars, some of which were empty of aircraft, as well as several burnt-out fighter jets.
In one of the frames, the silhouette of a dilapidated aircraft is clearly visible, and it does not look like the MiG-23 reported Russian ministry defense The aircraft is more similar to the Su-22 heavy strike fighter.
Such aircraft are in service with the Syrian Air Force, and footage taken by Poddubny shows the same undamaged fighters at the same airfield.
What remains of Syrian aviation?
It is very difficult to judge how serious this blow is for the Syrian Air Force. Firstly, it is not known exactly how many and which fighters were destroyed, and secondly, there is also no exact data on how many aircraft are in the Air Force as of April 2017. open access. Finally, there is even less information about how many aircraft are in airworthy condition.
The website globalsecurity.org writes that in 2017 the Syrian Air Force had strike fighters of the following modifications: 53-70 MiG-21 units; 30-41 - MiG-23; 20 - MiG-29; 36-42 - Su-22; 11-20 - Su-24 (last - frontline bombers). In addition, according to the same source, Bashar al-Assad’s troops also have fighter jets to conduct air combat: 20-30 - MiG-29; 2 - MiG-25; 39-50 - MiG-23.
Thus, even if we take the most a larger number losses of 14 aircraft, then even in this case, the combat effectiveness of the Air Force after the attack by cruise missiles did not decrease critically.
In addition, the Russian aviation group, which was reduced in the spring of 2016, continues to operate in Syria. According to last year's data, it included at least a Su-24 squadron, as well as Su-30SM and Su-35S fighters and helicopters.
How much did the airstrike cost the US?
The cost of Tomahawk cruise missiles varies depending on how advanced the ammunition is.
Illustration copyright Getty Images Image caption The Russian aviation group remains in Syria, albeit in a reduced compositionIt is unknown what kind of missiles the destroyers fired on Friday morning, and therefore, according to open sources, the cost of a salvo of 59 missiles could range from $30 million to $100 million.
The most approximate cost of the MiG-23 and Su-22 fighters ranges from one to three million dollars.
Overseas tabloids began to change their assessments of Trump’s “tough response” from enthusiastic cries of “hurray” to critical reviews. Independent political scientists generally characterize the attack on the Syrian airfield as a failure. In particular, photographs have already appeared of a cruise missile falling 40 km from the target. Judging by the image, the Tomahawk simply crashed to the ground and does not have the damage typical of being destroyed by anti-missiles.
In this regard, American military experts and militaristic journalists are convinced that, most likely, the guidance devices of most Tomahawks were turned off by external influences. Only people can be behind this Russian systems electronic warfare (EW).
In particular, he writes about this Chief Editor Veterans Today publications Gordon Duff veteran vietnam war, after talking with his colleagues. In addition, he had contacts with personal sources in the Syrian intelligence services, who confirmed his guesses.
If someone is trying to explain the loss of 34 cruise missiles human factor, they say, the coordinates were entered incorrectly, then he simply does not know about the multiple duplication of target designation that takes place in the US Army when conducting such operations. It’s also stupid to talk about technical problems that allegedly led to a “rocket crash,” since we are talking about a reliable and repeatedly tested missile weapons, also flying at subsonic speed.
According to information available to Veterans Today, of the 34 missing cruise missiles, 5 fell in the vicinity of Shayrat, killing several civilians and injuring about 20 people. The remaining 29 Tomahawks crashed into the sea, never reaching the shore.
One way or another, American military experts commenting on the “strange news” from Syria simply have no other explanation for the loss of so many cruise missiles.
According to Gordon Duff, it is appropriate to recall the story of the shutdown of the AEGIS missile defense system on warship USS Donald Cook (DDG-75). Events about which we're talking about, occurred on April 10, 2014 in the Black Sea. Later this situation was presented as a myth from the series “ cold war 2.0". Meanwhile, software The destroyer's naval air defense equipment was indeed "glitchy", which led to its serious modification.
