Military Review

C-300 and C-400: real F-35 killers or overpriced dummies?

295
As a result of recent events in Syria, discussions of modern air defense systems have resumed. Foreign military leaders made a number of statements about the Russian air defense system, and besides, the foreign press was interested in the topic. For example, the American edition of The National Interest has tried to give an assessment of the current situation around Russian-made air defense systems.


23 April edition published in The Buzz and Security headings a new article by their regular contributor Dave Majumdar with a loud headline “SURGES 300 or S-400: F-35 Killer or Overhyped?” - “Russian C-300 and C-400: killers F-35 or overvalued dummies? ”As the name implies, the subject of the article was Russian anti-aircraft missile systems, their combat effectiveness and ratings by third parties.

At the beginning of the article, D. Majumdar indicated that the US military had questioned the effectiveness of Russian-made air defense systems. And immediately after that, he offers his interpretation of current events.



The author of The National Interest believes that the latest Pentagon statements about Russian weapons associated with the desire to influence Turkey. Ankara has decided to purchase Russian S-400 air defense systems, and Washington is not happy with this. At the same time, recent US statements contradict the observed facts. The United States and its allies are investing hundreds of billions of dollars in stealth aircraft and long-range cruise missiles, while the defenses against them made by Russia are declared ineffective.

D. Majumdar also reminds that before the April 19 briefing, the US military usually considered the C-400 complex as a threat. Earlier it was claimed that such a system is able to create the A2 / AD area (the so-called restriction and prohibition of access and maneuver) and exclude the work of the enemy.

The Pentagon officially stated that all coalition rockets hit their targets in Syria - despite the clearly dubious claims by the Russian side, according to which Syrian air defense shot down most of the missiles. After the missile attack, spokesman for the US Department of Defense Dana White said that Russia mistakenly declares the successes of the Syrian army. It is alleged that some of the missiles were shot down, but in fact all the intended targets were hit.

D. White also commented on the work of the Syrian air defense. According to her, all fired "ground-to-air" missiles were launched after the missiles of the United States and allies reached their goals. Also, the representative of the Pentagon noted that the Russian air defense systems were ineffective. Two days after the missile strike, Russia and the “Bashar al-Assad regime” allegedly again showed the ineffectiveness of the air defense when it accidentally went into combat mode.

A representative of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, Lieutenant General Kenneth F. Mackenzie, Jr., later confirmed the data of D. White. He said that during the missile attack on Syria, the Russian air defense systems were active, but they did not take any action and did not try to shoot down the flying missiles. The general indicated that the Russian side was following the air situation. In addition, in the area was an airplane for long-range radar surveillance and control. The Russian military decided not to participate in current events, and K. McKenzie cannot say why they did it that way.

The representative of the Committee of Chiefs of Staff confirmed the information about the low effectiveness of air defense in Syria, but made an important reservation. He made a substantial difference between the outdated complexes that are in service with the Syrian army and modern systems operated by Russian troops. General Mackenzie also noted that the part of the Syrian anti-aircraft defense, which is controlled by the Russian military, was actively working and comprehensively opposed the missile attack. In this regard, the general makes conclusions about the differences between the various complexes under the control of military personnel of the two countries. Although the Russian side did nothing, it is directly connected with the systems existing in Syria.

Dave Majumdar believes that all the statements of American officials about the ineffectiveness of the Russian air defense systems are not so much connected with the recent attack, as with relations within NATO and the desire to keep one of the partners. In his opinion, all these words are addressed to Turkey - a wayward ally of the United States in the North Atlantic Alliance. Ankara wants to buy the C-400 Russian Triumph anti-aircraft systems, and Washington, in turn, is trying to dissuade her from such a decision.

Dana White had previously stated that the American side had held talks with Turkish colleagues, and they had been warned about problems with the compatibility of equipment. So, Russian-made complexes are unlikely to be able to work with standard means of communication and control of NATO. But in the end, according to D. White, the decision remains with Turkey. She has to decide on her own which actions correspond to her strategic interests.

In the current situation, according to the author of The National Interest, there is a curious problem. If we take for granted the words of the Pentagon representatives about the inefficiency of the Russian anti-aircraft systems, then the unpleasant question arises: why should the United States invest hundreds of billions of dollars in stealth technology and equipment using them? The effectiveness of Russian air defense has long been used as a justification for the outrageously high price of stealth aircraft. And after recent statements such an argument disappears. It turns out that the threat to which the inconspicuous samples of equipment were supposed to respond simply does not exist.

After that, D. Majumdar recalls the cost of the most famous programs in the field of subtle aviation. The Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit bombing and development program cost taxpayers $ 45 billion. Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor project cost nearly 67 billion. The cost of the current Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program will eventually reach 406 billion. The US Air Force has not yet published financial plans for the project of the new Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider, but, according to various estimates, $ 56 billion will be spent on this project. What is important, these figures reflect only the cost of the development and construction of aircraft, but do not include operating costs.

In addition to aircraft, the United States is developing aviation weapons with unique features and capabilities. Subtle long-range cruise missiles are being created, the most famous of which are JASSM-ER and LRSO. Together with them, other weapons are being developed that can overcome developed air defense.

Almost always, Russian-made anti-aircraft complexes are considered as a potential threat to such missiles. And again the question arises: what's the point, if the air defense system of Russia is actually useless? You can recall the threat in the face of China, but this does not remove such questions. Chinese anti-aircraft systems, reminds The National interest, are basically copies of Russian-made products.

D. Majumdar believes that at the next hearings in the Committee on Armed Forces, senators will again hear the alarming stories of military leaders about the threats posed by the Russian anti-aircraft systems С-300, С-400, etc. And once again such a threat will be used to justify the outstanding budgets of various projects and programs. Probably, the speakers will again talk about the Russian A2 / AD zones in the Kaliningrad region, in the Crimea and other areas. Thus, the cycle will be restarted.

* * *


Recall, the reason for the latest discussions of the effectiveness of Russian-made anti-aircraft complexes was a NATO missile attack on targets in Syria. On the night of April 14, US, British and French aircraft and ships launched a total of four types of 105 cruise missiles. The results of such a blow are still the subject of controversy at the international level, and new information is constantly appearing that makes it possible to correct the existing picture.

Already 14 April, the Russian Ministry of Defense reported that the Syrian air defense was able to intercept 71 rocket. The strike was carried out on the top ten goals, and most of them were not affected. In addition, in some cases, broken through rockets struck not important objects, but auxiliary constructions.

A few days later, his version was announced by the US military. According to the Pentagon, the goal of a massive strike were only three Syrian objects. It was argued that all the missiles successfully reached their targets, and Syria’s air defense was powerless. As a result, all the targets were successfully hit with multiple hits of different types of missiles. It was after these statements that American officials began to talk about the inefficiency of Russian-made anti-aircraft complexes.

As Dave Majumdar rightly points out, such statements are hardly related specifically to Russia. Their addressee, rather, is Turkey, who wants to buy Russian-made weapons. History with the Turkish tender for the purchase of foreign air defense systems stretches not for the first year, and almost from the very beginning is accompanied by disputes of officials. Earlier, Washington, dissatisfied with Ankara's wishes, warned her about problems with the compatibility of foreign technology with NATO systems. Now there is an argument about the lack of effectiveness of Russian products.

In addition, claims of ineffective air defense systems are capable of hitting the reputation of the US military. Previously, they considered such systems to be a threat and a reason for creating not the cheapest aircraft. Now it turns out that there was no threat, and all past spending can be considered meaningless.

The picture of events has changed dramatically 25 April, according to the results of a briefing by the Russian Ministry of Defense. According to updated data from the Russian military, Syria was able to shoot down 46 enemy missiles from 105 launched. Only 22 rockets broke through to their targets. However, the main news At the briefing, steel wreckage of various NATO missiles. The Russian military presented fragments of missiles SCALP, Tomahawk, etc., which were clearly visible characteristic traces of the destructive elements of anti-aircraft missiles. These traces confirmed the effective work of air defense.

Now the Pentagon needs to comment on the data from the Russian military. In doing so, he should be aware of the risks to his reputation. Agreeing with the Russian version, the US military acknowledges the ineffectiveness of weapons. Continuing to support the version of the ineffective Russian air defense system, in turn, will expose the most modern models of equipment unnecessarily complex and expensive. And further, according to D. Majumdar, we should expect new hearings in the Senate, in which the Russian air defense system will once again become the most serious threat and cause for an increase in estimates.

Article “Russia's S-300 or S-400: F-35 Killer or Overhyped?”: Http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-s-300-or-s-400-f-35- killer-or-overhyped-25513.
Author:
295 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. nikoliski
    nikoliski April 28 2018 04: 46
    +16
    The S-400 with a long-range missile (which is up to 400km) is of course the really strongest mass-produced air defense system in the world and this is undeniable.
    1. Rostovchanin
      Rostovchanin April 28 2018 06: 06
      +30
      Yankers never recognize the inefficiency of their systems - this is the time. The second, what kind of efficiency can be discussed by their logic, when they launch 70+ missiles at one target without suppressing a single air defense target ... Nonsense ... I refuse to understand anything
      1. E_V_N
        E_V_N April 28 2018 11: 24
        +17
        Quote: Rostovchanin
        The second, what kind of efficiency can be discussed by their logic, when they launch 70+ missiles at one target without suppressing a single air defense target ... Nonsense ... I refuse to understand anything

        On the "air defense targets" "sit" the Russian "advisers" begin the USA to suppress the "air defense targets" ... this will begin ...
        So see?
        1. NIKNN
          NIKNN April 29 2018 12: 27
          0
          Quote: E_V_N
          So see?
          Well, I see ... everything is already at school ... I’ll add only ...
          Thus, Russian-made complexes are unlikely to work with standard NATO communications and command and control facilities.
          Well, that’s how we deliver to Turkey and these nuances are stipulated ... So, we know their system not by hearsay just as we managed to implement it ...
          1. Borders
            Borders 12 May 2018 17: 02
            0
            But why do the enemy (I'm talking about Turkey) supply such a weapon ?!
        2. Arakius
          Arakius April 30 2018 02: 27
          +2
          On the "air defense targets" "sit" the Russian "advisers" begin the US to suppress the "air defense targets" ... this will begin ..

