Why didn't we shoot down American cruise missiles. Operation "Tomahawks": was the attack on the air base in Syria successful? Why the Tomahawks were not shot down

After the American destroyers Ross and Porter launched a strike with Tomahawk cruise missiles on the Syrian Shayrat air base in the province of Homs on April 7, and Russian anti-aircraft missile systems did not repel the attack, doubts arose about their effectiveness - as previously stated, they tightly close the sky over Syria from outside interference. The Nasha Versiya correspondent found out why Russia did not even try to prevent the Tomahawk attack.

Back in 2013, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that modern complexes S-400 "Triumph", which are able to protect the country's airspace from any possible attacks. The statements were supported by the fantastic characteristics of these complexes. As stated, within a radius of 400 kilometers, air defense systems are guaranteed to hit almost all aerodynamic targets, including tactical and strategic aviation, warheads ballistic missiles, as well as all types of cruise missiles. It was especially emphasized that Triumph missiles are capable of hitting low-flying targets - moving at a height of 5 meters.

And so the Americans provided an opportunity to test the effectiveness of Russian S-400s in practice. At the same time, the task turned out to be as easy as possible - the Pentagon warned the Russian military in advance about the proposed strikes. Moreover, the American destroyers defiantly fired back through the four-hundred-kilometer zone of operation of Russian anti-tank missile systems located in Khmeimim. But as a result, 59 American Tomahawks flew unscathed past the Russian air defense systems deployed in Tartus and Khmeimim without any damage to themselves. In addition, according to the statements of the American side, not a single Tomahawk was intercepted.

Didn't want to or couldn't?

Now experts are giving different reasons why Russia did not shoot down the Tomahawk. Military-political arguments are in the foreground - it is obvious that any forceful reaction to American actions would provoke a response, which is why the level of conflict could rise to an unacceptable level. high level. Assuming that Russian air defense systems or fighters would shoot down all American Tomahawks on approach, the Pentagon, according to military logic, should have responded by deploying an arsenal of suppression of these air defense systems, and so on incrementally. Where such an escalation could lead is almost impossible to predict, so the silence of the air defense systems in Syria is most easily explained by Russia's unwillingness to bring the situation to nuclear war. An alternative version, that out of 59 only 23 flew, and in order not to humiliate the United States, we discussed in the last issue in the material "Staging war ..."

However, some foreign commentators believe that the destruction of the Tomahawk could hardly be the reason for starting a nuclear war, calling these explanations just excuses for helplessness. Russian funds air defense. As a result, the opinion is growing that the power of Russian air defense systems is actually a myth and Russian air defense systems are simply not able to shoot down complex targets at all. All these statements come against the backdrop of repeated attempts to discredit Russian air defense systems. Suffice it to recall how the story of the interception by the Arrow-2 missile defense system of a Syrian anti-aircraft guided missile fired at an Israeli aircraft of the Russian-made S-200VE air defense system was inflated, which happened on March 17.

In principle, there are reasons for such a version. According to open data, the S-400 system demonstrates about 90 percent of successful interceptions. True, we are talking about a training interception, and not a combat one, that is, carried out under sterile conditions with predetermined parameters for the flight of a projectile that imitates an enemy object. In a combat situation, these complexes were not used, especially in relation to American cruise missiles, so the effectiveness of their firing at the Tomahawk cannot be predicted. And since the conditions in Syria were quite difficult, the interception attempt might not have been 100% successful. As a result, a small percentage of downed missiles could significantly reduce the demand for Russian complexes air defense in the world and affected the overall reputation Russian weapons which are planned to be supplied, including for export. However, in the Pentagon, as it turns out, they took the capabilities of the Russian air defense system very seriously.