By the way, according to the American side, “Russian troops, using the Khibiny multifunctional aircraft complex, are capable of stunning and blinding NATO troops and weapons, including satellites in space, in a zone with a radius of 300 km.” As a result, alliance radio communications require special efforts and multiple signal duplications to overcome these invisible attacks. Most likely, this is exactly what the Khibiny system and disabled IJIS three years ago during a Su-24 flight over the USS Donald Cook.
By and large, the lag American systems electronic warfare from Russian analogues has long been an open secret for US specialists. The US Army knows in its own way that our country has the best engineering school in the world for the development of highly effective electronic warfare equipment that can make life difficult for the American military. combat experience in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya, the Balkans. Suffice it to recall the angry comments of the former NATO commander in Europe Philip Breedlove, who argued that it was electronic warfare systems that ensured the success of the Russians in the hybrid operation in Crimea.
As for Syria, immediately after the insidious attack by a Turkish fighter on a Russian plane, our side issued a statement about which, apparently, Trump had not even heard. So, Lieutenant General Evgeny Buzhinsky said that “Russia will be forced to use countermeasures and electronic warfare.” By the way, he is the deputy director for foreign economic activity JSC Radio Engineering Concern Vega.
No sooner said than done. Soon, two Il-20 electronic reconnaissance and electronic warfare aircraft arrived at the Khmeimim airbase, which can circle for 12 hours over a vast territory at any time of the day or night. Then a ground attack was spotted in Syria mobile complex"Krasukha-4", capable of generating broadband interference for radio communications military intelligence US Army, including the transfer of intelligence data to satellites such as Lacrosse and Onyx and AWACS and Sentinel aircraft.
There is information that he was also transferred to Syria complex "Borisoglebsk-2", considered the best in its class. But it is quite possible that Trump’s cruise missiles were shot down by the newest station active interference“Lever-AV”, which can be installed both on Mi-8 helicopters and on ground vehicles or on small vessels. The fact is that this system Electronic warfare has its own “library” of military objects, self-learning software equipment, which, by analyzing the weapons of a potential enemy, automatically selects the radiation mode to neutralize the target.
Why weren’t all the Tomahawks destroyed then? Gordon Duff is convinced that electronic warfare is not a 100% antidote, and in general, even the most advanced anti-missiles do not guarantee a 100% probability of defeat. At the same time, the Pentagon has gained some experience. According to the statistics available to the Americans, our electronic warfare systems are capable of doubling the capabilities of Russian air defense systems. Judging by the number of Tomahawks that did not reach the target, US Army experts were not mistaken.
What in due time Obama did not strike Assad’s troops with cruise missiles, speaks not so much about the “weakness” of the 44th president, but about his awareness. It is for this reason that he also did not dare to introduce an unmanned zone. At the same time, “given the intense campaign of threats by the United States against Syria and Russia, Moscow will refrain from openly declaring its victory, much less revealing it.” weak spots American missiles. If Putin doesn’t answer, it means he’s happy with the result,” sums up Gordon Duff.
In addition, the editor-in-chief of Veterans Today is sure: if the next attack by the political showman Donald turns out to be just as “successful,” then the US air fist has lost its former strength. In any case, Russia and America are now drawing their conclusions, therefore, there is a high probability that the Pentagon will try to take revenge.
The United States would have led to a nuclear conflict, which did not happen only thanks to the composure of the Russian Supreme Commander-in-Chief, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences Sergei Sudakov told Izvestia. Wherein Russian complexes Air defenses are subordinate only to Russia and protect its military facilities, military expert Vladislav Shurygin noted in a conversation with Izvestia.
Hot war
The most important question that everyone is asking is why Russian air defenses did not shoot down all these missiles. The inhabitants believe that this should be done and thereby repel aggression. But, by and large, if we started shooting them down now, we might not wake up this morning. Because today what is called a “nuclear conflict” could happen, because it would be a clash of two nuclear powers on a third territory, Sudakov believes.
Russian air defense systems are subordinate only to Russia and cover Russian military facilities; everything else is PR, which has no relation to reality, Shurygin notes.