          What will start? they’ll say habitually “ichtamnet”, that’s all
          Well, air defense is suppressed so that it does not disrupt the Air Force attack. But since Americans believe that Russian air defense is ineffective and useless, it makes no sense to attack rockets with useless scrap metal
          1. E_V_N
            E_V_N 6 May 2018 22: 39
            +2
            Quote: Arakius
            What will start? they’ll say habitually “ichtamnet”, that’s all
            Well, air defense is suppressed so that it does not disrupt the Air Force attack. But since Americans believe that Russian air defense is ineffective and useless, it makes no sense to attack rockets with useless scrap metal

            “Ichtamnet” is the favorite excuse of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, of course it’s not so offensive to get Lyuli from the Russian Federation or aliens than from its own miners.
            "Pile of useless iron" if the Americans thought so, they would have bombed long ago, the question is that they do not consider useless iron. The US is smart; it's not horses with pots on their heads.
            1. Arakius
              Arakius 6 May 2018 23: 17
              +1
              Quote: E_V_N
              “Ichtamnet” is the favorite excuse of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, of course it’s not so offensive to get Lyuli from the Russian Federation or aliens than from its own miners.

              I will add: "From own miners armed with double-barreled shotguns and PPSh from mobile warehouses." Now your post meets the standards of Kiselev-TV
              1. E_V_N
                E_V_N 7 May 2018 13: 35
                0
                Quote: Arakius
                I will add: "From own miners armed with double-barreled shotguns and PPSh from mobile warehouses." Now your post meets the standards of Kiselev-TV

                I wonder what I have to do with Kiselev TV? It’s forbidden to me to have my own opinion?
                I wonder if you seriously believe that the APU has been fighting the Russian army for the 4th year? Some kind of strange war turns out, Ukrainian guest workers are working in Russia, I’ll replenish your budget for $ 3 billion, your tanks ride on a Belarusian diesel engine made from Russian oil, trade with the “aggressor” has not only not stopped, but is also growing, in Ukraine they continue to work Russian enterprises, Ukraine is trying to buy gas from the "aggressor" and is offended that they are not selling at a low price, shouting that the termination of gas transit will bring Ukraine a loss of 3 billion, your president, in spite of promises, has not sold his factories in the Russian Federation and is working well um taxes.
                Well, that’s the economy. But in Syria, the airborne forces bombed ISIS in the sand for 1,5 years, do you really think that the Russian Federation would simply lose soldiers without bombing your APU in your black soil? Indeed, in Ukraine there is no normal fleet, no air defense at the Air Force.
                1. Arakius
                  Arakius 7 May 2018 21: 30
                  +1
                  Some kind of strange war turns out

                  Your media prefers the name hybrid war

                  I wonder if you seriously believe that the APU has been fighting the Russian army for the 4th year?

                  Do you believe that an illiterate car washer (such as the same Motorola) is able to organize an army from scratch and drive a regular enemy army into a boiler - and all this in less than 4 months? Or that the "city" and "beeches" "militia" bought in the military?

                  The participation of the Russian army in the conflict is not a matter of faith, it is a fact. Only she participated there not directly, as a whole structure, but "hybrid". The headquarters created military plans, which the media attributed to brilliant car washes, and the Donbass-Russian drunk was guided by "vacationers," who embodied the plans and make up the real backbone of the "militia." Well, the supply of arms to the separatists from the Russian Federation is already embarrassing to deny such a fact.

                  Actually, Russian PMCs, such as Wagner, became known precisely in the Donbass. And the fact that PMCs are equipped with former military personnel and are certainly subordinate to the army elite is news for you?

                  Ukrainian migrant workers work in Russia, replenish your budget for $ 3 billion, your tanks ride on a Belarusian diesel engine made from Russian oil, trade with the "aggressor" has not only not stopped but is also growing, Russian enterprises continue to work in Ukraine, Ukraine is trying to buy gas the "aggressor" is offended that they are not selling at a low price, shouting that the termination of gas transit will bring Ukraine a loss of 3 billion, your president, despite promises, did not sell his factories in Russia and regularly pays taxes.

                  Only in 2015 Belarusians began to supply diesel fuel. In 2014, the Ukrainian army received fuel directly from Rosneft under contracts, now everything is going through the Belarusian route.
                  I’ll add to your list: last year Russian banks funded their branches and subsidiary banks in Ukraine for $ 2 billion. Otherwise, they would have closed and Ukraine would have collapsed into another financial crisis.

                  And if it is not clear to you why all this is so, then remember the Ukrainian proverb - "the lords are fighting, and the lackeys are cracked by lackeys." It is for ordinary people - war, poverty and suffering, and respected people from both sides do business. what kind of business without competition and hijacking a "respected partner"? And the use of violence is simply one of the methods of doing business, no more and no less. And they respect each other, shake hands at international conferences and drink at the Brudershaft. Yes, and children are in the same classes of English colleges study

                  Do you really think that the Russian Federation would simply lose soldiers without bombing your APU into your black soil?

                  That is exactly what I think. Your leadership, like ours, doesn’t give a damn about ordinary soldiers, especially if they are considered to be “vacationers”, “ikhtamnet” and “we have not sent”. And they didn’t bombard the APU in the dust just because respected partners from the West will not forgive such a step and the war will begin for real and not for fun, as it is now. Therefore, butting takes place +/- on the administrative borders of Donetsk and Lugansk regions
                  1. E_V_N
                    E_V_N 8 May 2018 11: 48
                    +1
                    Quote: Arakius
                    Your media prefers the name hybrid war

                    What is your media calling it? Aggression, occupation? You accuse me of Kiselev TV, and you quote the fakes themselves, invented by the media, somehow inconsistently.
                    Quote: Arakius
                    Do you believe that an illiterate car washer (such as the same Motorola) is able to organize an army from scratch and drive a regular enemy army into a boiler - and all this in less than 4 months? Or that the "city" and "beeches" "militia" bought in the military?

                    And you know, but I believe. Since there are lots of similar examples in our not very distant history, either. Examples? Yes Easy.
                    Civil War. There were no famous red commanders from the former tsarist generals, all the ensigns and non-commissioned officers, and even shoemakers, and the tsarist generals and the regular army were defeated in cauldrons and battles, and not only the tsarist army, but for the Entente both in the north and in east and south. Tell me, wasn’t that?
                    WWII. Until the former regiments and battalion commanders began to command armies and divisions, the Red Army was defeated, and then drove the Fritz and Berlin took.
                    So, in history, always war and revolutions give birth to their heroes who smash the cadre generals, because in peacetime the generals grow fat and become dumber, such is the general nature. The same heroes of the civilian Budyonny and Voroshilov did not show themselves in the Second World War, relaxed during peacetime in general’s chairs.
                    Quote: Arakius
                    Or that the "city" and "beeches" "militia" bought in the military?

                    We put the Buk’s at the Oplchents, there is no one to shoot at them, the AFU of the Air Force does not. I will not count every “hail”, but not a few of them “gave” APU in boilers and just for vodka. There are certainly deliveries from the Russian Federation, but how would you like them to defend themselves with your "double-barreled shotguns".
                    The USA also always gives weapons to opponents of the regime, and in Afghanistan and Syria, now they are also feeding the Armed Forces.
                    Quote: Arakius
                    and the Donbass-Russian drunk was led by “vacationers,” who embodied the plans in action and make up the real backbone of the “militia”.

                    Well, let’s say your APU drinks at least no less, you still need to see who is where “drunk”. Well, then, no most brilliant vacationer can make them a "drunk" normal army, so bringing here fakes Ukrainian propoganda does not make sense. Disappointed winked
                    Quote: Arakius
                    It is for ordinary people - war, poverty and suffering, and respected people from both sides do business.

                    Well, you yourself explained what is happening, there is no real war, it’s just business, and war is the scenery in which you can squeeze out property, remake markets, and eliminate competitors. And the fact that yours is pouring blood at the same time and shooting your territory, while shouting about occupation and aggression, only says that they generally demolished the roof, and you put pots on your head, download and allow yourself to be manipulated.
                    Quote: Arakius
                    Your leadership, like ours, doesn’t give a damn about ordinary soldiers, especially if they are considered to be “vacationers”, “ikhtamnet” and “we have not sent”. And they didn’t bombard the APU in the dust just because respected partners from the West will not forgive such a step and the war will begin for real and not for fun, as it is now.