An indirect confirmation of this is the fact that the simultaneous launch of 59 cruise missiles at once became an unprecedented event. The experts also determined that the debris found at the attacked airfield makes it possible to identify the missiles as the most modern Tactical Tomahawk (RGM / UGM-109E Block 4) missiles in the arsenal of the US fleet, which have the greatest ability to overcome air defense systems. Thus, the mere presence of the S-400 complex in Syria played a role and even forced the Americans to adjust their plans.

It also looks significant that the missile launches were carried out at the maximum distance from the Syrian coast - the distance to the Shayrat airbase from the missile launch zone was about 1200 kilometers, and almost the entire flight of the Tomahawk took place over the sea and only 75-80 kilometers - over land. Experts suggest that the Americans have not in vain significantly complicated the flight path of cruise missiles. The Pentagon did not officially report information about their trajectory, but, presumably, Tomahawk from the side mediterranean sea first entered Lebanese airspace, and then moved along the Jordanian-Syrian border, where there are practically no radars capable of fixing the passage of missiles. Then the missiles made a turn to the north and entered the combat course. In this case, the Russian S-300V4 and S-400 were located at a distance of 200–300 kilometers from the Tomahawk. Why wasn't there an interception?

Anatoly Tsyganok, director of the Center for Military Forecasting:

- Judging by the pictures, 59 missiles definitely did not reach the Shayrat airbase, the destruction in the photo clearly does not correspond to the power of the strike. What happened to the 36 Tomahawks that didn't make it remains to be seen. According to some information, 5 rockets fell in the vicinity of Shayrat, killing several civilians and injuring about 20 people. The rest of the Tomahawks crashed into the sea before reaching the shore. The inaccuracy of the hit may be due to the fact that the missiles were guided using satellite means without additional reconnaissance of targets. According to another version, many American missiles had expired and were out of order. There is also speculation that most of the Tomahawk's guidance devices were disabled by external influences and may be behind this. Russian systems electronic warfare.

It should also be noted that the US Navy actually carried out for Russian air defense a kind of exercise to repel a massive attack of American cruise missiles by Russian air defense systems. Moreover, the cost of this training for the US Navy amounted to about $ 90 million, about the same amount the American media estimate 59 launched cruise missiles. At the same time, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation did not spend a penny on the unique experience. Never before at any exercises and training grounds Russian troops Air defense did not have the opportunity to observe a real massive attack by American Tomahawk cruise missiles, while it was possible to capture them for escort, determine flight parameters, and receive radar signatures of these air attack weapons. Considering the fact that on this moment all Russian components of the surveillance system are deployed in Syria, I have no doubt that the maximum will be extracted from this missile attack essential information. In particular, very useful experience was gained in tracking groups of cruise missiles in a real combat situation, which can be invaluable in further combat training of troops, as well as in the modernization of radar detection, electronic warfare and anti-aircraft guided missiles.

The military is waiting for "Prometheus"

As experts explain, the S-300V4 and S-400 cover only objects of the RF Armed Forces, and the troops of Bashar al-Assad are responsible for the air defense of Syrian objects. Thus, the air defense systems located in the region of the Khmeimim airbase, in principle, would not be able to contain a massive strike, since the distance to Syrian airbase Shayrat is about 100 kilometers. It should be noted that although formally the maximum range of destruction of the S-300V4 and S-400 is 400 kilometers, this rule only works if the air target acts on medium and high altitudes, since the S-400 is primarily designed to destroy high-altitude targets - aircraft and helicopters. Another thing - cruise missiles, which fly at altitudes of 30-50 meters, which makes them difficult to detect, since the terrain interferes. SAM radars at a long distance do not see missiles that are very maneuverable and fly below the visibility zone under the cover of the so-called radio horizon. To increase radio visibility, various measures are used - in particular, in air defense systems, the radar is raised on towers. There is such a tower in Khmeimim, but it does not allow increasing the detection range to the required values, so the S-300 and S-400 divisions in Khmeimim and Tartus could simply not notice the remote target. However, experts emphasize, this does not mean at all that Russian air defense systems are not suitable for modern war. The fact is that a cruise missile is very difficult goal, and when the launches are sudden and massive, the air defense is powerless. In addition, Russia deployed too few forces in Syria air defense, and systems such as the S-400 cover a certain and very limited area.

