Hidden threat: why Russia did not protect Syria from a missile attack. Missile attack on Syria: who actually shot down the American Tomahawks? Why weren't Tomahawk missiles shot down?

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 tries to explain the loss of 34 cruise missiles as a human factor, saying that 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, allegedly resulting in 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 the 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, it was precisely this Khibiny system that disabled IJIS three years ago during a Su-24 flight over the USS Donald Cook.

By and large, the lag of American electronic warfare systems 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 activities of OJSC 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 the Krasukha-4 ground mobile complex, capable of generating broadband interference for radio communications, was spotted in Syria 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 the Borisoglebsk-2 complex, considered the best in its class, was also transferred to Syria. But it is quite possible that Trump’s cruise missiles were shot down by the newest active jamming station “Lychag-AV”, which can be installed on Mi-8 helicopters, ground vehicles or 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 their capabilities Russian air defense. Judging by the number of Tomahawks that did not reach the target, US Army experts were not mistaken.

What in due time Obama didn't hit cruise missiles on Assad’s troops, 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.

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 small village Khan Sheikhoun, which killed 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 airbase belonged to Syrian government forces, but the planes Russian Air Force They used it as a “jump airfield” during combat missions.

Information about casualties of Russian military personnel or damage to Russian military property was not officially reported.

The United States warned Russia about the impending attack, and perhaps, if there were Russian specialists at the base, they had time to evacuate them. 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 deaths 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.

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 These complexes provide air cover for Russian military installations.

In addition, the missile cruisers "Moskva" and "Varyag" are periodically stationed off the coast, which are also equipped with the naval version of the S-300 - the Fort air defense system, although now these ships, judging by open sources, are not there.

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.

The 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 fighting cruise missiles, including the Tomahawk class, but only those that are heading towards an object in their immediate vicinity.

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.

The 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, a representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense, Igor Konashenkov, said that “in the near future, 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.

Finally, a short time after the strike, the Syrian military reported that the base had 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 (the latter are front-line 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 largest loss figure 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.

It 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.

Now, 11 days after the US missile strike on the Syrian Shayrat base, when passions in the media on the Internet have subsided and a number of previously unknown facts have surfaced, the question of who actually shot down more than half of the Pentagon’s missiles can be accurately answered.

To answer, including those who immediately after this attack raised a squeal in the media space, saying that where, they say, are the “Muscovites”, your vaunted S-300 and S-400? Why didn’t they shoot it down - you can’t, or you’re even afraid?

Can. And we are not afraid. But first things first.

According to representatives of the Russian and Syrian armies, of the 59 missiles fired by the Americans, only 23 reached their targets. 36 tomahawks missed the target. The numbers are quite strange - and at first glance there is no pattern in them.

But details that are almost never mentioned are important here. The Tomahawks were launched by the Americans in 2 stages: first released 36 missiles from the destroyer Ross.

However, after the launch from the destroyer Ross, the Americans saw that something had suddenly gone wrong. The missiles began to deviate greatly from their trajectory, and some simply lost their targets and began to fall. And then the Yankees were forced to make a second, emergency launch 23 more missiles from Ross's backup, the destroyer Porter. It was these missiles that hit targets at the Shayrat base. Again these mysterious numbers - 36 and 23!

And from the first 36 Tomahawks no one didn't reach the goal! All of them fell into the Mediterranean Sea or tens of kilometers from the Syrian base.

To confirm this information, I will cite an article by American military expert Gordon Daff, “Trump Humilated: Syria Shoots Down 34 of 59 Cruise Missiles.”

The same material contains a photograph of one of the fallen American missiles fired by the first launch from the destroyer Ross.

A number of experts provided information that the Tomahawks fired were shot down by Syrian S-200 air defense systems, which are used by the Syrian army.

But here it is worth clarifying that then the Tomahawks would have been hit in the air by anti-missile missiles of the S-200 complex. In this case, almost complete destruction missiles in the air - and on the ground only tomahawks would remain small fragments. Scattered over a huge area, given the altitude of the missiles.

And in the photograph we see a WHOLE American missile, which was not shot down by a Syrian anti-missile missile, but simply for some reason fell down like a “dead weight”, having lost its course.

So what knocked all the American Tomahawks fired from the first salvo off course and made them fall into the sea or onto land, tens of kilometers from the given point?