                    You see, if the Russian Federation conducted military operations in Ukraine, this would not have been concealed, all the same, acquaintances, acquaintances of acquaintances, acquaintances of acquaintances of acquaintances would have died and this would have been known, but there wasn’t. didn’t, the problem is that in the Russian Federation in bulk his land, and hang on his neck to feed and restore the east of Ukraine well, what's the point? There is nothing particularly valuable or exclusive in the sense of industry or minerals, which means there is no sense.
                    Well, about the "partners from the West" will not forgive and the "war for real, not for nothing" will begin, are you so naive? Do you seriously believe that the West will send its soldiers to die for the sake of some Ukraine? You megalomania dear. When Hitler captured European countries in WWII, who entered a real war for someone there, although there were promises and allied treaties? England was bombed and who rushed to defend it? France was defeated, who opened the second front, landed a landing? Everyone sat and thought, if only not for me, my hut from the edge. A second front was opened in the summer of 1944, do you think that Germany would be defeated? No, so that the USSR would not take all of Europe.
                    And in 2008, someone harnessed for Georgia? Saakashvili was pushed into an adventure, but as it came to the real deal right away in the bushes, sort it out yourself.
                    No, of course, the West or Israel can bomb from the Mediterranean Sea in Syria, and then when it’s 1000% sure that the answer will not add, and air defense will not reach. But when from Kaliningrad to Berlin and London, and from the Crimea to Rome, Iskander-hello will think a million times 10 minutes in the summer and finally decide anyway, "no, you sort it out yourself." No, of course, “concern” and “unacceptability” will be expressed, but no more.
                    So, dear friend, don’t be naive as a child, nobody needs your Ukraine, at least until the end of the century “puff out your cheeks”, puff up and talk about your significance, but you are a bargaining chip in the bigger game.
    2. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx April 28 2018 06: 16
      +48
      Quote: nikoliski
      The S-400 with a long-range missile (which is up to 400km) is of course the really strongest mass-produced air defense system in the world and this is undeniable.

      Halva!!! Halva!!! Neither hundreds of articles of praise, nor thunder of applause, nor puddles of saliva will replace the ma-a-a-a-senky, the only American F-400 shot down with the participation of S-35 ... yes
      1. kapitan281271
        kapitan281271 April 28 2018 09: 57
        +19
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Quote: nikoliski
        The S-400 with a long-range missile (which is up to 400km) is of course the really strongest mass-produced air defense system in the world and this is undeniable.

        Halva!!! Halva!!! Neither hundreds of articles of praise, nor thunder of applause, nor puddles of saliva will replace the ma-a-a-a-senky, the only American F-400 shot down with the participation of S-35 ... yes

        Absolutely in the hole, I could have put two pluses, then we will present the confirmation of the “Objective Control Means” (by the way, who knows, this is like a screen from the radar), then we put up some kind of scrap metal. In Vietnam, no one doubted the effectiveness of our air defense !!!! In another way, it’s blah, blah. Yes, and there’s another very sensitive topic, the history of the S-400, Igor Ashurbeyli made such a mess that A Limansky (chief designer), when he announced the whole thing, about the forgeries on the tests and the fake TTX suddenly died right at the training ground, it is clear that in the end ashurbeyli was taken as an udder, but the question of how this guy with such secrets drove away to France and there he announced the creation of quite a few new states, and how the investigation ended, and how his art was eliminated as a consequence. And now, think of such an S-400 advertisement since 2008, and suddenly the whole world has to say “no, we crap * so much” that the question has a right to arise, but does the S-400 bring anything down?
        1. Captain Pushkin
          Captain Pushkin April 28 2018 12: 55
          +5
          Quote: kapitan281271
          In Vietnam, no one doubted the effectiveness of our air defense !!!!

          In Vietnam, 5-7 missiles were spent on one downed plane. The most difficult target was the B-52, it took an average of 8 missiles
        2. Vita vko
          Vita vko April 29 2018 16: 28
          +11
          Quote: kapitan281271
          Vietnam no one doubted the effectiveness of our air defense !!!! In another way, it's blah, blah

          Of course, the S-300 and S-400 are not a panacea for all ills. In addition, to use these air defense systems without a well-developed ground-based infrastructure for electronic and radio-technical intelligence is utter nonsense - it’s like pulling a check out of a grenade and running with it on a machine gun. That is why neither the S-300 nor the S-400 have so far participated in serious military conflicts.
          Quote: ROSS 42
          no puddles of saliva will replace the ma-a-a-a-senky, the only American F-400 shot down with the participation of S-35
          That's just Israel and the USA grumbling with saliva. Why would there be so much violent reaction to the "ineffective" Russian weapons.
        3. SETTGF
          SETTGF April 29 2018 17: 41
          +1
          No need to write nonsense, couch strategist! S-400 is currently the strongest anti-aircraft complex, which has no analogues ...
      2. E_V_N
        E_V_N April 28 2018 11: 28
        +23
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Neither hundreds of articles of praise, nor thunder of applause, nor puddles of saliva will replace the ma-a-a-a-senky, the only American F-400 shot down with the participation of S-35 ...

        What's the point? To start a war? prove something usa? Do you enjoy? Funny, right word.
        1. Captain Pushkin
          Captain Pushkin April 28 2018 13: 01
          +5
          Quote: E_V_N
          Quote: ROSS 42
          Neither hundreds of articles of praise, nor thunder of applause, nor puddles of saliva will replace the ma-a-a-a-senky, the only American F-400 shot down with the participation of S-35 ...

          What's the point? To start a war? prove something usa? Do you enjoy? Funny, right word.

          Shoot down the American F-35 makes no sense, but he will not substitute. But if an Israeli turns up, his Syrians will be knocked down for a sweet soul. Ours will not bring down.
        2. egeny patykov
          egeny patykov April 29 2018 09: 28
          0
          but they can bomb Syria. like Israel has f - 35. there is already a vine and not to prove but to defend nada
      3. askort154
        askort154 April 28 2018 11: 41
        +33
        ROSS 42 ..... Halva !!! Halva!!! Neither hundreds of laudatory articles, nor thunderous applause, nor puddles of saliva will replace the ma-ah-ah-senky, the only American F-400 shot down with the participation of the S-35.

        Turn on the logic. Why is the USA harshly pressuring countries wishing to purchase the S-300, and even more so the S-400? Apparently they have more information. about the capabilities of the S-400 than the pro-Americans on this site. Ask the Turks why they preferred the S-400. ? And who stood in line? China, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Asia Minor. One "invisible man" has already been shot down over Yugoslavia, far from the S-400. Therefore, they will never put the f-35 against the S-400, it will be a multibillion-dollar failure of the US military-industrial complex. yes hi
        1. rrrd
          rrrd April 28 2018 12: 02
          +11
          This is not something that will fail! This is a shame for the whole world, for everything NATO. THIS WILL BE THE BEGINNING OF THE END !!! I don’t doubt a gram that even with 300 it will easily find and punish him. laughing
          1. Kibb
            Kibb April 28 2018 17: 53
            +1
            Especially if you forget that the Grenades in the USSR were adopted in 1982 and Tomahawk and Caliber are not the last word in technology, and in the same year, the Israeli Air Force fucked the Soviet air defense in Lebanon.
          2. KaPToC
            KaPToC April 28 2018 22: 53
            0
            Quote: rrrd
            BEGINNING OF THE END

            What is the "beginning of the end"?
            1. phalanger
              phalanger 11 May 2018 23: 31
              +1
              This is the end with which this beginning begins ...
          3. egeny patykov
            egeny patykov April 29 2018 09: 30
            0
            but Libya was picked up by NATO (read Gazprom-tse Europe). and the same missiles were S-200 and s-125
        2. onega67
          onega67 April 30 2018 07: 09
          +1
          Maybe because if they buy the S-300 or S-400, then they won’t buy the Patriot!
      4. victor50
        victor50 April 28 2018 13: 17
        +2
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Quote: nikoliski
        The S-400 with a long-range missile (which is up to 400km) is of course the really strongest mass-produced air defense system in the world and this is undeniable.

        Halva!!! Halva!!! Neither hundreds of articles of praise, nor thunder of applause, nor puddles of saliva will replace the ma-a-a-a-senky, the only American F-400 shot down with the participation of S-35 ... yes

        Right!
      5. waereschet
        waereschet April 28 2018 14: 28
        +3
        so far, more than one plane your vaunted c400 and 300 haven’t shot down when you put them in Syria, then we’ll check them in practice, although I already know the result and it will be a big disappointment for you
        1. kventinasd
          kventinasd April 28 2018 17: 28
          +20
          And it will not be a disappointment for you when your planes, in the event of a mess, at the sight of the Syrian C300, do not even dare take off from airfields?
          1. Arakius
            Arakius April 30 2018 02: 53
            +4
            Syrian s-300 has already canceled the radio horizon and curvature of the Earth?

            By the way, Israeli planes not only take off, but also regularly bomb targets in Syria
        2. turbris
          turbris April 28 2018 20: 23
          +9
          See that the checker does not fall off, do you take a lot on yourself?
        3. Samosad
          Samosad April 29 2018 07: 51
          +9
          when you meet a worthy adversary and his weapons, then we'll see what kind of fighters you are * the best in the world and your weapons * ..... It’s unnecessary to crush clay houses and shoot unarmed forces on a heavy tank .... But the big one joy in the World will be when they give you an ass))) But soon they will! )))
        4. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 29 2018 08: 27
          +6
          checked, S-200 shot down recently
        5. LMN
          LMN April 29 2018 18: 19
          +4
          Quote: waereschet
          so far, more than one plane your vaunted c400 and 300 haven’t shot down when you put them in Syria, then we’ll check them in practice, although I already know the result and it will be a big disappointment for you


          So there is the S-400 in Syria. At our bases. And the United States, Britain and France had the opportunity to test them for performance. And Russia was ready and offered them a "small armed conflict" in Syria to arrange. There would be no nuclear war. But we would find out who is stronger hi
          And from this attempt, the self-sacrifice instinct kept them .... they are afraid of us yes
          why bring down something if we win already? wink
        6. Abel
          Abel April 29 2018 21: 11
          +2
          Do you personally want to participate in combat testing?
          1. LMN
            LMN April 30 2018 15: 13
            +3
            Quote: Abel
            Do you personally want to participate in combat testing?

