Why didn’t the VKS shoot down the tomahawks? Operation Tomahawk: was the strike on an airbase in Syria successful? How much did the airstrike cost the US?
Since the US cruise missile attack on Syrian airbase V foreign media Disputes continue as to why Russia did not use its air defense systems in Syria. In fact, three main answers are proposed: Russia did not risk aggravating the situation for political reasons; the power of Russian air defense systems is actually a myth, and they are not able to shoot down cruise missiles at all; and, finally, that Russian air defense systems are so ineffective that a small percentage of even downed missiles will destroy the demand for Russian air defense systems in the world and will generally affect their reputation Russian weapons for export.
Popular Mechanics is trying to understand the thinking of Putin, who did not order the use of air defense, although he knew in advance about the attack, as he was warned. Most likely it was clear that this would be a massive attack, and not several missiles; most likely it was clear where they would come from. Putin could give the order and then tell the whole world that he saved the lives of the Syrian military who are fighting terrorists. But he didn't do that. Why? The publication's guess is that he did not do so because if Russian systems The air defense did not shoot down the Tomahawks, this would have been a serious blow to the marketing campaign Russian weapons. As Popular Mechanics emphasizes, the biggest mystery in the world today in the military sphere is whether Russian air defense systems can really withstand the American Air Force or not?
However, a version has also been put forward that in this way Putin made it clear to Assad that he will not constantly cover up his actions, and that it is better for Assad to refrain from committing war crimes. This version pops up periodically both on forums and in the comments of foreign readers.
CNN even puts forward a version that Russia thus essentially agreed with the need to conduct a one-time demonstration attack on a Syrian target, although the Russians could shoot down the Tomahawks.
The Daily Mail publishes a story with the headline " Anti-missile systems Russian leader were unable to protect the Syrian airbase" and notes that despite all the assurances of the Russian military that their air defense systems can protect against enemy missiles and aircraft, real life Russian air defense systems have not yet worked American equipment and technology.
Context
Putin is in a difficult situation
The Christian Science Monitor 09/03/2004S-300 is not capable of destroying Tomahawks
Baladi news 04/11/2017Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty quotes statements on Russian social networks for its readers (for example: Leyla, @agentleyla - “I’m the only one who doesn’t understand why our C400s located nearby or the Syrian C300s didn’t shoot down American missiles???”, Uncle Shu, @Shulz - “Listen, I just want to ask - is Moscow also covered by the S-300 and S-400?”) and comments from Russian military experts who note that the Americans launched the missiles so that they did not fall into the range of Russian systems Air defense, and the systems themselves are located too far from the Shayrat airbase to work on low-flying targets.
Justin Bronk, an analyst from the British RUSI (Royal United Services Institute), believes that the S-400 complex, although advertised as being able to withstand cruise missiles, is actually good against ballistic missiles flying at the target from above, and against aircraft, but not against cruise missiles, flying low over the surface with differences in altitude.
The publication also quotes Russian observer Pavel Felgengauer, who writes that Russian air defense systems, at best, can essentially cover only the objects where they are located; the effective defense radius is about 30 km, but not objects at long distances, and certainly not the entire territory Syria. The idea that Russia can protect Syrian airspace, according to the observer, is just PR for Russian weapons.
The translation of the article “Why Russian S-300 and S-400 did not shoot down Tomahawks” also went viral on the English-language network. this material Russian military experts explain the silence of air defense systems in Syria by Russia’s reluctance to bring the world to nuclear war: "Usage Russian complexes Air defense 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-in-Chief,” said 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 today what is called a “nuclear conflict” could happen, it would be a clash between two nuclear powers in a third territory,” Sudakov is sure.
At the same time, foreign commentators on these statements by the Russian expert do not see the connection, how the destruction of a cruise missile could become a reason for starting a nuclear war, and consider these explanations to be justifications for the helplessness of air defense.
Newsweek quotes military analyst Sim Tack of Stratfor as suggesting that Russia's decision not to use air defenses was made not for political reasons, but for military reasons, and that Russian air defense systems have never previously worked against American cruise missiles, i.e. the effectiveness of their shooting against Tomahawks cannot be predicted.
The Asia Times article notes that despite the fact that the S-400s were not used, it is obvious that the United States took their presence into account and launched missiles from a great distance, and even after warning the Russians. That is, even the presence of the S-400 complex already plays a role and cools down the “hot heads.” This should please China and India, which purchase air defense systems from Russia. On the other hand, as the publication writes, most likely Russian radars detected a swarm of cruise missiles, but the fire system was not activated. This was not necessarily due to the weakness of the system, but it still calls into question how effective the S-400 really is against large quantity low flying targets.
