Military Review

Raytheon: US missile defense systems destroy more than 100 Soviet missiles

107
Raytheon, which manages missile defense systems, released a report stating that Patriot missile systems supplied by the United States of Saudi Arabia intercepted more than 2015 Yemeni missiles, most of which are of Soviet origin, from 100. The report was noted in Defense News.


More than 90 percent of interceptions accounted for Patriot PAC-2 (Patriot second generation) complexes with guided antimissiles, designed mainly for the destruction of aircraft, but capable of intercepting ballistic missiles.

Raytheon: US missile defense systems destroy more than 100 Soviet missiles


The remaining 10 percent of interceptions fell on the Patriot PAC-3 (Third Generation) complexes, specially adapted for the destruction of ballistic missiles. Deployment of such systems in Saudi Arabia has not yet been completed; Lockheed Martin explains the low interception rate.

The elimination of Yemeni missiles is also carried out by Patriot complexes, which are in service with the United Arab Emirates, but are located in Yemen. Given this circumstance, the US missile defense system with 2015, intercepted more than 150 Soviet missiles.

Defense News notes that the figures announced by Raytheon exceed the data provided by other think tanks and the government of Saudi Arabia. This state leads a coalition of eight countries, opposing the Hussites in Yemen and supporting them to Iran. On the other hand, the newspaper notes, officially Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates underestimate the number of intercepted Yemeni missiles, and Raytheon refused to disclose the identity of the missile defense systems responsible for intercepting Soviet missiles.

In Yemen, there is a civil war between the Hussite rebels and pro-government forces. At the disposal of the Hussites and most of the Yemeni military, who have gone over to the side of the rebels, there are various types of rockets brought from the USSR and North Korea. North Korean weapon, in turn, made on the basis of Soviet products. There are no confirmed facts of the delivery of Iranian missiles to Yemen.

To intercept one missile still Soviet-made, usually four American anti-missiles are sent. Currently, Saudi Arabia’s weapons are exclusively American second-and third-generation Patriot. Riyadh also plans to buy Russian missile defense systems C-400, reports "Lenta.ru"
Photos used:
Reuters
107 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Greg Miller
    Greg Miller 16 November 2017 15: 45 New
    24
    And where did so many Soviet missiles come from in Yemen?
    1. pvv113
      pvv113 16 November 2017 15: 56 New
      32
      Do not stop Americans from self-promotion wink
      1. Jedi
        Jedi 16 November 2017 16: 06 New
        17
        Volodya, so it turns out that the company Raytheon - PR past ??? belay
        1. pvv113
          pvv113 16 November 2017 16: 07 New
          +3
          Max, I don’t even know how to say better! wink
          1. Jedi
            Jedi 16 November 2017 16: 16 New
            +6
            Then do not try, otherwise they will send a steam bath. lol
            1. pvv113
              pvv113 16 November 2017 16: 17 New
              +4
              Take your option as the basis hi
      2. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 16 November 2017 16: 21 New
        +6
        Quote: pvv113
        Do not stop Americans from self-promotion wink

        Good advertisement. Well, a couple of anti-rocket ... but four. And given the years of production and, accordingly, the price of the rocket / anti-missile, the costs of the Saudis are clearly not twice the costs of the enemy. It’s clear that the enemy is not so rich that he can shoot bullets every day, but the former benefactor’s anti-missiles are not so reliable either.
        1. pvv113
          pvv113 16 November 2017 16: 40 New
          12
          The question is - how to advertise? One could say "as many as four American missile defense", or with optimism, "just four American missile defense" wink
          1. Slovak
            Slovak 16 November 2017 21: 25 New
            +4
            and also, it’s important not to say that the missiles are not just “Soviet”, but of the production of the 50-60s
            1. pvv113
              pvv113 16 November 2017 21: 29 New
              +1
              Yes, it is undesirable wink
          2. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 17 November 2017 01: 25 New
            +2
            Quote: pvv113
            "WHOLE four American missile defense

            Missiles are not cigarettes! Divide into "halves" does not work! wink
      3. NEXUS
        NEXUS 16 November 2017 17: 07 New
        +4
        Quote: pvv113
        Do not stop Americans from self-promotion wink