            Show me at least one of my posts, where I would argue that any weapon is better or worse.
            And the option to learn the truth is only one alas. About which I wrote.
      6. Abel
        Abel April 29 2018 21: 10
        0
        I already offered to conduct combat testing with the participation of critics
      7. anykin
        anykin 4 May 2018 10: 31
        0
        Quote: ROSS 42
        ma-a-a-a-senky, the only one shot down with the participation of the S-400 American F-35

        Something F35 is embarrassed to see us)
    3. Bar1
      Bar1 April 28 2018 08: 31
      +9
      if you take ttx s400
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/С-400
      they write that
      Detection Range-600km
      but at what height? They don’t write. When there was an ax attack on Khmeimim, such an expert Murakhovsky said that he doesn’t see low targets with the c400 because of the curvature of the earth. The question is, from what distance are the axes visible, which are now plastic and, accordingly, epr low?
      1. nikoliski
        nikoliski April 28 2018 09: 07
        +19
        All this has been studied and studied for a long time, I can give you the numbers if you crave it - at a distance of 50 km this radar will calmly detect a low-flying rocket (further on, really one radar may not be enough if the target, for example, flies past hills and dunes, target designation from the A50 ARL aircraft is necessary) the maximum range of 600 km is the detection of the B-52 flying at an altitude of about 14 km (it has an ESR like a basketball court) But a raptor with a low ESR (compared to a large bird or a metal basketball in size) and even at low altitudes this one the radar is calculated that it will detect no sooner than it approaches 30km (at a range of 50 it can already launch missiles at our air defense systems) so it is advisable for the S-400 to work in conjunction with the A50 and be covered from enemy commandos on the ground (enough from Barrett 50 caliber with 2km to plant on the radar so that it is blinded)
        1. E_V_N
          E_V_N April 28 2018 11: 42
          +27
          Quote: nikoliski
          But a raptor with a low ESR (compared to a large bird or a metal basketball in size) and even at low altitudes the same radar is calculated that it will not detect before it approaches 30km (at a distance of 50 it can already launch rockets at our air defense system) so that it is advisable for the S-400 to work together with the A50 and be covered from enemy commandos on the ground (it’s enough to plant a 50-caliber Barrett with 2km from the radar to make it blind)

          Firstly, air defense systems have long ceased to work as independent combat units, they are combined into single network systems, so all of your calculations do not mean anything.
          I especially smiled about the detection of a raptor over 30 km and the defeat of C400 by this raptor over 50 km, did you seriously write this? And how do you think this rocket raptor shoots into "God's light like a pretty penny" or through an optical sight for 50 km induces? The raptor will turn on its radars and all its vaunted invisibility "down the drain."
          Apparently your idea of ​​the work of the Air Force and Air Defense is very vague and superficial.
          I don’t want to insult, but I don’t need to talk about a subject that you don’t understand.
          1. nikoliski
            nikoliski April 28 2018 11: 58
            +4
            You don’t understand it - the F-22 has planning bombs that can fly over 50 km with GPS guidance (as far as I can fully understand the subject in Syria, our S-400s have been in the same positions for more than a year guarding Khmeinin that is, entering the coordinates of the targets and launching “a handful of ghosts” on them is not such a great problem for the Americans (I did not say that bombs or missiles launched by the raptor cannot be shot down - this is a completely different story, I just answered about the detection range)
            1. Soho
              Soho April 28 2018 12: 41
              +20
              for JAMP to fly 50km you need a certain drop height. Or do you think that they will throw her from a height of 600m, so she flew by-by-by-wing and climbed to a height of 8-10 km and started planning from there to the goal))) if you do not fully understand, then why make conclusions?
            2. Baby sitter
              Baby sitter April 28 2018 17: 37
              +7
              Quote: nikoliski
              in Syria, our S-400s have been at the same positions for over a year now

              Did you see this yourself or read it in social networks?
              1. turbris
                turbris April 28 2018 20: 24
                +3
                The radio nanny told him.
        2. Норд
          Норд April 28 2018 16: 17
          +23
          nikoliski.
          Another super iksperd rushes numbers ... Excuse me, who exactly compares the Raptor with a large bird? Americans? Very funny. Did the raptors fly over the air of RTV and Russian Air Defense Forces? The next question: What range of stations, meter, decimeter, centimeter, were flying around? From what angles (exchange rate parameters)? At what altitudes? For the gifted - if the airplane is poorly visible by observation stations of the centimeter and decimeter ranges, then in the meter it, in most cases, glows like a Christmas tree. So all drool on the issue of invisibility for defective kids and fans of WIKI. If one assumes a small EPR of the state's invisibles, then all this until their radar stations turn on and the arms of the weapon compartments open. Further - everything is sad. Well and in conclusion: S-300 and S-400 are obligatory covered by Shells, which confidently knock down both PRR and UAB and KR and UAV. Americans are well aware of this, and all howl and blah blah blah ...
          1. KCA
            KCA April 29 2018 12: 32
            0
            The "shell" and the birds will fill up, at least with ordinary balloons he did
      2. Captain Pushkin
        Captain Pushkin April 28 2018 13: 08
        +4
        Quote: Bar1
        if you take ttx s400
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/С-400
        they write that
        Detection Range-600km
        but at what height? They don’t write. When there was an ax attack on Khmeimim, such an expert Murakhovsky said that he doesn’t see low targets with the c400 because of the curvature of the earth. The question is, from what distance are the axes visible, which are now plastic and, accordingly, epr low?

        Without an AWACS system, a long-range system is not of great value. For the S-400, an aerostat or an airship DRLO is requested. And also a modern twin-engine aircraft with a theater. Alas, so far everything is deaf on such topics.
        1. your1970
          your1970 4 May 2018 10: 49
          0
          Quote: Captain Pushkin
          A representative of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, Lieutenant General Kenneth F. Mackenzie, Jr., later confirmed the data of D. White. He said that during the missile attack on Syria, the Russian air defense systems were active, but they did not take any action and did not try to shoot down the flying missiles. The general indicated that the Russian side was following the air situation. In addition, in the area was an airplane for long-range radar surveillance and control. The Russian military decided not to participate in current events, and K. McKenzie cannot say why they did it that way.

          "The representative of the Committee of Chiefs of Staff, Lieutenant General Kenneth F. Mackenzie Jr. later confirmed the data of D. White. He said that during the missile strike on Syria, the Russian air defense systems were active, but did not take any action and did not try to bring down the flying missiles The general indicated that the Russian side monitored the air situation. In addition, there was a long-range radar survey and control aircraft in the area. The Russian military decided not to participate in current events, and K. Mackenzie cannot say why they did just that. "- there was a board judging by the article
      3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z April 28 2018 10: 57
      +15
      C-300 and C-400: real F-35 killers or overpriced dummies?

      And you will launch your F-35s against the S-400, for example, in Khmeinim and move away! Take the risk of even your pilots' health!
      1. Shahno
        Shahno 3 May 2018 22: 33
        0
        And what ... Strategist. We will not even take risks ...... You are in the territory of the enemy. Which is also corrupt and with us in kinship after all ....
        1. E_V_N
          E_V_N 4 May 2018 23: 35
          0
          Quote: Shahno
          And what ... Strategist. We will not even take risks ...... You are in the territory of the enemy. Which is also corrupt and with us in kinship after all ....

          Did Israel officially declare war on Syria? Or maybe Iran? When, if not a secret?
          Do you know what your actions resemble? When a small “shket” lifts up (provokes) the uncle, knowing that there are a dozen older boys waiting for the start of the conflict.
          First, Ukraine, now Israel has dropped to the level of petty badass. Do you think flying on other people's planes and attacking from someone else’s airspace at the direction of the “bigger kid”, dubious “heroism”?
    5. Sibiriya
      Sibiriya April 28 2018 11: 48
      +8
      Everything stated in the article is from the category of hotelok and thought. There are no facts of combat use, so there is nothing to talk about.
    6. andj61
      andj61 April 28 2018 11: 58
      +7
      Quote: nikoliski
      The S-400 with a long-range missile (which is up to 400km) is of course the really strongest mass-produced air defense system in the world and this is undeniable.