In addition, there is a possibility that some of the systems deployed in Syria are armed with old missiles, which significantly impairs the performance of this advanced air defense system. Recall that for this system for several years they could not create a new extended-range missile that would allow achieving the declared performance characteristics of the S-400. Recently, official sources have made statements that tests of a new long-range missile have been completed. It is currently reported that new rocket is completely ready, but the production rate of missiles for the S-400 and these air defense systems themselves is rather low, respectively, the re-equipment of air defense is proceeding at a slow pace.

Against this background, it is worth paying attention that almost immediately after the attack of the American Tomahawk, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced the imminent adoption of a new anti-aircraft missile system S-500 "Prometheus". The military hopes that the new air defense system will be significantly superior to the S-300V4 and S-400 and will make it possible to reliably prevent massive attacks by cruise missiles. This complex, according to the estimates of the developer represented by JSC Concern VKO Almaz-Antey, is a new generation of anti-aircraft missile systems"ground-to-air" and is designed to intercept ballistic missiles with a range of up to 3500 kilometers at medium and close distances. According to project documentation"Prometheus" is capable of destroying missiles medium range, operational-tactical missiles, as well as missiles in near space and, thus, will be an element of the strategic missile defense. However, according to experts, the timing of its adoption into service is constantly being postponed. It is possible that there are again problems with missiles for the S-500, since only recently they began to undergo flight tests. However, it should be noted that the American company Lockheed Martin Missiles, commissioned by the Pentagon, has been developing a mobile phone for almost 25 years. anti-missile complex long-range interception THAAD (Theater High Altitude Area Defense), however, it still fails to create a workable system.

Alexander Gorkov, former head of the anti-aircraft missile forces of the Russian Air Force:

- The Tomahawk flight route was carefully planned and lined up in such a way as to remove missiles from air defense systems and radars as much as possible, and therefore the route passed outside the zones combat use Russian air defense systems, carefully bypassed the fire zone. And this is not surprising - a similar tactic, which completely eliminates risks, was used in Yugoslavia and earlier in the Middle East. This, perhaps, was a double reinsurance, because the S-400 is able to detect cruise missiles only at a line-of-sight range. It is also difficult to say why such a a large number of missiles. Since there is no objective control data, there is no reason to say that such a quantity was launched to guarantee a breakthrough of the Russian air defense system.

If the Ministry of Defense has information that 36 missiles did not reach the target, I see no reason not to trust this. In any case, such failures are theoretically quite possible and explainable. For example, a hardware failure occurred or data for the guidance program was entered with errors. Before launch, a map of the area is entered into the on-board devices, the flight route is determined, and devices such as a parametric altimeter that reads the distance relative to the sea surface and a radio altimeter also work on board - the difference between these values ​​indicates the relief. Tomahawk went at extremely low altitudes from 50 to 100 meters with terrain envelope, due to which any error in entering data or a failure in the radio altimeter could lead to the loss of the rocket.

In addition, the Americans use an inertial guidance system, when in the final section, to increase the accuracy of hitting a specific target, either a radar or an optical guidance head can be triggered - errors are also possible at this stage. Most likely, exclusively technical methods of guiding missiles were used, data from satellites were used, which could also lead to incorrect aiming. Therefore, the preparation of such operations requires a long time, it is necessary to determine in advance objects, terrain, enter these data and "sew" them into the program. Moreover, it is not so easy to launch missiles from a destroyer - the coordinates of the destroyer must be verified with surgical accuracy. The coordinates of the ship are incorrectly determined, which means that the entire route and correction areas will be calculated incorrectly. I suppose the whole point is that the operation was prepared in a hurry. The order for a massive launch must have come as a surprise even to the command of the US 6th Fleet, and American sailors there was no time for careful preparation.

