Missile attack on Syria: who actually shot down the American Tomahawks? The Ministry of Defense assessed the effectiveness of the US strike as “extremely low. Why weren’t the missiles shot down in Syria.
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 anyone 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 consequence, alliance radio communications require special efforts and multiple signal duplication 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 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. Enough to remember mean comments 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 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 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 point is that this electronic warfare system 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 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.
On the night of Friday, April 7, two US Navy ships in the Mediterranean launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Syrian airfield of Shayrat in Homs province. According to American intelligence, it was from this base that official Damascus organized attacks using chemical weapons, including the bombing of Idlib.
The Syrian military command reported that the strike killed six Syrian soldiers. The Pentagon does not know whether Russian troops were at the Shayrat air base, but says they did everything possible to avoid casualties. “We talked to the Russians, we notified them to remove their forces from there,” Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon told Interfax.
But even if there are no fatalities among Russian military personnel, it is absolutely clear: the risk that in Syria we will encounter the United States in an armed conflict has increased many times over.
I must say, Americans understand this very well. Here's how Donald Trump's decision to strike an air base in Syria was described by the US Presidential Adviser on national security General Herbert McMaster.
“We weighed the risks associated with any military action, but we weighed them against the risk of inaction. We held a meeting of the National Security Council to consider our options. We discussed three options with the president, and he asked us to focus on two of them, and asked us a series of questions,” McMaster said. According to him, “the answers were presented to the president at a briefing on Thursday with the participation of the leadership of the National Security Council in Florida, via video link with Washington.” "After a lengthy meeting and in-depth discussion, the President has decided to act," added H.R. McMaster.
In other words, the United States has decided that we will not put ourselves in a bottle in Syria. But Trump may have miscalculated. As Russian Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov said, Vladimir Putin considered the US missile attack an aggression against sovereign state in violation of the norms international law, “and under a far-fetched pretext.”
Peskov added that Washington’s actions “cause significant damage to Russian-American relations, which are already in a deplorable state.” “And most importantly, according to Putin, this step does not bring us closer to the final goal in the fight against international terrorism, but on the contrary creates a serious obstacle to the creation of an international coalition to combat it,” the press secretary noted.
For its part, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement in which it called the US strike a “thoughtless approach”, called on the UN Security Council to hold an emergency meeting, and also notified that Moscow was suspending the Memorandum on preventing incidents and ensuring the safety of aviation flights during operations in Syria, concluded from the USA.
The Russian military has clearly demonstrated how events can develop in Syria. On April 7, at the Telemba training ground in Buryatia, calculations anti-aircraft missile systems The S-400 and S-300PS repelled a simulated attack of air-to-surface missiles fired from Tu-95MS long-range aircraft. This was reported by the representative of the Eastern Military District (EMD) Alexander Gordeev. Let us remind you: exactly anti-aircraft missile systems The S-300 and S-400 are deployed to protect the Russian military base in Syria.
How will we realistically respond to the Americans, how will the situation in the Damascus-Moscow-Washington triangle develop?
Our S-400 air defense system, which is deployed in Syria, at the Khmeimim airbase, purely technically would not be able to shoot down American Tomahawks,” notes reserve colonel, member of the Expert Council of the Board of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation Viktor Murakhovsky. - The Syrian Shayrat airbase, which was hit by the Americans, is about 100 km from Khmeimim. However, for air defense systems there is a restrictive concept of the radio horizon.
Yes, maximum range destruction range of the S-400 is 400 km. But we must understand: this is the reach of air targets that operate on medium and high altitudes. Cruise missiles, which operate at altitudes of 30-50 meters, are not visible from such a distance simply because the Earth is “curved” - spherical. In short, the American Tomahawks were beyond the S-400 radio horizon.
Let me note: no air defense system, whether Russian or American, is physically capable of seeing cruise missiles at such a range.
Various measures are used to increase the radio horizon. In particular, in air defense systems, the radar is raised on towers. There is such a tower in Khmeimim, however, it does not allow increasing the detection range so much - up to 100 km.
“SP”: - What is the situation from a military-political point of view, are we obliged to provide military assistance to Damascus?
Russia is in Syria solely to fight terrorism. We have neither an agreement with the Syrian government on the protection of Syria from third countries, nor any allied obligations to each other. And Moscow is not going to sign such agreements.
Let me remind you that while the Russian Aerospace Forces group was in Syria, Israel launched several missile attacks on Syrian air bases. Including the air base near Damascus. But we did not interfere in these situations in any way, and we did not counteract such attacks.
“SP”: - Is there any reason, in this case, to say that now the risk of a military clash in Syria between the United States and the Russian Federation has increased?