As for the versions in the comments to the articles, the spread is wide: Russian air defense systems were not activated because it is too expensive to use the S-400 against cruise missiles; because Russian air defense systems in Syria simply do not have such a number of shots against dozens and dozens of cruise missiles; because the S-400 is simply not designed to work against this type of target; because the S-400’s power supply system failed, etc.
InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.
The American brazen attack on a Syrian air base occupied the public 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 complex has also been deployed electronic warfare"Krasukha-4". 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.
The expert explained why the S-300 and S-400 did not shoot down Tomahawks in Syria
Early in the morning of April 7, 2017, US Navy ships launched a Tomahawk cruise missile attack on the Syrian Shayrat airbase in Homs province. A total of 59 missiles were fired. According to preliminary data, 5 Syrian soldiers were killed and up to 15 Syrian Air Force aircraft were damaged or destroyed.
Since 2016, “Shayrat” has also been used by the Russian Aerospace Forces group in Syria as a jump airfield. In particular, they were based there combat helicopters Mi-24, Mi-35, Ka-52 and Mi-28. It is not known for certain whether Russian military personnel were there at the time of the strike, but it is reported that most The Syrian military removed military equipment before the strike.
Media: Syrian military evacuated personnel before American strike
The Syrian military evacuated personnel and equipment before the US missile attack on the airbase in Homs.
Commenting on this event, a military expert, an employee of the Center for Integrated European and international studies Higher School of Economics Vasily Kashin said that the attack was carried out by a huge number of cruise missiles, clearly designed to guarantee the penetration of powerful air defenses.
“As a matter of fact, even if the S-300 division were at the base, provided it was 100% effective, it would not have withstood such a strike,” the expert believes, “and the firing range of the S-300 at low-flying targets such as the Tomahawk cruise missile is several times less than the range shooting at aircraft on medium and high altitudes, which journalists love to talk about. That is, it’s just a few tens of kilometers.”
“In principle, the S-300 and S-400 divisions in Khmeimim and Tartus cannot cover a distant target from Tomahawks,” believes Vasily Kashin.
He also notes that judging by the data on losses, the base was not defended - otherwise there would be no talk of five deaths.
"The base was evacuated in advance after American warnings. The Americans' expenditure of 59 missiles was necessary to avoid loss of face if opposite side decides to defend the airfield after all. Otherwise, there was no point in spending more than $100 million on one object,” the expert sums up.
A US strike on a Syrian airbase killed an air defense general and damaged 15 aircraft.
Sources on the network spoke about the losses of Syrians from a US missile strike.
Concerning political significance missile attack, the expert notes that the day before there was the largest shift in decades on the Jerusalem issue - Russia’s recognition of West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
"Russia is the first large country, who recognized him. This could lead to a chain reaction and overall change position on the issue," Kashin notes. In addition, in his opinion, it is now extremely difficult to promote the theory that Trump is under Russian influence. He has gotten rid of this threat.
The Russian Foreign Ministry officially named West Jerusalem the capital of Israel
The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement calling West Jerusalem the capital of Israel
Country Institute Fellow Far East also points to the important “Chinese factor”:
"Trump clearly specifically announced the attack during the visit of Xi Jinping (chairman of the People's Republic of China - defence.ru). Obviously, to demonstrate his power. This will be remembered for a long time, as will the case when Truman informed Stalin about Hiroshima, and Stalin pretended that he didn’t understand what was going on.”
Kashin considers this step a wrong decision: “The Chinese will perceive this as a deliberate humiliation, they will put on a good face, but then they will take revenge.”
Military observer Mikhail Khodarenok, in an article for the publication Gazeta.Ru, generally confirmed the opinion of his colleagues, explaining that with regard to Tomahawk-type cruise missiles, the S-400 is limited to a radius of about 25 km, and to cover the entire government territory will require the deployment of a large-scale group Air defense with several divisions.
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, Khodarenok argues. 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 lower, the S-400 radar complex and multifunctional Anti-aircraft radar the missile division simply will not see the target. This is due to the curvature earth's surface, explains the expert.
Approximately the same situation arises with the S-300V air defense system deployed in Tartus, he explains. 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.
“Tomohawk cruise missiles fly at an altitude of 50-60 meters,” explained Colonel-General of Aviation Igor Maltsev, former chief of the General Staff of the Air Defense Forces, 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. In this case, the meeting of the missile defense system with the Tomahawk 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 airbase from missile strikes, at least 4-5 S-400 anti-aircraft missile battalions must be deployed in the airbase area. 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.
Material prepared