        And not a word what kind of missiles were intercepted ... wassat Created in the 70s, I guess. What can I say, a good pont is better than any money. wassat
      4. PalBor
        PalBor 16 November 2017 18: 26 New
        +5
        Quote: pvv113
        Do not stop Americans from self-promotion wink

        That they have not yet boasted how the FAU-2 is being shot down! smile
      5. Kent0001
        Kent0001 16 November 2017 18: 39 New
        +3
        More precisely, narcissism ... daffodils crap are new .....
        1. pvv113
          pvv113 16 November 2017 18: 41 New
          +1
          This cannot be taken away from them wink
      6. Orionvit
        Orionvit 16 November 2017 19: 44 New
        +2
        Quote: pvv113
        Do not stop Americans from self-promotion wink

        Well, you won’t praise yourself, you won’t wait from others. laughing But tormented by vague doubts, 4-5 missiles to destroy one ballistic target, isn’t it too much? And not even low-flying, which is more difficult.
        1. pvv113
          pvv113 16 November 2017 19: 46 New
          +1
          I wrote above that there are many ways to advertise. More optimistic needed, with a twinkle wink
    2. Going
      Going 16 November 2017 15: 57 New
      15
      Quote: Greg Miller
      And where did so many Soviet missiles come from in Yemen?


      Yes, even ballistic? belay
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 16 November 2017 16: 12 New
        +3
        Like these ones. Downed in Saudi Arabia. It’s called Scud.
        1. Thrall
          Thrall 16 November 2017 16: 20 New
          10
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Downed in Saudi Arabia

          This is still Desert Storm 1991
        2. sir_obs
          sir_obs 16 November 2017 16: 44 New
          +5
          Only not this whole structure flies to the target, which means that it was shot down at the launch site or not shot at all, but captured somewhere on the ground, or it was not a scad at all
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 16 November 2017 16: 49 New
            +4
            Scud falls completely. The whole structure. He has no separable
            warheads.
            In a three-story building in Tel Aviv in 1991, Scud hit. He pierced all floors
            strictly upright and shot without exploding. Huge vertical pipe.
            By this happy coincidence, no one died.
        3. dvina71
          dvina71 16 November 2017 17: 23 New
          +9
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Like these ones. Downed in Saudi Arabia. Called scud

          / Yes, yes ... knocked down ... it’s neatly put here... Apparently for a photo shoot .. if the rocket fell from a height of a couple of hundred meters .. then it wouldn’t look like that.
          1. jjj
            jjj 16 November 2017 17: 26 New
            +2
            And if the missile is armored, you can’t take it with shrapnel
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 17 November 2017 01: 22 New
              +2
              Quote: jjj
              And if the missile is armored, you can’t take it with shrapnel

              Yeah! You still put on the “skad” KAZ!
          2. Strashila
            Strashila 16 November 2017 19: 50 New
            +3
            It’s rightly noticed .. there are no signs of a fall ... it's like the Americans landed on the moon ... not even the ground is touched.
        4. Nikolai Grek
          Nikolai Grek 16 November 2017 19: 10 New
          +4
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Like these ones. Downed in Saudi Arabia. It’s called Scud.

          what what it is more than 100 times less voiced !! wassat laughing laughing
        5. Sergey84
          Sergey84 16 November 2017 20: 51 New
          +7
          At least a bush nearby, sprinkled with a little sand, at least some kind of imitation of a fallen (shot down)))) rocket. On your part, this is a crossbow in the leg, not quite respected anymore.
        6. Sergey84
          Sergey84 16 November 2017 20: 55 New
          +1
          At least a bush next to it was sprinkled with a little sand, at least some imitation of a fallen (shot down)))) rocket. This crossbow in the foot is no longer quite a respected warrior. hi
    3. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 16 November 2017 16: 16 New
      +4
      Quote: Greg Miller
      And where did so many Soviet missiles come from in Yemen?

      Allah sent, to send to the heads of the "wrong Muslims."
    4. venik
      venik 16 November 2017 18: 30 New
      +1
      Quote: Greg Miller
      And where did so many Soviet missiles come from in Yemen?

      =========
      Well, my friend - this is already a "reference" to the "bearded" joke about Chapaev: "... And as can't get here ??! (from a gun, from a "hangover" - to a hummingbird) - 12 trunks and the whole sky "in the parrots"!!!
    5. Piramidon
      Piramidon 16 November 2017 19: 27 New
      +2
      Quote: Greg Miller
      And where did so many Soviet missiles come from in Yemen?