The risk has increased because our military personnel in Syria are present not only at the Khmeimim airbase and at the Tartus logistics point. Our demining teams and our military advisers are present in other areas of Syria. In Homs, for example, which is located near the Shayrat airbase, we have opened a demining center where we train Syrians in engineering and demining work.
If the United States unilaterally attacks government targets in Syria, there is a risk of the death of Russian military personnel. Naturally, in this case there will be a corresponding reaction from Russia. No one will undertake to predict it, since we will be talking about an act of direct aggression by the US Armed Forces against representatives of the Russian Armed Forces.
So the risk has indeed increased significantly. Yes, the United States warned us through the incident prevention line in Syria that an attack was being carried out on the Shayrat air base. But still, this does not guarantee against extremely dangerous incidents. It may happen that the Americans do not warn in time, or the Tomahawk deviates from the specified route, which will lead to the death of Russian servicemen.
In fact, the US decision to launch a missile strike sharply escalated the conflict. It put an end to the possibility of interaction between the Russian Federation and the United States in the fight against terrorism in the Middle East, as well as the hope for reviving the role of the UN Security Council and other international structures who deal with issues of war and peace. And this role today, I note, has been reduced to the level of a smoking room in which they discuss but do not decide anything.
"SP": - The US missile attack on an air base in Syria was a "single operation", an unnamed US military official told Reuters. If this is not so, the United States can undermine it with missile strikes military power Damascus?
The power of Damascus is determined mainly by ground forces and the militia, as well as artillery - those who work “on the ground”. In this situation, an attempt to defeat Syrian government forces with cruise missiles is doomed to failure. Such a task cannot be solved solely by air or missile strikes. It can only be solved by introducing a ground contingent - we saw this in the example of Iraq.
Theoretically, nothing can be ruled out: the Americans may decide to continue missile attacks, but they do not have decisive military significance. Another thing is that, under the cover of US strikes, terrorist groups can launch a general counteroffensive.
However, let’s not forget that Russian Aerospace Forces are present in Syria, and they have the potential to more actively defeat terrorists. True, for this we may have to increase the Syrian group again. And this is one of the answer options that we can give to the Americans.
It was to this unexpected conclusion that General Konashenkov’s phrase about the Tomahawks reaching the target led the experts. I will not bore readers with details of 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 have worked on the launched missiles. But this is already a direct military clash, for which Russia and Syria did not sign an agreement, helping only in the fight against terrorists. The USA, de jure, is not such. But de facto, it’s clear where those who disagree can put themselves - after Yugoslavia, even the most slow-witted understood. And after Libya...
Konaenkov’s speech is interesting and self-sufficient in itself:
But the conspiracy theory is also beautiful. According to Russian objective monitoring data, only 23 missiles reached the Syrian airbase. 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 insufficient for 59 missiles. Based on this, let's start:
"... I trust the Russian Defense Ministry, writes chervonec:
a) it is possible to determine on the spot the number of missiles that reached the airfield
b) the shooting shows completely uncritical destruction
It is doubly surprising that there are no reports that Russia used the S-300 and S-400 complexes (only target illumination?) and its aircraft as air defense.
Another moment --- attack it came from the sea, from which the missile can’t fly very far --- 100 km and only 30 km over Syrian territory (from the Lebanese border). Accordingly, to counter the Syrian air defense - nothing at all, time and distance.
So where did 61% of the missiles disappear? The rest... are missing?
23 flew, and 4 hit the target.
As a result, 59 cruise missiles costing almost 100 megabucks were spent on 6 old MiG-23s under REPAIR. And I feel sorry for the dining room."
It's really a shame for the dining room. As well as the dead. But the version is just developing. We start from the number 36. By the way, there was another missile that crashed there, the 37th. Remember: “At the number 37, the hops immediately fly off my face...”?:
The missiles clearly caused too little damage for their smart 59 brains, in fact, barely enough for two dozen:
Here's how Tomahawks hit targets:
Some of the open-air aircraft and some of the caponiers also survived here.
But let's develop topic 36:
"So, given: - how many missiles were fired from American destroyers: 59; - how many missiles flew to the ill-fated Syrian airfield: 23. The remainder: 36 missiles. Where did they go? Did they just scatter across the desert or fall into the sea? I don’t care It’s hard to believe that the Americans are too prudent and pragmatic to simply lose more than half of the missiles somewhere, especially since Tomahawks have long been used in punitive operations, starting with the Gulf War in 1991, then Yugoslavia, again Iraq, Libya .
It’s rare that Americans lost dozens of Tomahawks at once. Follow the numbers: 59 - 23 = 36... Intriguing biggrin Remember the number 36. Let's now 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 have been shot down by our S-400 Triumph 59 - 36 = 23
Number of simultaneously fired targets (with 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 photo below, for those who haven’t seen them), 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. The height of destruction of targets is from 5 meters; cruise missiles are included in this category of targets.