Therefore, Israel and Turkey periodically bomb Syria - we cover our airfield and our facilities. I think that a political decision was also made not to shoot down these missiles, because ultimately this would be a conflict between the United States and Russia at the level of repelling air defense, the expert believes.
According to Sudakov, Donald Trump has approached a state called a “hot war.”
If not for the composure of the Russian Supreme Commander-in-Chief, the order to “shoot down the Tomahawks” would have been given. And this means the beginning of a war,” the expert notes.
The United States warned through diplomatic channels that they were going to strike, Russia also warned the Syrians, and they withdrew the train from the base and transferred equipment from there, Shurygin continues.
This does not indicate the strength of our position, but even with all these goodies, the aftertaste remains very bitter,” the expert concluded.
Attacks and parallels
About a week ago, at one of the Syrian bases, on the territory of which there were Russian Air Force, was struck by the Israeli Air Force, and there are parallels between these attacks; they are not yet being paid attention to, but they are significant, notes leading expert at the Center for Contemporary Politics Viktor Olevich.
Israel, a key US ally in the Middle East, takes a position on Syria that is close to the US, and these strikes that it carried out are partly reminiscent of today's history. They can be considered, if not as a kind of training, then as a test for reaction, and Russia in this case chose to leave the response for the future. Russia will definitely respond adequately, the expert explains.
If the American bombing of Syrian troops in the province of Deir ez-Zor in September 2016 put an end to the agreements that were reached in Switzerland to resolve the Syrian crisis, then today’s missile attack put an end to Moscow’s hopes for a quick normalization of relations with Washington, Olevich continues.
According to the political scientist, a number personnel changes, preceding today's military aggression against Syria (for example, the removal of Michael Flynn, who took a moderate position on Syria), “show that Trump is incapable of standing up to the American establishment”: replacing key figures in his administration who did not suit the leadership of the Democratic and Republican Party, the president is now taking steps that the establishment, as well as the intelligence agencies, are happy with.
Wrong move
Trump needs to take some steps to foreign policy, which would make him respected internally. I believe that the step he took was absolutely in vain. It was not his decision, but the decision of his advisers, and it was big mistake. The number of times the United States has violated UN articles, invaded and destroyed the sovereignty of others cannot be counted. But what we see now is another aggression, which was carried out against an ally of two quite serious opponents - Russia and Iran, explains Sudakov from the Russian Academy of Military Sciences.
With such an act of aggression, the United States is throwing away the possibility of full-fledged negotiations even within the G20, where a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump was supposed to take place, the expert continues: instead of building normal relations with Russia, Trump overnight crossed out these relations, now the countries are not even become “sworn friends.”
This is a big blow to Russian-American relations, to what was beginning to take shape, and it is clear that there were hopes for the new president that relations with him would be better than with the previous one. In addition, this is a blow to the peace process in Syria, which is already proceeding with great difficulty. Now this is also under threat,” Nikita Smagin, a political scientist and editor-in-chief of Iran Today, agrees with Sudakov.
According to the expert, now we need to look at the further reaction of the United States: if this is an isolated action, then this is a big problem, but nevertheless the negotiation process can continue. If the United States intends to continue to carry out some strikes, this is a different story and the consequences could be even more serious, Smagin does not rule out.
Switch attention
Trump played out another scenario with this attack, Sergei Sudakov is sure.
The fact is that the situation in Mosul is now catastrophic - heavy losses, great amount casualties among the civilian population, and Trump was advised to distract the situation, including from Mosul, with this bombing,” the expert notes.
The hypothesis that the strike was an attempt to divert attention from the situation in Mosul is quite workable, supported by Smagin.
I think that this factor almost certainly influenced the decision-making, but I do not think that it was the only one, it was one of the factors. When you need to divert attention, this is an additional incentive to carry out some kind of demonstrative action,” the expert clarifies.
In any case, what happened threw away all relations from the point of view of world standards of law at the beginning of the twentieth century, Sudakov continues.
We see the return of the “world gendarme”, who imposes his will with the help of force, the political scientist concludes.
Loading...
