Military Review

Strong armor and fast radar. Russians know how to defend themselves!

19
Drop any doubts: the US military experts are experiencing (as in previous years) an increased interest in the military potential of Russia. They are especially interested in the technical characteristics and capabilities of the newest weapons that our country is able to use on the battlefield. Usually, such interest is not publicly advertised, and, moreover, expert evaluations of the extracted military-technical information are not disclosed. And it is clear why: evaluation always speaks not only about WHAT is assessed, but also about who evaluates. In other words, by what the American experts say about our military developments, we can draw some conclusions about the state of the US military itself.




Now let's consider another situation: the media of a potential adversary allows intentional leaks of information about expert assessments of our weapons. How should we relate to this? Especially if in the mentioned publications our military potential is almost extolled ... What is behind such publications? Attempts to influence world public opinion in order to form an image of a powerful and cunning enemy in the face of Russia? Or maybe the task is to disorient our military experts regarding the real capabilities of the American defense industry?

In any case, the above questions should still be asked. Recently, publications have appeared in a number of leading international and American media reporting on the assessments of US military experts regarding the capabilities of the Russian armed forces. We present some of the most recent of these estimates. Moreover, the Russian military, for obvious reasons of secrecy and security, does not seek to inform public opinion in too much detail, say, the details of our military and military-technical presence, say, in Syria.

But the Western media have no such restrictions on this account, of course. In this sense, analytical reviews from open Western sources may be of interest to the general Russian public. We will talk in more detail about one of such “media stuffing” relating to our military presence in Syria. Vbros carried out the British influential news agency Reuters, which recently published a detailed review of the forces and means available to Russia in Syria, as well as comments from military experts.

Our missiles are subject to much. But perhaps not all ...

The details of the Russian missile technology located in Syria are listed and described in great detail in this review. First of all, these are Triumph anti-aircraft missile systems of the ground-to-air C-400 class. They report that an improved missile system was installed on trucks and deployed to protect Hmeimim airbase in the Syrian province of Lattakia and the Russian naval facility on the coast of Tartus. The system has mobility, capable of shooting down military aircraft, rockets and drones. The radar system detects targets at a distance of 600 km. Each truck carries four missiles of various ranges that can track multiple targets simultaneously. And then follows this remark: in accordance with the standards of NATO, C-400 has not yet been combat tests. As for the neutralization of the American Tomahawk cruise missiles, the question of Moscow’s ability to intercept a large swarm of such missiles remains open: It is not known whether Russia has enough interceptor missiles deployed in Syria. Most likely, some, but not all, "Tomahawks" will be shot down. In addition, C-300 systems are also deployed in Syria, an older version of this system.

The Bastion coastal missile defense system, which is believed to be deployed at or near the Tartus naval facility, is an advanced mobile anti-ship land-to-surface missile defense system equipped with two missiles. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said that the system can hit sea targets at a distance of 350 km and ground targets at a distance of 450 km. “Russia used this system to deliver a coordinated strike against the rebels in Syria in 2016,” the reader, inexperienced in “rebel terminology,” reports to Reuters. And further makes the assumption that the Syrian army also bought the system “Bastion” from Russia.

The short-range and medium-range anti-aircraft artillery system of artillery (Pantsir-C1 anti-aircraft missile system) is installed on trucks owned by both Russian and Syrian government forces. The system is used to protect the Russian military at Hmeimim airbase and near it, as well as at the Tartus naval facility. "Armor-С1" was used in Syria several times, with the help of it were shot down missiles and drones. Can shoot down cruise missiles.

Russian warships and airplanes are always on the alert

Russia has from 10 to 15 warships and auxiliary vessels deployed in the Mediterranean. Among them are frigates (according to our classification - guard ships) "Admiral Grigorovich" and "Admiral Essen", armed with cruise missiles, as well as submarines. According to a high-ranking Russian politician and satellite imagery, most of the ships left the Russian maritime Tartus facility in order to ensure their own security. These ships took part in military exercises near the Syrian coast to demonstrate force. Russia also deployed an IL-38H anti-submarine aircraft.

Russia has dozens of military aircraft and helicopters at its Hmeymim airbase in the Latakia province of Syria, including fighters, bombers and multi-purpose aircraft. It is reported that for its combat helicopters, it uses another Syrian base. Moscow can mobilize powerful strategic long-range bombers, which start from the territory of Russia itself to carry out the bombings. In addition, Russia previously carried out an attack with cruise missiles from ships based in the Caspian Sea.