      At one time, the USSR overwhelmed the entire Middle East with the Scuds (R-17). But if “Four American anti-missiles are usually sent to intercept one more Soviet-made missile.”, Then how do they want to fight the Iskanders or even the Tochka?
      1. free_flier
        free_flier 18 November 2017 02: 28 New
        +1
        ten anti-ballistic missiles.
  2. Dezinto
    Dezinto 16 November 2017 15: 46 New
    18
    Figs were lying there.
    The American military man who participated in the Gulf War said: “We had difficulty knocking down one Scat with five or six Patriots. Sometimes we couldn’t shoot down at all and they reached the targets.

    In general, getting a rocket into a rocket is still a difficulty to this day. So I think the advertising article.
    1. Going
      Going 16 November 2017 15: 59 New
      10
      The article generally discusses ballistic missiles.
      The remaining 10 percent of interceptions came from Patriot PAC-3 (third-generation Patriot) systems, specially adapted for the destruction of ballistic missiles.
      1. Dezinto
        Dezinto 16 November 2017 16: 02 New
        +3
        speech about ballistic missiles


        Well, yeah, Scat is a ballistic missile, and I tell you that the Americans tried to shoot down our Stingrays with their Patriots, and figs were lying there.
        1. Going
          Going 16 November 2017 16: 14 New
          +9
          Well, even the 60s, but where are there so many of them in Yemen.
        2. vredlo
          vredlo 16 November 2017 18: 20 New
          +1
          but aren’t they called a skad, or something like stingrays, or is it something else I don’t know
          1. Dezinto
            Dezinto 16 November 2017 18: 42 New
            +1
            but aren’t they called a skad, but somehow

            Yes, yes, Scud, of course, it’s just that I was sealed something.
  3. Sergey53
    Sergey53 16 November 2017 15: 46 New
    +6
    What is their sophisticated air defense. It is necessary such a percentage of collapse! There is something to fasten on.
    1. Captain Pushkin
      Captain Pushkin 16 November 2017 15: 52 New
      +3
      Quote: Sergey53

      0
      Sergey53 Today, 15:46 New
      What is their sophisticated air defense. It is necessary such a percentage of collapse! There is something to fasten on.

      The goal is complex, and the results are not brilliant.
      I do not think that the effectiveness of our S-300s for such purposes is much better.
      1. Kent0001
        Kent0001 16 November 2017 18: 44 New
        +2
        I heard three hundred for guaranteed the destruction of 2 missiles is necessary, but they can also cover one.
        1. free_flier
          free_flier 18 November 2017 02: 32 New
          +1
          the probability of hitting one S-300 missile is 0,8-0,9 / 0,8-0,97, depending on the type of missile, so for a full guarantee for such purposes, the calculation spends 2 missiles ... Schaub for sure.
      2. Piramidon
        Piramidon 16 November 2017 21: 20 New
        +1
        Quote: Captain Pushkin
        I do not think that the effectiveness of our S-300s for such purposes is much better.

        The S-300 has a fragmentation warhead and does not require a direct hit, unlike the kinetic warhead "Patriot"
    2. Vadim851
      Vadim851 16 November 2017 15: 59 New
      +3
      In MIM-104, the warhead’s striking elements are often insufficient to destroy a missile’s warhead, the target is much more durable than the plane and the area is much smaller, which means it will have less damage. The accuracy is enough, but the power may not be enough, that’s why they launch 4 anti-missiles so that, for sure, the Saudi’s money does not need to worry. For such purposes, of course, kinetic interception is better or JBF.
    3. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 16 November 2017 16: 09 New
      +4
      Quote: Sergey53
      There is something to fasten on.
      Quote: Captain Pushkin
      I do not think that the effectiveness of our S-300s for such purposes is much better.
      According to Pvošniki themselves: “PVO is like female pubic hair - it covers, but does not protect” lol
      1. Orionvit
        Orionvit 16 November 2017 19: 53 New
        +3
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        "Air defense is similar to female pubic hair - it covers, but does not protect

        Pvoshnik, just hesitated. If a person is not an expert, then he perceives such pearls from the “naval”, “aviation”, or “airy” humor as a “revelation”. Each military branch has its own humor, its own sayings and tales, fully understood only by the people who served there.
      2. Piramidon
        Piramidon 16 November 2017 21: 26 New
        +1
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        According to the Pvoshniks themselves