      A missile with such a range alone does not solve anything, and it is not so simple to direct it (nobody canceled the curvature of the earth). Yes, and a separate S-400 air defense system is extremely vulnerable to massive raid. For effective use, a full-fledged air defense is needed, which includes radio-technical support, electronic warfare systems, military air defense (Buki-Carapace and something smaller) for close cover of objects and air defense systems themselves, ground forces to cover air defense, air defense aviation, and, of course, everything this should work in air defense control systems. Without all this, the effectiveness of the combat use of S-400 air defense systems is reduced significantly! hi
    7. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 28 2018 17: 42
      -1
      The only question is - what kind of EPR in an airplane, missiles, must be at a range of 400 kilometers - 2 meters in a square - 3,4
    8. Maz
      Maz 2 May 2018 20: 01
      0
      Another near-war ravings of the author.
  2. Theodore
    Theodore April 28 2018 05: 03
    +2
    Fox and grape! Fable.
  3. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter April 28 2018 05: 26
    +13
    So what is the balance? The final one for this hit? They launched 105, horrible - 22. Shot down - 46.
    And the rest? Well, a couple have already been found unexploded, and are being prepared for study. Where did another 35 go? Get lost? Not fly Or all the same, Russian electronic warfare systems are also not at all harmless buzzers?
    1. Rostovchanin
      Rostovchanin April 28 2018 06: 09
      +14
      About 46 shot down only over Damascus, it was at a briefing.
      1. Deck
        Deck April 28 2018 06: 27
        +10
        “There was a speech” or really shot down - a big difference. MO and not such tales told.
        1. Cat
          Cat April 28 2018 06: 39
          +24
          Well, if you compare with the liars from the Pentagon, then our only honest Octobry first graders pull!
          1. meandr51
            meandr51 April 28 2018 11: 41
            +2
            It’s time to catch up and overtake them, since it costs nothing. But for this it is necessary to seize the bridgeheads among the Western media.
        2. Rostovchanin
          Rostovchanin April 28 2018 06: 42
          +5
          “There was a speech” or really shot down - a big difference. MO and not such tales told.
          At present, nobody is absolutely interested in whether they are really hit or not, the main thing is to say that the facts are not interesting anymore - the wave has gone and it is extremely difficult to stop it, but nobody needs ... Our PR is all ...
        3. meandr51
          meandr51 April 28 2018 11: 41
          +4
          All MO tell tales. But nothing will be hidden from sofa experts ...
      2. andj61
        andj61 April 28 2018 12: 01
        +8
        Quote: Rostovchanin
        About 46 shot down only over Damascus, it was at a briefing.

        good Many people forget about this moment: 46 missiles were shot down over Damascus! hi
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 28 2018 08: 19
      +13
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      So what is the balance? The final one for this hit?

      The final balance is that the Americans announced 105 flown missiles and stand their ground. The RF Ministry of Defense, in turn, made 3 different official statements on this subject (April 14, Rudskaya, April 16 Konashenkov, April 25 Rudskaya), partially or completely insane (Konashenkov, for example, lied about the power of the Tomahawk warhead and managed to bring down the missing April 25 guided bombs).
      If you suddenly did not know something about the briefings of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, now you know. They are waging an information war. Not to the smallest detail.
      1. meandr51
        meandr51 April 28 2018 11: 30
        +4
        This is bad? They simply carry out their duties - they confuse enemy cards. Thanks to them for that! And the sofa experts themselves think up what they want ...
        1. MadCat
          MadCat April 28 2018 12: 51
          +7
          Quote: meandr51
          This is bad? They simply carry out their duties - they confuse enemy cards. Thanks to them for that! And the sofa experts themselves think up what they want ...

          Lying from three boxes is not an information war, but rather a erosion of public confidence in the Russian Defense Ministry.
          1. Deck
            Deck April 28 2018 13: 39
            +1
            Do you have a complaint to the Department of Mass Hallucinations of the Moscow Region?
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine April 28 2018 13: 50
          +5
          Quote: meandr51
          just carry out their duties

          Their duty is to lie to me? Because the enemy is in the know, most likely.

          Does it seem to me alone that the deputy chief of the General Staff, who is not responsible for the bazaar, seems somewhat inappropriate? Enemies all the more so, is that all?
          1. Nekarmadlen
            Nekarmadlen April 30 2018 00: 48
            +2
            A small lie gives rise to great distrust ... (((
    3. meandr51
      meandr51 April 28 2018 11: 28
      +1
      Themselves fell. Or responded to the call of Russian electronic warfare. In general, the military cannot be trusted. All statements by all parties are misinformation. And it is right. The real picture is strictly secret.
    4. Masha from uralmash
      Masha from uralmash 1 May 2018 16: 24
      +1
      It seems that it’s counterproductive to contact the author for figures, apparently, he didn’t watch the briefing himself, but drew information from the comments from our superprofessional TV channels, whose corps also overslept the floor of the briefing.

      "according to updated data" 46 missiles were shot down near Damascus, 20 - near Homs, some missiles themselves fell (Internet rumors creep in, mostly French). You’d better look at the primary sources (that is, a briefing in our case), they will clearly say what and how
  4. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat April 28 2018 06: 50
    +11
    Well, considering. that the Russian military "pierced sturgeon" from 71 missiles to 46, and initially only 13 missiles were reported at all ..... Personally, I believe in the last figure, because it was immediately in hot pursuit that the shooting was noted by means of escort , control, visually .... And by the way, the Americans do not believe that the type of little-hit cruise missiles delivered to Russia. Here in the USA, in the media they laugh at the fact that the Russians, instead of full-fledged missiles, even if they were significantly damaged, laid out some mutilated scraps of which nothing could even be made up ....
    1. zulusuluz
      zulusuluz April 28 2018 07: 16
      +7
      And what does a Boeing look like, shot down by Ukrainian “warriors”?
      1. nikoliski
        nikoliski April 28 2018 09: 21
        +11
        Personally, I doubt that it was the Ukrainians who shot him down (more precisely, doubts of 50 to 50) I will give my reasons - firstly, several APU aircraft were shot down (does the militia get help because of our battery? Didn’t they themselves fall from a height inaccessible to MANPADS?) In second, as ours rushed about with versions, the Israeli python allegedly pulled in a su-25 (which does not fly at this altitude) shot down a Boeing (forgetting that the su-25 is not a fighter at all and cannot use the foreign nomenclature of air-to-air missiles) when it turned out that the plane riddled with elements of sp Buk, ours immediately declared (and even sort of figured out how everything was) that it was shot down by the Ukrainian Buk, only the Ukrainian battery was behind the Boeing, and the nose of the plane was completely destroyed by striking elements, it’s clear that the rocket flew towards it) in general, if the Ukrainians shot down - they thought that it was Putin’s plane (it was supposed to fly from Brazil here, but then decided through Poland, the inverted Dutch flag very much resembles our tricolor) if our assisting militias were shot down (I’m noticing the militia, they have air defense systems of such height with specialists couldn't then) it was just working with disconnected transponders on your own, because at that time we had one algorithm with Ukrainian planes (how can we shoot them then? Then Poroshenko banned the Russian recognition system by his decree, they say we’ll seek NATO) and therefore, having taken a Boeing for some kind of Ukrainian military transport Il-76 heaped it up, they delivered it immediately to Russia (even the photos were), so I still think it’s 50 to 50, I can’t say exactly what the Ukrainians are shot down a Boeing.
        1. udincev
          udincev April 28 2018 11: 34
          +12
          Quote: nikoliski
          so I still think that 50 to 50

          If so, then already 150. that the Brussels commission would yell (and immodestly keep quiet) about the fault of Russia!
          1. Korax71
            Korax71 April 28 2018 12: 54
            +3
            Well, as if the conclusions of the commission had been published long ago. Boeing was knocked down from a beech tree delivered from Russia. Then there was a proposal to create an international tribunal, but Russia vetoed it.
            1. udincev
              udincev April 28 2018 16: 41
              +6
              It has long been published that Boeing collapsed under external influence. All. After that, nothing significant was said by the commission. A fake about a beech from Russia at the same time (when it appeared) and burst. And about the tribunal in general, the booze is ridiculous: whom to judge. It is clear to everyone that the United States and Ukraine, but you must first bring the commission to blame, but it was recorded and is silent for the fourth year.
        2. meandr51
          meandr51 April 28 2018 11: 35
          +14
          Changing the versions just shows the innocence of the Russian side. Since ours did not know then, as it really was. Just put forward the version. Since they themselves had no relation to this. Now they may know.
          As for the downed planes, tell us exactly what were shot down above 5 thousand meters - the top real frontier of MANPADS.
          As for the motives for the downing, only the Ukrainian side had them. It was beneficial for Ukraine and the USA to hang another dog on Russia. This is their next planned and extremely cynical crime.
        3. reservist
          reservist April 28 2018 11: 49
          +6
          Quote: nikoliski
          inverted dutch flag

          what side is the Dutch flag here if it was a Malaysian board?
          1. nikoliski
            nikoliski April 28 2018 12: 08
            +3
            the colors of the flag (which Peter1 simply tore at the Dutch)
            1. Spez
              Spez April 28 2018 13: 14
              0
              There should be a famous gesture of captain Picard.
            2. reservist
              reservist April 28 2018 13: 18
              +1
              it turns out that the Malaysians also stole the flag from the Dutch or what?
            3. reservist
              reservist April 28 2018 13: 23
              +2
              Quote: nikoliski
              Peter1 just tore at the Dutch

              and not even born yet ...
        4. Separ DNR
          Separ DNR April 28 2018 12: 08
          +10
          Quote: nikoliski
          I cannot absolutely like you, to say with confidence that it was the Ukrainians who shot down the Boeing.

          And don’t talk. Let, for starters, dill provide records of dispatcher negotiations.
          Huh?
          And only then we will put forward versions ...
          1. nikoliski
            nikoliski April 29 2018 23: 33
            +1
            If Ukrainians shot down themselves, why would they need a dispatcher? they would have shot down everything, but obviously they wanted to bring it straight under our battery (I’m not saying that our specialists wanted to bring down a civilian plane, it’s clear that under the guise of a Ukrainian military transport carrier they wanted to put a fatter target in them (before this one IL-76, like in Lugansk already "dropped")
        5. E_V_N
          E_V_N April 28 2018 12: 21
          +19
          Quote: nikoliski
          Immediately they brought the air defense system to Russia (even the photos were), so I still think that it’s 50 to 50, I can’t quite like you, to say with confidence that it was the Ukrainians who shot down the Boeing.