Syria defense

It is known that Syria is armed with a variety of Russian-made anti-aircraft systems, including the C-1 anti-aircraft complex and the Buk-М2 anti-aircraft missile system, capable of shooting down cruise missiles, airplanes and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Прецедент

In April last year, the United States attacked the Syrai Shairat air base, firing 59 cruise missiles “Tomahawk” on it (according to the Pentagon, the air base was used to create, store and use chemical weapons). Warned in advance by Washington about a rocket attack, Russia did not attempt to shoot down any of the American missiles that were not aimed at Russian targets. The Russian Ministry of Defense ridiculed the effectiveness of the US strike, saying that only 23 rockets had reached the target. The remaining 36 landed in an unknown location. It was promised that the Syrian air defense will be strengthened.

What does Russia require from the West in the implementation of any similar attacks?

The head of the Russian General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, in March warned the United States against any attack on the government quarter in Damascus, where, he said, Russian military advisers, Russian military police and Russian ceasefire observers are based. Russian military sources told the Kommersant newspaper that a US strike on a Russian airbase or naval facility in Syria would have disastrous consequences.

Expert opinion

The former head of the American armed forces in Europe, retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, believes that the Russian military would have created a multi-level defense to protect their aircraft and other forces in Syria. Absolutely obvious. That they have the technical ability to repel the attack of the United States.

The Russians always (both during the Second World War and now) were able to defend themselves very well with the help of air defense. The secret of a good air defense is that it is multi-layered. There is not a single attacking system that could destroy all defenses at once. The multi-level defense system, which integrates and connects all the various radars with the control network, is Russian know-how.

A Western military official who wished to remain anonymous said that Russia often advertises its ability to shoot down Tomahawk missiles in order to market its C-400 air defense system. This possibility was probably verified before deploying the system in Syria.

Another unnamed official said that Russia's military presence in the eastern Mediterranean had increased markedly. It can use shipborne radar systems to detect and track any missiles fired across Syria, transmitting information to air defense systems, such as the C-400. According to the expert, this system was developed precisely in order to shoot down Tomahawks, which can be attacked by several missiles simultaneously.
Author:
19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vard
    Vard April 19 2018 06: 00
    +6
    The Westerners faced an equal adversary and their concept of war against the Papuans was covered with a copper basin ..
    1. credo
      credo April 19 2018 12: 13
      +4
      Quote: Vard
      The Westerners faced an equal adversary and their concept of war against the Papuans was covered with a copper basin ..

      That’s exactly what “our partners” in the West don’t have is the lack of information about what a country is armed with and its real potential in armed conflicts. And they accurately evaluate their opponents not only by the quantity of weapons, but also by the moral-volitional qualities of the armed forces of a country. Therefore, they have not only the weapons themselves, but also other non-military means to create various coups in the victim country. But of course the article is not about that.
      I would like to say these words of the Author - "... Now we will consider a different situation: the media of a potential adversary allow deliberate leakage of information about expert assessments of our weapons. How should we relate to this? Especially if our military potential is almost extolled in these publications ... What is behind such publications? Attempts to influence world public opinion in order to form the image of a powerful and treacherous enemy in the person of Russia? Or maybe the task is to disorient our military experts regarding the real capabilities of the American defense industry? ... "- added more and such a task of stuffing such "analytics". For example, an “analytical article” of an allegedly authoritative Western expert or publication is published on Russian websites or in the media, where they try to figure out the capabilities of Russian weapons and systems. Naturally, such an article is being discussed in Russia, from different points of view, experience and assumptions, and naturally such discussions can be controlled by Western intelligence agencies. The calculation of casting such an article may consist in the fact that someone out of stupidity, thoughtlessness or in the heat of a dispute with opponents can reveal the true parameters and capabilities of the discussed weapons or systems. The Soviet poster with the inscription - "Chatterbox, a godsend for the enemy", and in our days will be absolutely not superfluous in such discussions.
    2. ava09
      ava09 April 19 2018 15: 08
      +1
      (c) Strong armor and fast radars. Russians know how to defend themselves! (C)
      For the gifted: the USSR at the time of its defeat in the Cold War possessed, besides strong armor and fast radars, the most powerful Military Industrial Complex ... The concept of war with the "Papuans" like you did not change ...)
  2. nivander
    nivander April 19 2018 06: 05
    +1
    aps half truck is translated from American / English not as a "truck", but as a "multi-purpose tactical platform"
  3. ul_vitalii
    ul_vitalii April 19 2018 06: 15
    +9
    Of course, it’s uncomfortable for them to fight when someone acts “unprofessionally” and “violates” all conceivable and unthinkable rules of warfare.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee April 19 2018 07: 06
      +2
      Quote: ul_vitalii
      violates "all conceivable and inconceivable rules of warfare.