Why Russia didn't shoot down american missiles in Syria? “If Russia had responded to the United States, the fuse of a nuclear conflict would have been lit in the region,” experts say. But perhaps Putin did not block this attack in order to help his bosom friend Trump deliver the blow he needed and, through a show of force in the region, curb some of the criticism leveled against him?

Following the controversial and dubious suggestion that Assad used chemical weapon The United States fired 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria, of which only 23 hit the target. It's raised on the agenda important question: why did Russia and Syria not repel the US attack with the help of S-300, S-400 and Buk-M2 missile systems, which are on combat duty in the SAR?

When analyzing the causes and consequences, we come to the conclusion that the attack on the Shayrat airfield was deliberately designed so as not to cause great harm, and was a ostentatious attack that gave rise to controversy about it.

S-300 missile systems produced Russian company Almaz-Antey, and the S-400, called SA-21 by NATO, are equipped with advanced technology and are capable of repelling air strikes carried out with the help of military aircraft and cruise missiles. In addition, this strong systems Long-range air defense preferred by Syria since 1991.

At the same time, it is known that the S-400 and Pantsir systems are located at Russian facilities located near the al-Assad airport, as well as at Russian base in Tartus.

Why didn't they work

It is noted that control over these air defense systems in Syria received from Russia is in the hands of Syrian army, but she did not repel the blow, which was known to Russia in advance. Moreover, Russia, which had been previously notified of the attack, if it wanted to, could stop the Tomahawk missiles before they hit the target by using the Pantsir system.

Corresponding Member Russian Academy military sciences Sergei Sudakov, who answered questions addressed to him on this topic, gave a polemical comment: “If Syria used Russian air defense systems in response to missile attack United States, this would start a nuclear conflict. But the Russian leadership prevented the emergence of a possible nuclear conflict.”

Sudakov continued: “The most important question that everyone is asking today is why Russia did not use its air defense systems in Syria to shoot down US missiles. Most believe that Russia should have given such a response in order to repel US aggression in Syria. But if we fired the rockets, we might not wake up this morning. If Russia had responded to the US, the fuse of a nuclear conflict would have been lit in the region.”

Reasonable Action

Nevertheless, it cannot be said that such answers suit everyone. There are those who are looking for other reasons underlying the fact that Russia did not repel the blow, which she knew about in advance. A main reason The emerging suspicion is that the United States refrained from doing any significant damage to the airfield they were aiming at.

As another suggestion that adds to the doubt, the point of view is voiced that Putin is playing a different geopolitical game and deliberately did not respond to this attack. Proponents of this point of view do not believe that if air defense systems were activated, a “nuclear World War", and believe that America was deliberately allowed to strike at an empty airfield.

The number of those who believe that this attack was just a show of muscle is quite large, since, although Tomahawk missiles are effective weapons, their destructive power is not as high as that of bombs and missiles dropped from aircraft. In a word, the attacked airfield could soon be brought back to working condition, and, as Odatv.com reported today, a day after the attack, Syria began to use the Shayrat airfield again, and planes could even be seen taking off from here.

In that case, can we say that there is only one possibility left? Did Putin let this attack go in order to help his bosom friend Trump deliver the blow he needed and, through a show of force in the region, curb some of the criticism leveled against him?

The American brazen attack on the Syrian airbase kept the public busy for the whole day with the question: what were our air defense systems doing there? Couldn't they shoot down American Tomahawks? Is what we were told about the completely closed sky of Syria - not true? Or are we abandoning - "draining" - our ally?

No, everything is true, answered one of the sources of Tsargrad, related to international military relations. The S-400 and S-300PMU1 air defense systems currently in Syria are capable of thinning out even such a large swarm of missiles as the Americans launched - 59 items. Although the air defense officers may have their own reasons, the interlocutor added, because it is irrational to spend expensive 9M96E missiles on "tomahawks". One installation has 4 missiles, there are 8 installations in the division - so consider how many targets they would hit and manage 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 slightly more than 100 km.