        Well, the pilots in my time said that the Tu-22 to fly, that the tigress to fuck. No pleasure, but dofig fear.
        Tales are tales.
        1. Captain Pushkin
          Captain Pushkin 17 November 2017 21: 54 New
          0
          Quote: Piramidon
          Piramidon Yesterday, 21:26 p.m. ↑
          Quote: Ami du peuple
          According to the Pvoshniks themselves

          Well, the pilots in my time said that the Tu-22 to fly, that the tigress to fuck. No pleasure, but dofig fear.

          Long before the Tu-22, in the late 40s, one test pilot spoke about an experimental fighter with an I-250 hybrid engine: "Flying on it, that kissing a tigress is scary and no pleasure"
  4. rruvim
    rruvim 16 November 2017 15: 49 New
    12
    Complete nonsense! Yemen had 15 launchers and a total of 50 SKAD-V missiles before the Civil War. Where's the 100 from? And at the end of the article and 150? Reuters correspondent on the "soap"!
    1. Prisoner
      Prisoner 16 November 2017 16: 30 New
      +5
      No need for soap. It will foam, but not wash. winked
  5. Livonetc
    Livonetc 16 November 2017 15: 49 New
    +2
    Quote: Greg Miller
    And where did so many Soviet missiles come from in Yemen?

    Apparently from the Soviet era.
    Missile systems:
    12 Moon (FROG-7)
    10 9K79 Point (SS-21 Scarab)
    6 Scud-B (33 missiles)
    2 batteries (8 PUs) PKRK Rubezh (SSC-3 Sallen), PKR P-15M Termit (SS-N-2C Styx)
    1. rruvim
      rruvim 16 November 2017 16: 07 New
      +6
      But still not a hundred? Figures Khramchikhinsky. Some of the installations and missiles were damaged or destroyed during the civil war and coalition operations. All this until the year 1915. Where then is the data on 100 downed rockets? Reuters correspondent on the "soap"!
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 16 November 2017 16: 15 New
        +6
        Quote: rruvim
        Reuters correspondent on the "soap"!

        The system developed in Brussels for counteracting "Russian propaganda." Every day, one of the news agencies or a TV channel makes a “stuffing” to one degree or another, messing, affecting the image of Russia.
  6. Siberia55
    Siberia55 16 November 2017 15: 55 New
    +5
    Aw, kid! Did IL-2s or corn-pickers shoot down too? Also their asset. laughing
    1. win
      win 16 November 2017 16: 09 New
      +9
      did the cornmen shoot down too?


      Maize is plywood.
      And this is STELS technology, you can’t just hit them with rockets ... laughing request
      1. olegyurjewitch
        olegyurjewitch 16 November 2017 19: 35 New
        +1
        Quote: Siegen
        And this is STELS technology, you can’t just hit them with rockets ... laughing request

        Yes, and our dashing paraglider can fly at super low altitudes, which the hell will sneak it. laughing
  7. Non liberoid Russian
    Non liberoid Russian 16 November 2017 15: 57 New
    +3
    if they spend on 70-80 missiles on obsolete rockets of the 4-6s, then the iskander or caliber will ruin them at all
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 16 November 2017 16: 09 New
      +2
      Missile defense does not stand still. Patriot was - the first pancake lumpy.
      Since then come up with THAAD, Standard, Hets,
      1. Non liberoid Russian
        Non liberoid Russian 16 November 2017 16: 16 New
        +5
        about another fairy tale flew ... about an invincible missile defense)))) one thing from the Papuans to shoot stones from catapults, another modern missiles
        1. Viktorfi
          Viktorfi 16 November 2017 17: 03 New
          +3
          Quote: Not Liberoid Russian
          about another fairy tale flew ... about an invincible missile defense)))) one thing from the Papuans to shoot stones from catapults, another modern missiles


          Of course, the C300 and C400 tested in combat against modern missiles ... Oh no, they are only in words ... wink
      2. Kent0001
        Kent0001 16 November 2017 18: 47 New
        +2
        Well, yes, in Korea they saw .... a thought. the systems are working, but how Americans advertise them, that this is simplicity - no one already believes. Behind the four hundred is already an ulterior motive.
      3. Captain Pushkin
        Captain Pushkin 17 November 2017 21: 57 New
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh

        2
        voyaka uh Yesterday, 16:09 ↑
        Missile defense does not stand still. Patriot was - the first pancake lumpy.
        Since then come up with THAAD, Standard, Hets,

        In fact, the Standard is a sea-based missile and it appeared long before the Patriot.
  8. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 16 November 2017 16: 05 New
    +3
    "Soviet-made missiles are usually sent to intercept one rocket
    four American missile defense "////

    This is for Patriot 2. In principle, this is an anti-aircraft system that was redone
    (radar and software) under missile defense. In 1991, we also shot two batteries. The first let two
    missiles, if missed, then the second - two missiles. I personally observed it - in the dark
    it was visible well. I saw only misses.
    In the last three days, our tweaked software, and hits began. The truth is already almost low
    "over the roofs." Patriot 3 shoots better.
    1. rruvim
      rruvim 16 November 2017 16: 33 New
      +7
      The question is not which system is knocking whom and how. The answer is that more or less modern systems have a CLEAR record of hits or misses (self-destruction) of their funds. Even ours reported on each missile launched from the Pantsyr MANPADS from the Khmeimim base. Although the trophies were not important, a couple of gas cylinders and one "children's" drone. PAC-3 has great potential for recording trajectories and determining the type of aerodynamic and ballistic threats, but even 10 of the hundreds of targets allegedly shot down since 2015 have not been shown to the world community. Except for a rocket that did not reach the Airport. The debris of rockets on the border with the KRA was also shown, which obviously just fell before reaching the target. I served at the Sary-Shagan Test Site, and twice a week I watched downed missile targets. And I know how they look.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 16 November 2017 16: 59 New
        +1
        I can not say that the Saudis do not hide the blunders. But if already in 1991
        Patriots - sometimes - have fallen, it is inclined to assume that after all
        upgrades they get better today.
        The IDF monitored all launches of J.K. for example, and at their request,
        sent pictures and videos for checks to skeptics - military experts.
        1. rruvim
          rruvim 16 November 2017 17: 03 New
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh

          The IDF monitored all launches of J.K. for example, and at their request,
          sent pictures and videos for checks to skeptics - military experts.

          I, apparently, did not get on this list ...
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 16 November 2017 17: 20 New
            +1
            "I served on the Sary-Shagan Test Site, and twice a week I watched downed missile targets." ////

            Your experience is very interesting. I’m terribly curious (without banter, for real) how the S-300/400 deal in combat with short-range ballistic missiles like Tochka, Scud.
            About the target "boar" and others I read.
            1. rruvim
              rruvim 16 November 2017 17: 51 New
              +3
              Cope poorly. Need insider information - what, where it will fly from. The noise immunity is weak, in any case in the first versions of the S-300 PT, but over the course of twenty years they have changed the “windows” to LCDs, transistors to microcircuits. It turned out S-400, only without the most important thing, there is no rocket sad And for the end of the 80s, the system was "excellent". In any case, the guys from Vega on the 200th complained that they would not be retrained for the 300th. And this was understandable: in the 300th air conditioning, at the entrance to the OP gateway. Only two operators work (all officers). The personnel are driven into dug-out dugouts, they are not needed, except for diesel engines. And on the 200th everything is in the “cabins”, in the heat both outside and inside. But the 300th hit and constantly. I once saw a "Tribute" bright red flying past him somewhere in a kilometer, at an altitude of no more than 100 meters, and the 300th spitting out the tool hit him "mercilessly." Suslikov was sorry ... But the command did not protect the result (they later explained to me), because imitation of a cruise missile should have been shot down to 15 km from the target. Then the "balls" were collected by the following "shots", because two Kungs and a canopy of a technical repair company were damaged one kilometer from the complex.
            2. rruvim
              rruvim 16 November 2017 17: 59 New
              +2
              Another observation was that officers in the 75th, 125th and 200th made “snot”, i.e. wires bypassed gadgets unnecessary for their "understanding". I was in the cockpit of the 300th, during REAL combat work (even if the enemy was an ordinary radio-controlled target), but there were no “snot” there. It struck me. Even our officers all the time "modernized" our jamming stations. And in the 300th "cleanliness and order." So, everything was designed correctly.
  9. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 16 November 2017 16: 05 New
    +6
    Storytellers! And recently, what was there at the airport "dolbanulo"? Near Riyadh?
    1. rruvim
      rruvim 16 November 2017 17: 14 New
      +1
      Four PAC-3 missiles against some kind of disc, which they didn’t really show.
      1. Ace Tambourine
        Ace Tambourine 16 November 2017 20: 01 New
        +1
        actually 6 ...
  10. Disorder
    Disorder 16 November 2017 16: 07 New
    +4
    And most importantly they didn’t say which missiles were shot down. laughing
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 16 November 2017 22: 49 New
      +2
      Scuds and their modifications are manufactured by Iran and North Korea.
  11. Partosik
    Partosik 16 November 2017 16: 07 New
    +5
    What are they doing in a civil war that they shoot at each other with ballistic missiles?
    1. Captain Pushkin
      Captain Pushkin 17 November 2017 22: 04 New
      0
      In war they shoot from everything that is. But tactical and operational-tactical missile systems in the army of Yemen were available. Even in the USSR they bought a lot.
  12. Wedmak
    Wedmak 16 November 2017 16: 08 New
    +1
    Four American missiles are usually sent to intercept another Soviet-made missile.