          This has already been sucked in the networks 1000 times.
          In the first place, there was no sense in knocking down a Boeing from Russia, from the word at all, but Ukraine was knocking down and knocking down so that it would make the DPR terrorists quite reasonable.
          Secondly, if there had been a Russian BUK in the DPR, then the crew would have the “best of the best” sitting on it, and not the suckers who would have confused the Boeing with the IL.
          Thirdly, Ukrainian dispatchers forced Boeing to change course and corridor, and they refused to provide negotiations data. If they have nothing to do with it, what are they hiding?
          Fourthly, I doubt that the manufacturer of ALMAZ-Antey BUKs would engage in cheap juggling of facts; image losses are too great.
          Fifth, if the DNI or the Russians had shot down, US satellite images would have been hung on every pillar long ago, but they would not be shown at all, although the satellite was flying.
          Sixth, if the DPR were to blame or Russia, the Dutch commission would have long unveiled unambiguous conclusions
          And in the seventh and eighth .....
          So, that doubt is your right, but your arguments are very flimsy.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine April 28 2018 14: 09
            +5
            Quote: E_V_N
            This has already been sucked in the networks 1000 times.

            It is sucked 1000 times.

            The Dutch do not care what happened there. Shot down and okay. Well, they would say that Putin personally shot down, then what? What to do?
            The Netherlands is the main trading partner of Russia in Europe. It is the Netherlands, not Germany. They are sitting on their profit. The dead have died, but the living live. Living do not want to change anything. Till.
            But since 2014, a lot has happened. If earlier T.May, being the Minister of Internal Affairs, had secretly investigated the investigation of Litvinenko, now she cannot directly recognize the grandmother, she has earned herself seriously. The main European weather vane - A. Merkel - has noticeably turned recently, and also in the direction unpleasant for people of goodwill. Already SevPotok2 in question. As if friend Gerhard had not been tied.
            So if yesterday the Boeing was a small misunderstanding that everyone wanted to quickly forget, then tomorrow the shed blood may well require revenge.
            1. husband
              husband April 28 2018 16: 57
              0
              Life news about the Boeing MH-17
          2. husband
            husband April 28 2018 16: 54
            +8
            Be a realist and a patriot!
            Well, they screwed up, well, this Boeing was shot down. It is clear that this was not in Russia's interests. Ordinary rioting, such as the Kemerovo fire.
            I watched LIVEnews that day and they joyfully at 17-00 reported a second Ukrainian transport carrier shot down that day. I got on VKontakte Strelkov’s page - there is also complete delight. After 2 hours, they erased everything and raced about all this channels about this Boeing ....
            1. turbris
              turbris April 28 2018 20: 39
              +5
              How could they bring him down? Arrow? You are our wise guy, who knows everything from LIVEnews, and calls himself a realist and a patriot. In Vkontakte, he learned everything from Strelkov, is not it a shame to troll so shamefully?
              1. Mimoprohodil
                Mimoprohodil April 29 2018 15: 17
                +3
                Quote: turbris
                How could they bring him down? Arrow?

                The remains of Thor and Shell shells were not rarely found
                1. turbris
                  turbris April 29 2018 18: 45
                  +2
                  Where did you find it? When did you find it? Who did you find? Stop chatter, here is a serious fact with the death of people, and you will smack nonsense with a smart look!
                  1. Mimoprohodil
                    Mimoprohodil April 29 2018 21: 44
                    +2
                    Where did you find it? When did you find it? Who did you find?

                    https://youtu.be/SE0dPJV6aoM?t=259 Напомню как выглядит ракета с Панциря
                  2. Mimoprohodil
                    Mimoprohodil April 29 2018 22: 04
                    +1
                    In the video, it’s the Shell rocket, not the Tunguska
            2. Alekhanets
              Alekhanets April 28 2018 21: 31
              +1
              Shooters are the same couch warrior, like most of those present here, as well as a tyrant PR. he loaded a lot of things on himself, which he didn’t actually do. that with Kolomoisky’s armored cars, that with the capture of Saur’s grave, when they then blasted hail from the city, by the way, they dill this provocation shortly before the Boeing ... there was more harm from it than good, it was not for nothing that they asked him from there ... talk with participants those events will open their eyes to Girkin
              1. nikoliski
                nikoliski April 29 2018 23: 26
                +3
                Strelkov, unlike you, went through all the wars (all) and sent him there as a specialist, Putin just turned on the back one, and the plans were to connect the entire south of Ukraine to Russia after the Crimea (what kind of brain is needed for Strelkov to be called a military officer a warrior, "you need to treat a complex of your own significance to a psychiatrist - Alyoshka, in a word)
            3. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 29 2018 14: 07
              +3
              and why only one and one that looked like a Russian government plane was shot down?
              and what was the Su-25 doing nearby? with a gun which holes match?
            4. nikoliski
              nikoliski April 29 2018 23: 34
              0
              And I'm talking about the same thing, only I am ostracized by jingoistic patriots to the fullest (although still 50 to 50 doubts)
        6. Spez
          Spez April 28 2018 13: 10
          +5
          Quote: nikoliski
          right here they delivered it to Russia (even the photos were)

          Are these those where a washed-up “beech” with a clear tail number on coniferous forests is being rolled on a trailer? Very reliable shots, and with a clear reference to the area, not to mention belonging to a specific military unit)))
        7. zulusuluz
          zulusuluz April 28 2018 16: 57
          +1
          only the Ukrainian battery is behind the Boeing, and the nose of the plane is destroyed by completely striking elements, of course, the rocket flew towards)
          Did the plane stand? Or did he fly towards Donbass? And where was the object with significant kinetic energy supposed to fall from a height of 10000?
        8. Baby sitter
          Baby sitter April 28 2018 17: 48
          +5
          50 to 50 that he was shot down by either the Japanese or the Norgi ... I see so, panimash ..
        9. Cossack 471
          Cossack 471 April 28 2018 23: 40
          +4
          NIKOLAI If it were so. what do you think . then the Americans immediately submitted satellite data and we would be harassed by the whole world. Once it was not. they will not confirm the guilt of the ukrovermacht. By the way. judging by the flight route of the plane and the rocket. then the rocket flew up to the nose of the aircraft at an angle of almost 90 degrees.
        10. Vita vko
          Vita vko 2 June 2018 12: 35
          +1
          Quote: nikoliski
          the Ukrainian battery is behind the Boeing, and the nose of the plane is destroyed by completely damaging elements, it’s clear that the rocket flew towards

          Why so sure? Maybe a specialist and studied guidance systems missiles?
          I advise you to look at least at the map and see where it is from. Zaroshchenskoye and the Mn-17 rocket detonation point. Please note that the launch was carried out almost from the side, but still into the front hemisphere (approximately at an angle of -20 degrees) with almost a “0” parameter (if you understand what it is about). For information SAM is not ballistic and it flies far from straightforward. There are different approximation algorithms, which is why rocket developers conducted tests at the training ground.
          More than once, the village of Zaroshchenskoye was called by the experts the site of a missile launch on the Malaysian Boeing. For example, the Almaz-Antey concern, which produces the Buk air defense system, conducted three experiments: they modeled a missile entering the liner taking into account the revealed damage on the Boeing’s hull. According to experts, the rocket was most likely launched from the Zaroschensky district.

          And now about the purpose and motives:
          Literally in one zone of defeat from the Buk air defense system and even in one sector of 1 hail. (SAM was deployed with. Zaroshchenskoe) flew another civilian side, which all stubbornly silent. According to the trajectory signs with a probability of 90%, it was an IL-96 aircraft, which are operated by a special Russian squadron. Whom he could transport will become clear if we analyze the visits of President Putin during this period. It was he who was hunted by Ukrainian terrorists under the leadership of the US CIA. But the Russian board, despite a slightly higher speed, lagged behind and went higher. Probably the reason is the wind, which is very different at different levels. Therefore, the operator of the BUK air defense system and captured the target closer to the Russian border, it is very easy for an experienced operator to make a mistake while autonomous without ACS (the identification system for foreign sides does not work).
          Pay attention to the primary radar information presented at the briefing of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. Two sides 0143 (Mn-17) and 4722 (Il-96) are in the same sector, about 1 deg near to Zaroshchenskogok. Moreover, the first was at a distance of 10-15 km, and the second 30-35 km (the difference in flight time is only a couple of minutes). Thus, while in the same beam, the SAM system captures primarily the closest target as the most dangerous, and in this case also the closest to the Russian Federation border, which became a decisive factor for the SAM target
          Several facts immediately prove that the provocation was thought out. First, why deploy air defense systems in an area where only its own aviation prevails. This is at least dangerous because of the high probability of "friendly fire." Even during the exercises, any aircraft, except for educational purposes, are strictly forbidden to fly into the zones of destruction of air defense systems, and here the fighting. Secondly, many witnesses confirm the fact of the presence of the Su-25 Ukrainian military aircraft in the region. Obviously, according to the plan developed by the CIA, he had a different task. Namely, in accordance with the rules for the suppression of air violations, from the beginning it is necessary to try to force the aircraft to land, and only then open fire on the aircraft. For these purposes, a military aircraft was needed: first, to indicate the fact of an attempt to force landing, and secondly, to control the destruction of the target and the "black boxes" in which the dispatcher’s command to change the route was recorded. Regular Ukrainian Su-27 and MiG-29 were not suitable for these purposes, very weak fragmentation protection (the expansion of pieces of the skin of a large aircraft reaches tens of kilometers).
          Therefore, if a Russian aircraft were shot down, then a deviation from the route, the presence of a military aircraft, all this would be presented as protecting the airspace of Ukraine from Russian aggression.
          Thus, in this planned tragedy, everything becomes logical except that the wrong plane was shot down. The Ukrainian air defense system was being hunted overboard by the President of Russia, and if the Ukrainian branch of the CIA had succeeded, then for 4 years all of Ukraine, and possibly Europe, has been dragged into a real war with Russia, which the United States sought.
    2. Alex_59
      Alex_59 April 28 2018 08: 04
      +3
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      "pierced sturgeon" with 71 rockets to 46,