These were the latest Russian electronic warfare systems "Krasukha", which have long been a threat to American missiles and a headache for NATO generals! That's what made all the first 36 Tomahawks miss their target!

I have written more than once about our electronic warfare systems, including specifically about the Krasukha and Khibiny complexes - our most modern developments in the field of electronic warfare and missile defense. These complexes are decades ahead of their time, and even military experts from the United States and NATO countries admit that in this area Russia is a whole generation ahead of them. And many overseas are not sure whether they will be able to catch up with us in this area at all...

Trump decided to “flex his muscles” in Syria. But our military did not make a mistake either - they showed him (as well as the entire Pentagon) that when trying to start a full-scale conflict, our opponents would not have any advantage in the air. And all the talk about a “preventive missile strike” is a cheap bluff of American politicians, which, as they say overseas, “isn’t worth a cent.”

The first launch from the destroyer Ross went into the milk. And our anti-missile defense team didn’t bother with the second launch of tomahawks – I think for geopolitical reasons. So as not to take the escalation to the next level. Remembering the Cuban Missile Crisis. Nobody needs this.

But the signal sent to Trump and the American hawks was more than obvious - “if you think that you have missile superiority over Russia, then you are deeply mistaken.” We can make sure none of your missiles reach their target! “Krasukha” worked!

I think this “hint” was understood by our partners - it was not without reason that almost immediately after the strike on the Syrian base, frightened voices began to be heard from across the ocean that it was a “one-time action”, that “nothing threatens Russian facilities” and that “no one America does not want a war with the military superpower – Russia.”

And just recently, after a visit to Moscow, Tillerson said that the Americans are seriously interested in resuming the Syrian memorandum “on the prevention of dangerous incidents in the air,” from which we withdrew after the missile attack on Shayrat. In general, the tone of the US Secretary of State’s statements was very cautious, at times even openly conciliatory.

Our overseas partners do not understand the language of goodwill - they respect only the language of force. I think they understood everything...

It is alleged that no more than half of the missiles fired from the Ross and Porter destroyers reached the Al-Shayrat air base of the Syrian government forces in Homs province. naval forces US Tomahawk cruise missiles. Despite the fact that sources deny this information, insisting on one missile that did not reach the target, according to the Russian military, the combat effectiveness of the American missile strike on the Syrian airbase is extremely low.

At the same time, Moscow did not comment on the effectiveness of the latest domestic S-400 Triumph anti-aircraft missile system in Latakia, which is deployed to protect the Russian Khmeimim airbase.

Moreover, the American command warned the leadership of the Russian group in Syria two hours in advance about the upcoming strike.

The question of why not a single American Tomahawk was shot down Russian complex Air defense of the S-400, are asked, for example, in the specialized blog The Aviationist. According to the publication, cruise missiles flew through the “capture zone” Russian funds Air defense.

“At least on paper, the missiles are unlikely to be able to evade the S-400,” the publication writes. “Perhaps, given that they [the Russian military] were notified in advance, they simply decided to let them pass.”

The distance from Khmeimim, where only one division of the S-400 air defense system is deployed, to the Shayrat airbase is about 200 km. This is practically the far limit of the destruction zone of the S-400 anti-aircraft missile system. To hit a target at such a range, its height must be at least 8-9 km. If the target height is less, radar complex The S-400 and the multifunctional radar of the anti-aircraft missile division simply will not see the target. This is due to the curvature earth's surface.

Approximately the same situation arises with the S-300V air defense system deployed in Tartus. From Tartus to Shayrat air base is about 100 km. At such a distance and due to the terrain, anti-aircraft missile system The S-300V will see targets at an altitude of only 6-7 km or more. And this is also explained by the same curvature of the earth’s surface and the heterogeneity of the terrain.

“Tomahawk cruise missiles fly at an altitude of 50-60 meters,” explained the former chief of the General Staff of the Air Defense Forces, Colonel General of Aviation, to Gazeta.Ru.

The far limit of the detection zone for targets of this type is 24-26 km in moderately rough terrain.

Immediately after detection of a cruise missile, it is necessary to open fire with a burst of at least two anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAM). Otherwise, it will simply leave the relatively small affected area in a matter of seconds. The meeting of the missile defense system with the Tomahawk in this case will occur at a distance of 12-14 km.

“That is, by and large, the capabilities of firing cruise missiles are extremely limited in range,” emphasizes Igor Maltsev.