    Well so ... well done! Rockets of shaggy years are brought down by modern rockets. Found than praised. Yes, and with such an expense.
  13. afrikanez
    afrikanez 16 November 2017 16: 09 New
    +4
    Americans, like that sandpiper that sits and praises in the swamp. fool But on the other hand, it’s necessary to sell the “Patriots”, whatever they are!
    1. Captain Pushkin
      Captain Pushkin 17 November 2017 22: 10 New
      0
      Quote: afrikanez

      4
      afrikanez Yesterday, 16:09
      Americans, like that sandpiper that sits and praises in the swamp. fool But on the other hand, it’s necessary to sell "Patriots", no matter what they are!

      In order for the “Patriots” to buy up like hot cakes, I would, in place of the Americans, put another hundred or two missiles at 500-1000 km to the Hussites. (You can buy from the DPRK or from Iran. Yes, for such good purposes, and Israel would be happy to participate.)
  14. The Siberian barber
    The Siberian barber 16 November 2017 16: 16 New
    +1
    ... Riyadh also plans to purchase Russian S-400 missile defense systems, reports Lenta.ru.
    There is conflict, too, no end or edge. It will be interesting to see how our product handles in real action.
  15. ul_vitalii
    ul_vitalii 16 November 2017 16: 24 New
    +7
    With such a number of missiles fired and shot down, instead of mushrooms on their ground, some debris is lying around. laughing
    1. Ace Tambourine
      Ace Tambourine 16 November 2017 20: 04 New
      +1
      and there, the Saudis, mushrooms never had a trace ... scorpions, and those are rare ...
  16. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 16 November 2017 16: 33 New
    +1
    So Scud developed in the 60s. Since then, work has begun to boil on the field of mattress ... laughing tongue wassat
  17. Town Hall
    Town Hall 16 November 2017 16: 50 New
    +1
    And S-300/400, how many ballistic missiles and targets in general were shot down in combat conditions?
    1. rruvim
      rruvim 16 November 2017 17: 23 New
      +2
      From 1988 to 1989, only with me the 300th brought down more than 80 "boars", four "wood lice" and three X-ash. I don’t know about the "training" firing; aviation worked. But all the same, as a result, the units were given a score of 5. Once the 300th with personnel from the Sverdlovsk Region received 2, and then because of our head of the electronic warfare site, when he pulled the Cheburashka 500 meters from the complex ... Officers generally only fired for the first time, after retraining from the 75th.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 16 November 2017 17: 28 New
        +3
        I really look forward to when the Indian will buy the S-400. They like to test purchased
        weapons themselves, with their targets (usually these are real military missiles)
        and at their landfills. For example, they bought our Barack after he
        shot down a real Bramos rocket. The tests were carried out by themselves.
        1. rruvim
          rruvim 16 November 2017 18: 08 New
          +2
          Georgians in 2008 also used one of your systems. I don’t know, good?
        2. dvvv
          dvvv 16 November 2017 18: 15 New
          +2
          I don’t know how Indians, but the Chinese tovarschi, certainly not bought blindly S-400. It is unlikely that anyone will talk about real statistics, and especially since no one has tried in combat conditions, and the exercises are always fun.
  18. dvvv
    dvvv 16 November 2017 18: 12 New
    +6
    as always, not 100, but 10 were not shot down, but fired and they just flew past). With the combat readiness and training that Yemeni fighters out of 100 are in stock, if they were in stock, half will not take off. I remember when the Sadamovskys shot, and everything was very well prepared for them, and then many failures happened or so they wrote. In Yemen, firewood in general with personnel and equipment, as I believe.