      Up to 66 missiles.
      1. Monster_Fat
        Monster_Fat April 28 2018 10: 33
        +8
        There is such a version: "The blow to Syria was very necessary for Donald Trump, as an opportunity to transfer two of the latest American missiles to the Russians and not to burn." laughing
        1. Masha from uralmash
          Masha from uralmash 2 May 2018 09: 12
          0
          it would be better if the Jazmas were “transmitted”, but so far there has not been a single fragment from them ... Apparently, they are like a knife through butter, and clearly hit their targets. Ours did not even recognize them, calling GBU-38 bombs at the first briefing.
      2. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE April 29 2018 14: 12
        0
        details?
    3. meandr51
      meandr51 April 28 2018 11: 31
      +1
      Let's see who will be the last to laugh ...
    4. E_V_N
      E_V_N April 28 2018 12: 00
      +5
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      And by the way, Americans do not believe that the type of little-hit cruise missiles delivered to Russia. Here in the USA, in the media they laugh at the fact that the Russians, instead of full-fledged missiles, even if they were significantly damaged, laid out some mutilated scraps of which nothing could even be made up at all.

      Do you think it makes sense to immediately lay out all the cards on the table, to break the trump cards and show what they dig and collect? And what's the point?
      You did not understand the main thing in this operation, Russia said that it would bring down carriers if they shoot at our military. Therefore, the Syrian air defense did not become targets, the United States used all tactical developments during the attack to make the strike effective, and the Russian air defense did not take part in repelling the strike without revealing its technical characteristics.
      But the most important thing, for some reason they are silent, the Syrian air defense was not just connected into a single network, but also connected to the Russian systems from which there was target designation for the Syrian air defense. Therefore, the effectiveness of "obsolete Soviet-made systems" turned out to be so high.
      Well, the United States ... what about the United States ... if they tell the truth that out of 71 (for 100 million) missiles launched in the first attack, they reached 22, and out of 105 (for 150 million) they also reached 22, tomorrow they will the senate will disperse and will no longer give money. So they say ... we hit all the goals ... go find out how many goals were actually and what.
      1. Monster_Fat
        Monster_Fat April 28 2018 12: 10
        +3
        You did not understand the main thing in this operation,

        No ... you didn’t understand it. The purpose of the operation was not to get somewhere with missiles, but that they wanted to, and struck a blow and no one can not only stop, but even "blather against." It’s like among predators, to put your “mark” on top of the rest of the “marks”, to confirm your reputation as the biggest “predator” ... wink
        1. Soho
          Soho April 28 2018 12: 52
          +2
          Monster_Fat (Yes, What a Difference) Today, 12:10 ↑
          You did not understand the main thing in this operation,
          No ... you didn’t understand it. The purpose of the operation was not to get somewhere rockets

          yes, what are you ??? belay another version, picked out of the nose?) and that did not want to strike at the DPRK? Or with
          and no one can not only stop, but even "blather against"

          afraid of liquid obos .... smiling?
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm April 29 2018 14: 37
          +1
          Quote: Monster_Fat
          It’s like among predators, to put your “mark” on top of the rest of the “marks”, to confirm your reputation as the biggest “predator” ...

          It turns out that the Israelis are the largest predators, they hammer on Syria regularly.
      2. Mimoprohodil
        Mimoprohodil April 29 2018 15: 24
        +1
        Quote: E_V_N
        The USA used all tactical developments during the attack
        And they warned Russia in advance about the attack and the objectives of the attack
    5. andj61
      andj61 April 28 2018 12: 05
      +7
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Well, considering. that the Russian military "killed sturgeon" from 71 missiles to 46,

      Nobody cut anything - it was about 46 shot down over Damascus - read the briefings carefully!
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      initially it was reported generally only 13 shot down missiles ....

      Initially, there were no messages from the military at all, but messages from correspondents from the scene. Immediately everything is impossible to calculate.
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Here in the USA, in the media they laugh at the fact that the Russians, instead of full-fledged missiles, even if they were significantly damaged, laid out some mutilated scraps of which nothing could even be made up ....

      Yes, let them laugh - what is left for them to do? Only keep a good face in a bad game! bully hi
    6. Soho
      Soho April 28 2018 12: 46
      +6
      Here in the US, the media laugh at

      a person who refers to the media (any) as an argument himself looks like a complete laughing stock.
    7. Abel
      Abel April 29 2018 21: 21
      +1
      Fat man !! Watch TV. They were already shown entirely
    8. Masha from uralmash
      Masha from uralmash 1 May 2018 16: 25
      +1
      46 were shot down only near Damascus, and there was also the Homs district. The author interpreted the information from the briefing
  5. zulusuluz
    zulusuluz April 28 2018 07: 15
    +4
    Though with a squeak, it is extremely rare, but Majumar is trying to compare facts and think. Maybe he decided to get out of the USA?
    1. Sergey985
      Sergey985 April 28 2018 08: 03
      +1
      Who will give him objective information? But I tried to figure it out, it's already good.
  6. thinker
    thinker April 28 2018 07: 45
    0
    ... hit the reputation of the US military
    Yeah, the reputation - "we play here, we do not play here, here we wrapped the fish." Beat and as often as possible yes
  7. vlad007
    vlad007 April 28 2018 07: 51
    0
    Few specifics, the effectiveness of air defense systems must be evaluated in specific areas - for example, low-flying targets, invisibility, etc. The author, with all due respect to him, chose an unfortunate topic - is it worth it to react to every article in The National Interest, they also have enough empty breaches.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS April 28 2018 09: 58
      0
      Quote: vlad007
      Few specifics, the effectiveness of air defense systems must be evaluated in specific areas - for example, low-flying targets, invisibility, etc.

      All these arguments are certainly interesting and perhaps even useful, which are described in the article. But few people recall that we are hanging in the air the air defense project, which was supposed to replace the S-300, namely the S-350 Vityaz. And now, our slowness in adopting Vityaz becomes sideways.
  8. Alex_59
    Alex_59 April 28 2018 08: 09
    +8
    The truth is somewhere in between. The United States is clearly trying to draw attention away from what happened. And the bottom line is that it's all window dressing and PR. Where did they shoot? It is not clear where. For some sheds on which nothing depends. They demolished some forgotten research institute and several warehouses. It was just necessary to somehow get out, it was necessary to bang. But to start so that everyone was happy and it did not grow into something more. To smell so that each side declares its victory. I won’t be surprised if ours and Americans at all discussed all the details of the performance in advance and agreed. Who shoots where and who talks about what after.
    In fact, we see:
    1. There were no chemical weapons. The reason, as always, is contrived, like a Powell test tube, but do not care for everyone
    2. A blow was struck against some useless goals, but all do not care
    3. The Syrians really shot down something but what exactly isn’t understood, but everyone doesn’t care
    4. Each side declared its triumph, but the opponents do not care
    1. andj61
      andj61 April 28 2018 12: 10
      +2
      Quote: Alex_59
      1. There were no chemical weapons. The reason, as always, is contrived, like a Powell test tube, but do not care for everyone
      2. A blow was struck against some useless goals, but all do not care
      3. The Syrians really shot down something but what exactly isn’t understood, but everyone doesn’t care
      4. Each side declared its triumph, but the opponents do not care

      drinks We are discussing something here, we are arguing, but all the same, we will remain with our opinion, because we don’t care either! bully hi
  9. EvilLion
    EvilLion April 28 2018 08: 12
    +1
    They shot at wastelands, away from the Russian air defense systems, predictably received zero results, and now they started to make noise behind the air defense systems. Well, OK, in a couple of weeks it will be forgotten.
  10. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo April 28 2018 08: 19
    0
    there are no such questions to the A-135 Moscow missile defense system (!) but this is generally the last century
    * although Don-2Н radar CPUs were recently transferred from Elbrus-2 to Elbrus-8
    figuratively, C-400 is similar to A-135 only mobile, and automation, automation went forward years so on 20
    * although it’s more correct to compare C-500 and A-235
  11. akunin
    akunin April 28 2018 09: 09
    +1
    we reason logically: a missile flies to the target where it was directed (air defense cannot change the target, except for the reb), 70 missiles were shot down, and 30 broke through. If the Tomahawks carried nuclear warheads (200 ct), then 6 mgt would there be a big BABAH. zi peramoga zrada? draw conclusions (200clt almost 10 hiroshim).
    1. lBEARl
      lBEARl April 28 2018 11: 21
      +4
      We reason logically: Syria’s air defense was built on the principle of object defense (well, there are no forces and means to close the entire territory). Thus, the air defense did not initially have the task of shooting down all launched missiles, since the objective of the object defense was to cover the most important objects, and not to shoot down everything that flies. I will tell you more: not one more or less large country is capable of repulsing a massive strike by cruise missiles 100% not by the United States, nor Russia, nor China. This can be done, for example, by Israel because of its small territory, and even with a certain intensity of a missile strike. So I don’t know if it’s a hail or a peramog. Draw conclusions (if it were a nuclear strike - it would be a completely different story, in general, if my grandmother had eggs ...)
      1. Separ DNR
        Separ DNR April 28 2018 12: 12
        +5
        Quote: lBEARl
        in general, if my grandmother would have eggs ...