For this kind of purpose, the divisions in Syria were not without reason given the Pantsir C1 installations for short-range cover with rocket and cannon weapons. And, in addition, the Krasukha-4 electronic warfare complex has also been deployed. This is the main means of combating cruise missiles - because with them high speed and a low altitude of movement is enough for the most short-term failure in the operation of the electronics, as it is already in the ground or far away from the target.

But everything works, of course, in a complex, the military diplomat explained, stipulating that he owns only the most general information on air defense systems. And, of course, he added, no one would spare any missiles for the sake of defending the base.

But here the dog is buried. To defend your base. In this case, it was about the base of the Syrian Air Force. And in order to protect it, we would have to, according to the public, shoot down American missiles. And who gave us such a right?

"The thing is,- on condition of anonymity in exchange for frankness, the interlocutor explained, - that we have no treaty of alliance with Syria that obliges us to protect the Syrian sky as well as our own. We are not allies with Syria. Maybe in vain, although I personally think that it is correct. Because an alliance with such a country is not fully usable. And to fit in for her in her conflicts - thank you".

The military diplomat recalled that once we had very close relations with Egypt - in the 1960s and 1970s. We, too, were not full-fledged allies, but it was our anti-aircraft gunners on our installations who defended the sky of Egypt from the Israelis. In both wars - in 1967 and 1973. And our guys died there, although they shot down Israeli planes. How did the Egyptians pay us back? "We set up from ourselves under the back foot, the diplomat said undiplomatically. - As soon as the Americans beckoned them with their fingers.

“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 the war with the United States. Do we need it? " asked a specialist in military law rhetorically.

For the same reason - or, perhaps, for a complex of them, including political ones, but this can not be taken into account for now - the Americans warned us that a strike would be carried out at such and such coordinates and we kindly 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, hopefully, we will not fight further.

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

It was to such an unexpected conclusion that General Konashenkov's phrase about the Tomahawks that had reached the target led the experts. I will not bore readers with details why this act is impossible - there are both political and purely technical reasons. The latter, however, are of a secondary nature - having missed the first launches, ours could well work out on launched missiles. But this is already a direct clash, for which Russia did not sign an agreement with Syria, helping only in the fight against terrorists. The United States, de jure, are not. And de facto it is clear where dissenters can shove themselves - after Yugoslavia, even the most slow-witted understood. And after Libya...

Konaenkov's speeches are interesting and self-sufficient in themselves:

But the conspiracy theory is also beautiful. According to Russian means of objective control, only 23 missiles reached the Syrian air base. The crash site of the remaining 36 cruise missiles is unknown,” Konashenkov said. Plus, the video of the destruction in his own speech is clearly not enough for 59 missiles. Based on this, we start:

"... I believe the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, writes chervonec:

a) it is possible to determine the number of missiles that reached the airfield on the spot
b) the survey shows completely non-critical damage

It is doubly surprising that there are no reports that Russia used the S-300 and S-400 systems (only target illumination?) And its aircraft as air defense.

Another moment --- attack came from the side of the sea, from which the rocket does not fly much --- 100 km and only 30 km to fly over the territory of Syria (from the border of Lebanon). Respectively Syrian air defense for counteraction - just nothing and time and distance.

So where did 61% of the rockets dissolve. The rest .... disappeared?
23 flew, and 4 hit the target.

As a result, 59 cruise missiles worth almost 100 megabucks went to 6 old MiG-23s that were under REPAIR. And the dining room is a pity."