    1. Kent0001
      Kent0001 16 November 2017 18: 54 New
      +1
      So after all, the technique is SOVIET. This will explain a lot, I mean reliability, unpretentiousness and other parameters of the SOVIET weapons.
      1. Strashila
        Strashila 16 November 2017 19: 46 New
        +2
        And considering that her thirty years have not been touched by the hands of specialists ... it's just monumental.
  19. Berkut24
    Berkut24 16 November 2017 19: 41 New
    +1
    1) To make it clear a lot or a little. On average, the Patriots shot down every 24th missile of all launched all time.
    2) A significant part of the missiles was converted from decommissioned missiles of the air defense complex of the mid-50s of the last century S-75. That is, one American air defense missile is 8-9 times more expensive than the Yemeni shaitan-bandura. Other missiles long written off in their old age are worth nothing at all. I do not know how much Iranian missiles cost according to instructions somewhere in Somalia.
  20. Strashila
    Strashila 16 November 2017 19: 45 New
    +4
    To bring down one Soviet blank, you need to launch four suitcases of American dollars ... it’s cheaper to declare an auction and buy missiles from the rebels.
  21. APASUS
    APASUS 16 November 2017 19: 46 New
    +1
    Is this a translation or is it Raytheon's laudatory stuff? In one piece, it’s kind of like the competition is going on, who more failed missiles .............
    1. Ace Tambourine
      Ace Tambourine 16 November 2017 20: 08 New
      +1
      Well, yes ... And if the Yemenis adjust Vega with a special warhead then what kind of hardcore will it be !!!
    2. rruvim
      rruvim 16 November 2017 20: 11 New
      0
      No one has read this report. In any case, I did not find the English version in nete ... sad
  22. Vincent
    Vincent 16 November 2017 20: 19 New
    +2
    4 * 150 = 600 anti-ballistic missiles. So acidic against the antediluvian Soviet scrap metal. Given that almost all points were destroyed by aviation on the ground, they most likely had to shoot down rocks, because the point nevertheless reached the addressee.
  23. Old26
    Old26 16 November 2017 20: 50 New
    +2
    Quote: Greg Miller
    And where did so many Soviet missiles come from in Yemen?

    More likely not Soviet, but Iranian missiles. And further. One of the main rules for working with information is that the data should be comparable. At least two parameters are not known here.
    1. The number of launched Yemeni missiles
    2. The number of missiles launched by the Patriot complex.

    Only after this can we talk about the effectiveness or inefficiency of using the Patriot complexes. And when it is not known how many launched, how many hit the target, how many interceptors were launched - it’s silly to talk about efficiency

    Quote: NEXUS
    And not a word what kind of missiles were intercepted ... wassat Created in the 70s, I guess. What can I say, a good pont is better than any money.

    Yemen has long been no Soviet. Yes, and those that were supplied in the 80s

    Quote: sir_obs
    Only not this whole structure flies to the target, which means that it was shot down at the launch site or not shot at all, but captured somewhere on the ground, or it was not a scad at all

    Most missiles of this class have inseparable warheads. So they shoot at the hull and no matter in which section. Maybe at the end

    Quote: DEZINTO
    Well, yeah, Scat is a ballistic missile, and I tell you that the Americans tried to shoot down our Stingrays with their Patriots, and figs were lying there.