      THOSE. gives an answer! And this is unacceptable for Amer warriors! But in a war with the Papuans this does not happen!
      1. Opera
        Opera April 19 2018 07: 55
        +5
        Quote: Uncle Lee
        THOSE. gives an answer! And this is unacceptable for Amer warriors! But in a war with the Papuans this does not happen!

        Exactly! American rules of war do not provide answers! They do not provide for the destruction of their missiles! They are beautiful and smart! A work of art, and Russian barbarians do not appreciate the beautiful!
        1. Tatar 174
          Tatar 174 April 19 2018 11: 16
          +2
          Quote: Oper
          And this is unacceptable for Amer warriors! But in a war with the Papuans this does not happen!

          What are you offending the Papuans))) If one on one meets the Papuans, then any normal Papuans will probably give change. It's just that not everyone can shoot down axes on the fly. And we can))) Earlier, our peoples managed the whip very well, which is why some kind of long-range weapons was not called a whip or a whip. They have axes, and we would have whips with which we would smash the axes on the fly with a click)))
          This was a lyrical digression, but seriously, we have whips on them and glory to the Almighty and the defense complex, no one wants to try Russian whip in their own skin.
    2. 501Legion
      501Legion April 19 2018 14: 09
      +1
      in the modern world, it is becoming clearer and clearer that it becomes clear that no rules exist anymore
  4. evil partisan
    evil partisan April 19 2018 07: 02
    +1
    In short, the meaning of the article: buy Russian air defense systems and you will be happy fellow ! The authors themselves did not want to make a good advertisement for our air defense. And moreover: completely free. yes
  5. shinobi
    shinobi April 19 2018 07: 35
    0
    The Americans claim that all missiles hit the targets. What goals they don’t specify. The Russian systems suck. The opposite is also stated. The Russian systems are cool. Who should I believe?
    1. Golovan Jack
      Golovan Jack April 19 2018 07: 37
      +1
      Quote: shinobi
      Whom to believe?

      Of course, to the Americans.
      A smart rocket differs from a stupid one in that it always goes directly to the epicenter.
      Well, these too ... hit request
    2. raw174
      raw174 April 19 2018 10: 32
      0
      Quote: shinobi
      Russian systems suck.

      Trump said that the Russians did not shoot down more than one rocket and he is right! He did not say that no one had shot down rockets.
      Quote: shinobi
      Americans claim that all missiles hit targets.

      No, they say that all targets are hit. So it is ... Three targets, according to the West, involved in chemical attacks are struck. There are no victims. They don’t say how many missiles were fired at the target, there is a total of 105 missiles.
    3. raw174
      raw174 April 19 2018 10: 33
      0
      Quote: shinobi
      Whom to believe?

      that infrequent case when everyone is right ...
  6. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman April 19 2018 08: 16
    +5
    Quote: ul_vitalii
    Of course, it’s uncomfortable for them to fight when someone acts “unprofessionally” and “violates” all conceivable and unthinkable rules of warfare.


    Already ended the generation of the times of the Vietnam War. And with it the syndrome. The new generation is used to fighting at a distance with the Papuans. Here they are and lost the scent! They haven’t received a nickel for a long time! This is our omission! But, apparently, the time has come to catch up and fix the mistakes.
  7. Lerych
    Lerych April 19 2018 15: 45
    +1
    Where can I see the mesmerizing shots of a successful NATO missile attack on Syria? I perfectly remember the shooting in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya ... Western bragging is known to all. What is wrong this time? It reminded Hitler’s blitzkrieg ...
  8. Season
    Season April 19 2018 17: 24
    +1
    Russians slowly harness, but the trouble is, they drive fast. Russia did not kneel, it “berets” laced up. Shoes laced and horses harnessed. He said, “Let's go,” and waved his hand. We will water in the outhouses.
  9. Okolotochny
    Okolotochny April 20 2018 00: 01
    +1
    And why is “Admiral Makarov” not mentioned? Is he “offside”?
  10. Bi-mac
    Bi-mac April 21 2018 09: 08
    +2
    Quote: shinobi
    The Americans claim that all missiles hit targets. What goals do not really specify.

    Maybe they meant that, in addition to ground ones, they got into 71 Syrian missile defense?)