According to the military leader, the anti-aircraft missile divisions and batteries stationed in Khmeimim and Tartus could not, even theoretically, “reach” American cruise missiles.

According to Igor Maltsev, in order to effectively protect the Shayrat air base from missile attacks, at least 4-5 S-400 anti-aircraft missile divisions must be deployed in the area of ​​the air base. In addition to this grouping, it is necessary to create a radar reconnaissance system to provide the necessary detection depth for cruise missiles. At a minimum, this will require a radio technical regiment consisting of several battalions and radar companies. This grouping must be tested in exercises and the effectiveness of the created fire system must be clarified.

In addition, the military leader emphasizes, the object must be protected by forces of no less than a fighter aviation regiment on aircraft such as Su-30SM or Su-35.

And only then can we say that reliable air defense of the protected facility has been created. Nothing like this was created at the Al-Shayrat airbase. Therefore, doubt the effectiveness domestic weapons There are no reasons yet. Anti-aircraft rocket troops have not yet entered into battle, nor have Russian fighter aircraft participated in it.

To cover the most sensitive objects of the Syrian infrastructure, a set of measures will be implemented in the near future to strengthen and increase the effectiveness of the air defense system of the Syrian armed forces, the Russian Ministry of Defense emphasizes.

American brazen attack on Syrian airbase the public was occupied for the whole day with the question: what were our air defense systems doing there? Couldn't they have shot down American tomahawks? Is it not true what we were told about the completely closed sky of Syria? Or do we abandon - “leave” - our ally?

No, it’s all true, answered one of the Constantinople sources related to international military relations. The S-400 and S-300PMU1 air defense systems, currently located in Syria, are capable of very well thinning out even such a large swarm of missiles as the one launched by the Americans - 59 products. Although the air defense specialists may have their own reasons, the interlocutor added, because it is irrational to spend expensive 9M96E missiles on tomahawks. One installation has 4 missiles, in a division there are 8 installations - so count how many they would hit targets and have time to fire a second salvo if the Tomahawk has a speed of 880 km/h, and the distance from the coast to the base is a little more than 100 km.

For this kind of purpose, it is not without reason that the divisions in Syria were given close-cover Pantsir S1 installations with missile and cannon weapons. And, in addition, the Krasukha-4 electronic warfare complex has been deployed. This is the main means of combating cruise missiles - because with them high speed and the low altitude of movement, a very short failure in the operation of the electronics is enough, as it is already in the ground or far away from the target.

But everything works, of course, as a whole, the military diplomat explained, making the reservation that he owns only the most general information on the operation of air defense systems. And, of course, he added, no one would spare any missiles for the defense of the base.

But this is where the dog is buried. For the sake of defending your base. In this case, we were talking about a Syrian Air Force base. And in order to protect it, we would have to, in the opinion of the public, shoot down American missiles. Who gave us this right?

"The thing is,- the interlocutor explained on condition of anonymity in exchange for frankness, - that we have no treaty of alliance with Syria that would oblige us to defend the Syrian skies as well as our own. We are not allies with Syria. Maybe in vain, although I personally think it’s right. Because we cannot fully achieve a union with such a country. And to fit into her conflicts for her - excuse me.".

The military diplomat recalled that we once had very close relations with Egypt - in the 1960-1970s. We, too, were not full-fledged allies, but it was our anti-aircraft gunners on our installations that protected the skies of Egypt from the Israelis. In both wars - in 1967 and 1973. And our guys died there, even though they shot down Israeli planes. How did the Egyptians repay us? "They kicked me in the ass,- the diplomat expressed himself undiplomatically. - As soon as the Americans beckoned them with their finger."

“Of course, the situation is different now, but from the point of view of international law, we are not a party to the Syrian-American conflict. Therefore, our intervention on the side of Syria by attacking American targets would formally mean our entry into a war with the United States. Do we need it? "- a specialist in military law asked a rhetorical question.

For the same reason - or, perhaps, for a complex of them, including political ones, but this can be ignored for now - the Americans warned us that a blow would be struck at such and such coordinates and we earnestly ask you to evacuate your military and civilian personnel from there. Because now we will punish the Syrians a little, but we have no questions for you.

That, in fact, is all, the lawyer emphasized. We are not at war with the Americans, they are not at war with us. And, let's hope, we won't fight further.

And if the Syrians somehow knocked out 61% of the launched tomahawks, then we are very happy for them.