    Actually, the rocket is called SCUD (in Russian if you write - SKAД) But regarding the use of SCADAS and Patriots during the First Gulf War. There are some details here. Yes, if you look at the chronology of launches and interceptions, then there were a situation when they could not intercept at all. But there is one more detail. The missile in service in the 80s, the Patriot MIM-104A, could not intercept ballistic missiles at all. I had to urgently upgrade the existing system and urgently upgrade to the Patriot level MIM-104V (PAC-1). This one could already intercept certain types of ballistic missiles. She was tested on the Lance rocket (her range is up to 80 km). Intercepted. But against the SCADS, it turned out to be of little use and the expense of defeating one SCADA was very large
  24. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 16 November 2017 22: 36 New
    +1
    Most likely, the most difficult target is the missile point ... due to the not quite ballistic trajectory ... like the Iskander missile.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 16 November 2017 22: 54 New
      +1
      Iskander will most likely be able to handle THAAD.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 17 November 2017 07: 00 New
        +2
        Do not cope ... not a ballistic trajectory ...
  25. kos2910
    kos2910 17 November 2017 05: 58 New
    +1
    four missiles for one Soviet? Given their value - a good deal for bankruptcy ....
  26. Old26
    Old26 17 November 2017 10: 33 New
    0
    Quote: Zaurbek
    Do not cope ... not a ballistic trajectory ...

    Kamrad! let's not duplicate myths. The 9M723 Iskander missile is still ballistic. Yes, thanks to its energy, it can fly not along a “purely ballistic” trajectory with an apogee of 50 km, but let’s say so, along an all-ballistic or as it is sometimes called a quasi-ballistic trajectory. This is also a ballistic trajectory, but with a much smaller apogee, it is possible with a “crushed” trajectory. But at the same time, the range decreases (about three times) and the accuracy is several times (if there is no correlation GOS).
    At the initial stage, when the engine is still running, the rocket can make some kind of evolution, but taking into account the fact that the ATE has a duration of 15 seconds, it is unlikely that these evolution will be so significant. So, after all, you can evolve so much that you won’t return to the trajectory. At the final stage, there are certain opportunities to change the location of the rocket in space, aiming at a pre-selected target, but these evolution are unlikely to be any significant. The missile has an inseparable warhead and adjusting the maneuver of this "fool" in wide ranges is hardly possible with those reserves of the working fluid that remain on the rocket for such cases. Yes, and so that it also did not intercept air defense. Most likely, this often replicated myth arose as a result of the rocket itself being a very difficult target to intercept, all the more so since the stealth technology was used, which means that the EPR is lower than that of a conventional rocket. And if the Patriot detects an ordinary missile at a range of 100 km, the Iskander is probably at a smaller one. But what if he discovers it at a distance of 50 km? This is only 25 seconds of rocket flight. Plus the reaction time of the air defense complex to intercept. The detection time for the locator of this complex is about 8-10 seconds. There is very little time left - about 15 seconds. and we must take into account that the range and height of the interception at the complex are limited in range of 20 km and in height at 24. In short - the target is very difficult to intercept. From here the myth most likely arose that it was impossible to intercept, since it maneuvers energetically and the trajectory cannot be calculated.

    Quote: Vadim237
    Iskander will most likely be able to handle THAAD.

    It may not be able to cope, since its minimum interception height is 40 km, and the maximum height of the Iskander trajectory is 50 km. It may be below the lower limit of the complex.

    Quote: Zaurbek
    Most likely, the most difficult target is the missile point ... due to the not quite ballistic trajectory ... like the Iskander missile.

    The current is difficult to intercept because of its parameters, and not because of how you write a “not quite ballistic” trajectory

    Quote: kos2910
    four missiles for one Soviet? Given their value - a good deal for bankruptcy ....

    And no matter whose. If the probability of hitting a target with one missile is 0,9, then for 100% of hitting a target (more precisely, for hitting with a probability of 0,999), three missiles are required. To guarantee - an outfit of 4 rockets. And then no matter whose rocket. Soviet, American or Iranian. Pure math
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 17 November 2017 11: 38 New
      +1
      I am not exaggerating the capabilities of our missiles ... BR itself is not an easy target in view of the speed and small reaction of air defense systems, and if the trajectory is not standard, the probability of destruction falls catastrophically. Plus, there are problems with the destruction of the warhead, and the standard fragmentation warhead will not cope with this.
  27. S_Baykala
    S_Baykala 17 November 2017 10: 40 New
    +2
    As a banter, they need to hint that only one Soviet missile is enough to land even an invisible plane.
  28. Former battalion commander
    Former battalion commander 17 November 2017 20: 04 New
    0
    The Soviet Union has been gone for 25 years, but these parish Turks still intercept "Soviet" missiles. Paranoia is pure water.