The dining room is really a pity. As well as the dead. But the version is only developing. Let's start from the number 36. By the way, there was another rocket that "fell down" there, the 37th. Remember: "At the moment, hops fly off me at the number 37 ..."?:

The missiles obviously did too little damage for their smart 59 brains, really barely enough for two dozen:

Here's how Tomahawks hit targets:

Some of the aircraft in the open air and some of the caponiers also survived here.

But we develop theme 36:

"So, given: - how many missiles were fired from American destroyers: 59; - how many missiles flew to the ill-fated Syrian airfield: 23. In the balance: 36 missiles. Where did they go? Did they simply fly across the desert or fall into the sea? It’s hard for me to believe this, the Americans are too prudent and pragmatic to lose more than half of the missiles just like that somewhere, especially since Tomahawks have long been used in punitive operations since the Gulf War in 1991, then there was Yugoslavia, again Iraq, Libya.

Few times the Americans lost dozens of Tomahawks at once. Watch the numbers: 59 - 23 = 36... Intriguing biggrin Remember the number 36. Now let's look at performance characteristics The S-400 Triumph air defense system can be found on any military website, no one hides this data. Small screenshot:


American "Tomahawks" in Syria could be shot down by our S-400 "Triumph" 59 - 36 = 23

The number of simultaneously fired targets (with the full complement of air defense systems) 36. What does this mean? This means that 1 S-400 division is capable of simultaneously shooting down 36 targets. One S-400 division includes many different equipment: command post, radars, launchers themselves, technical assistance, etc. Launchers, those that we always see at parades (see the photo below, who have not seen), there are 12 pieces in the division, i.e. 12 x 4 = 48 missiles. This means that the number of missiles for 1 accurate salvo is quite enough for itself. The height of hitting targets is from 5 meters, cruise missiles are included in this category of targets.

American "Tomahawks" in Syria could be shot down by our S-400 "Triumph"

Why am I so sure that 1 S-400 division is based in Syria? Because it open information, which is in the public domain:

Based on all the data, we can conclude that there is 1 S-400 Triumph division in Syria, capable of destroying up to 48 targets, but 36 of them with one salvo. 36.

Here's another helpful information, for those who say that the Tomahawks were out of reach of our air defense.

Why am I so sure that it was the S-400s that destroyed the Tomahawks? And let's ask a counter question, why did the Americans suddenly want to launch 59 (!!!) cruise missiles at the airfield of the Syrian army? This huge swarm of metal, fire and explosives is fired at one military airfield.

To completely paralyze such an airfield, a pair of missiles would be required - to hit the runway, and that's it. By the way, why exactly 59 and not 60, for example? Probably 1 rocket did not take off or fell somewhere on the deck. Such a swarm of missiles was needed to somehow get through our air defense. The maximum that we are capable of in such a situation is to shoot down 48 missiles of an obvious enemy. It was decided to shoot down 36 out of 59 with one salvo.

The rest, most likely, were blinded and stunned by our electronic warfare, because. it is not entirely clear why the missiles did not hit the target exactly. Well, this is an assumption, I can not vouch for the accuracy of the information. Or maybe the Americans did not set exact goals, but simply wanted to defiantly go through our air defense. And they passed, with losses, but they passed. As planned. By the way, this was a reason for all the liberal media to shout that our air defense is full of holes like a sieve and start arranging a funeral for the S-400.

But none of them considered our specific resources and downed enemy missiles. If we proceed from the fact that 59 missiles were launched not at the airfield, but to break through our air defense, then this can be considered a direct blow to us. The breakthrough in this case was a success, 23 missiles passed through our defenses. USA in Once again openly show aggression towards Russia, but we do not see an adequate response. Or it is still too early to wait for any reaction, although ... wait for the replenishment of S-400 divisions in Syria, there are clearly not enough resources there."

Such is the version. Incredible for me - it is impossible to hide the launch of dozens of missiles - the network would already be torn from the frames recorded on the phones, since there are plenty of people around our base, and no one would hide such a phenomenal success. But how beautiful fairy tale has the right to life.