American Tomahawks in Syria could have been shot down by our S-400 Triumph
Why am I so sure that the 1st 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 in 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 the Tomahawks were destroyed by the S-400? And let's ask a counter question, why did the Americans suddenly want to launch 59 (!!!) cruise missiles at the Syrian army airfield? This huge swarm of metal, fire and explosives was released at one military airfield.
To completely paralyze such an airfield, it would take a couple of missiles to hit the runway, and that’s all. 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 we can do in such a situation is to shoot down 48 missiles from an obvious enemy. It was decided to shoot down 36 out of 59 in one salvo.
The rest were most likely blinded and deafened 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’t vouch for the accuracy of the information. Or maybe the Americans didn’t set exact goals, but simply wanted to demonstratively pass through our air defense. And they passed, with losses, but they passed. As planned. By the way, this was a reason for all liberal media to shout that our air defense is leaky like a sieve and to start holding a funeral for the S-400.
But none of them counted 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 strike on us. Breakthrough in in this case It was a success, 23 missiles passed through our defenses. The United States is once again openly showing aggression towards Russia, but we do not see an adequate response. Or is it too early to expect any reaction, although... wait for the replenishment of S-400 divisions in Syria, there are clearly not enough resources there."
This is the version. For me, it’s incredible - it’s impossible to hide the launch of dozens of missiles - the network would already be bursting from the footage recorded on phones, fortunately there are plenty of people around our base, and especially no one was hiding this phenomenal success. But like a beautiful fairy tale, it has the right to life.
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 the multifunctional radar of the anti-aircraft 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 attacks, at least 4-5 anti-aircraft guns must be deployed in the area of the airbase missile divisions S-400. In addition to this grouping, it is necessary to create a system radar reconnaissance to provide the required 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
Why didn't Russia 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 stop this attack to help his bosom friend Should Trump deliver the blow he needs and, through a show of strength in the region, curb some of the criticism leveled at him?
Following the controversial and dubious suggestion that Assad used chemical weapon, the United States fired 59 Tomahawk missiles at Syria, of which only 23 reached their target. It's up on the agenda important question: why Russia and Syria did not repulse the US attack with the help missile systems S-300, S-400 and Buk-M2, which are located on combat duty in SAR?
When analyzing the causes and consequences, we come to the conclusion that the attack on the Shayrat airfield was deliberately planned 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 The Almaz-Antey and S-400, called the SA-21 by NATO, are equipped with advanced technology and are capable of repelling air strikes carried out by military aircraft and cruise missiles. Moreover, 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 on Russian facilities located near al-Assad airport, as well as on Russian base in Tartus.
Why didn't it work?
It is noted that control over these air defense systems in Syria, received from Russia, is in the hands of the Syrian army, but it did not repulse the attack, which Russia knew about in advance. Moreover, Russia, which had advance notice of the attack, could have stopped the Tomahawk missiles before they hit their target by using the Pantsir system if it wanted.
Corresponding Member Russian Academy military science Sergei Sudakov, who answered questions addressed to him on this topic, gave a polemical comment: “If Syria had used Russian air defense systems in response to a US missile attack, this would have started a nuclear conflict. But Russian leadership prevented the emergence of a possible nuclear conflict."
Further Sudakov continued: “The most main question The question everyone is asking today is why Russia didn’t use its air defense systems in Syria to shoot down US missiles. Most believe that Russia should have given such a response to repel US aggression in Syria. But if we had fired the missiles, we might not have woken up this morning. If Russia had responded to the United States, the fuse of a nuclear conflict would have been lit in the region.”
Reasonable actions
However, it cannot be said that such answers suit everyone. There are also those who are looking for other reasons underlying the fact that Russia did not repulse a blow that it knew about in advance. A main reason The emerging suspicion is that the US refrained from causing any significant damage to the airfield they were targeting.
As another assumption that reinforces doubts, the view is voiced that Putin is playing a different geopolitical game and deliberately did not respond to this attack. Supporters of this point of view do not believe that if air defense systems were used, a “nuclear threat” would arise. World War", and believe that America was deliberately allowed to strike an empty airfield.
The number of those who believe that this attack was just a show of muscle flexing is quite large because, although Tomahawk missiles are effective weapons, they destructive force not as high as bombs and missiles dropped from airplanes. In short, the attacked airfield could soon be brought back into working order, and, as reported today in Odatv.com, a day after the attack, Syria began to use the Shayrat airfield again, and planes were even seen taking off from here.
In that case, can we say that there is only one possibility left? Putin did not stop this attack to help his sidekick Trump deliver the blow he needed and, through a show of force in the region, curb some of the criticism leveled at him?