        That grandfather, contrary to the assertion, she would not have become.
        The usual hermaphrodite. yes
      2. akunin
        akunin April 28 2018 16: 34
        0
        I’ll put the question differently (because I’m not a Syrian). Americans felt the possibilities of OUR air defense (I’m more or less clear about the heroic Syrian interceptors) and I don’t believe in fables about the “beech” (the first modifications), “cube”, “wasp” and so on against modern means of delivery. The question is about the effectiveness of air defense, and not that an elderly woman has between her legs and what needs to be done to become an old man. I understand that the sky is not 100% protected, but 70% is not enough. I think you wouldn’t I wanted to get 30% of the launched (not even nuclear). Does the zrad come out?
    2. GUKTU76
      GUKTU76 April 28 2018 11: 28
      +4
      "... then grandmother would be grandfather"
      Radioactive dust from 6 MT and a breeze to Israel ... Belly casus for armageddon.
      You have to somehow control your fantasies.
    3. meandr51
      meandr51 April 28 2018 11: 46
      0
      Think only you can reason? They still live in Hiroshima. On the military, nuclear weapons are not so effective. The answer would be the destruction by nuclear and chemical weapons of Israel.
    4. Soho
      Soho April 28 2018 12: 54
      0
      could not. Nope them nuclear
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 April 28 2018 17: 47
        0
        The time will come and the Tomahawks - some sort of block 7, will have a nuclear warhead.
        1. Soho
          Soho 3 May 2018 08: 47
          0
          the time will come....

          Before writing about the future, it would be nice to know the past tense: the Americans had quite combat-ready axes with nuclear warheads. Only they eliminated them as a class. The carriers were converted to a regular BG, and the nuclear ones were disposed of. So it's too late for you
      2. akunin
        akunin April 30 2018 09: 06
        0
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Томагавк_(ракета) на счет ядерной бч
      3. Mimoprohodil
        Mimoprohodil April 30 2018 09: 39
        0
        Well, not B-1, but B-52 with nuclear AGM-86 would fly to Syria
  12. Vard
    Vard April 28 2018 09: 23
    +1
    Mr. Pushkov will not say anything bad about the S-400 and S-500 ... But as practice has shown ... an anti-aircraft missile (for example, in Yugoslavia) will always find where to get and what to shoot down ...
  13. Gust
    Gust April 28 2018 09: 29
    +1
    In the video of the strike on the outskirts of Damascus, just 22-23 explosions can be counted. Not 75 for sure. As for nuclear weapons, this is immediately the beginning of the end for everyone, it does not matter for the KR or ICBMs or TRs, so it is even theoretically uninteresting to discuss. In fact, everything is a big statement and an agreement, everybody happy, as our probable partners say.
    1. figwam
      figwam April 28 2018 11: 05
      +2
      There was no shooting shots in the suburbs of Damascus, this is a fake.
      1. meandr51
        meandr51 April 28 2018 11: 47
        +2
        Nothing at all. All fake.
        1. figwam
          figwam April 28 2018 12: 04
          +1
          Quote: meandr51
          Nothing at all. All fake.

          I wrote about another American lie, a video of a specific blow that was long exposed.
        2. Separ DNR
          Separ DNR April 28 2018 12: 14
          +2
          Quote: meandr51
          Nothing at all. All fake.

          And Damascus, a non-existent city yes
          1. figwam
            figwam April 28 2018 13: 12
            +2
            meandr51
            ,
            Separ DNR

            Very funny.
            Well, let's find me a video with 22-23 shots in the suburbs of Damascus, and then we laugh.
  14. antiexpert
    antiexpert April 28 2018 09: 30
    +5
    all this nonsense until the first downed F-35s and F-22s, which, incidentally, for some reason are in no hurry to meddle with attacks where these air defense systems are on duty)))
  15. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 April 28 2018 09: 48
    0
    All of their statements are a continuous show, the military in the Pentagon and NATO are well aware of the capabilities of our S-300 and S-400 ... and are well aware of the price that they will have to pay if our aircraft actually use these air defense systems.
  16. Gust
    Gust April 28 2018 09: 57
    0
    The military knows everything, both in the USA and in the Russian Federation, public statements are pure PR. One of their military men blabbed the truth somehow, saying that "our planes are not invisible, they are hardly noticeable in a certain range, and this allows us to seriously weaken one of the links in the attack chain." Those. we are talking about stealth for tracking radars, while long-wave radars see them perfectly.
    1. Soho
      Soho April 28 2018 13: 03
      0
      you are right and wrong at the same time.
      Firstly, they are right that there are no “invisible" planes. There are aircraft with conditionally reduced radar visibility.
      secondly, you are wrong in the version about long-wave. “Seeing” a target and taking a target for guidance / tracking is not the same thing. With a meter-range radar, you simply do not aim the missile at the target.
      1. KCA
        KCA April 29 2018 12: 54
        0
        Well, at a long distance, just “see” the target, bring the systems to full readiness, pay special attention to this sector, and, upon approaching, already take it without any nerves and escort
  17. san4es
    san4es April 28 2018 09: 57
    +4
    hi The S-400 Triumph air defense system is the only system in the world capable of working with the selective use of more than 4 types of missiles with different launch masses and launch ranges, which ensures the creation of layered defense soldier
  18. a
    a April 28 2018 09: 59
    +3
    Something with the numbers at the end of the article does not converge. First it says ... the Ministry of Defense reported that the Syrian air defense managed to intercept 71 missiles ... and then .... Syria was able to shoot down 46 enemy missiles out of 105 launched. Only 22 missiles broke through to their targets. As it is not clear a little. In the first case, 34 missiles reached the target, the rest shot down. In the second: 22 got, 46 shot down, where did another 37 go?
    1. meandr51
      meandr51 April 28 2018 11: 49
      +2
      You are not in accounting. The military never converges. Immediately for two reasons: they themselves do not know exactly because of subjective reports and deliberate disruption of the enemy.
      Updates after inspections are always possible.
    2. andj61
      andj61 April 28 2018 12: 15
      +2
      Quote: un-e
      Something with the numbers at the end of the article does not converge. First it says ... the Ministry of Defense reported that the Syrian air defense managed to intercept 71 missiles ... and then .... Syria was able to shoot down 46 enemy missiles out of 105 launched. Only 22 missiles broke through to their targets. As it is not clear a little. In the first case, 34 missiles reached the target, the rest shot down. In the second: 22 got, 46 shot down, where did another 37 go?

      For the first time, it was about ALL missiles launched. Ours declared 103, the Americans corrected them - 105 (two - apparently the same ones, intact. - they were shot down altogether. 46 - shot down over Damascus - 22 mentioned missiles fell here too. So the fate of a smaller number remains unknown (71 + 22 = 93) - 10 or 12 missiles! hi
  19. Snakebyte
    Snakebyte April 28 2018 10: 24
    +5
    When it is necessary to show that the "sky of Syria is locked," the S-400 covers the entire territory

    And when the Kyrgyz Republic was intercepted, so "they did not enter our area of ​​responsibility."
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 28 2018 10: 33
      0
      adherent of subsonic tomahawks, you from Konashenkov’s video wanted to defeat only two or three objects of 105 KR, laughing
      American, how was it (1-2 pieces) at first in the Gulf, where? yes
      1. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte April 28 2018 13: 13
        +5
        Do not lie, I just wanted a photo of one or two downed rockets on the ground and minor damage at one of the air bases. This would be ample evidence.
        Instead, they showed a bunch of small debris accumulated from the ruins. And they were too shy to indicate whether there were any airbases shot down in the area among them.
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 28 2018 13: 23
          +1
          you wanted from Koneshenkov to shoot 3 objects throughout the attack on them, to confirm that Konashenkov and the Russian Defense Ministry with their “agitation” did not lie, and no more than 10 flew into each of them
          you wanted to shoot the Americans from AWACS or satellite as all 105 fly there lol
          topwar.ru/140105-kto-kogo-i-skolko-raz.html
          after that, having gotten in the cabbage soup there, you faded away, and now you're lying here
    2. konstantin68
      konstantin68 April 28 2018 10: 45
      +1
      Quote: Snakebyte
      And when the Kyrgyz Republic was intercepted, so "they did not enter our area of ​​responsibility."

      They were waiting for your team to declare war on America! You probably want this?
    3. Evgenii Xolod
      Evgenii Xolod April 28 2018 10: 52
      +1
      The area of ​​responsibility is not the circle of defeat, but the perimeter of the object. (in this case, the area) Yes it is large but to a certain extent. If Cyprus falls into the coverage area of ​​the complex, this does not mean that planes should be thrown over it)))))))) there is a district and there is no fact that it is round on the map))))) if nothing threatens him, we sit and eat popcorn and see how others work.
    4. askort154
      askort154 April 28 2018 11: 12
      +1
      Snakebyte .....When it is necessary to show that the "sky of Syria is locked," the S-400 covers the entire territory
      [i] And when the KR was intercepted, so "they did not enter our area of ​​responsibility"

      Man, if you don’t own the real situation, then do not let bubbles in here. (Please) hi
      1. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE April 28 2018 13: 30
        0
        if the goal is to let them go, then how then?
        https://topwar.ru/140105-kto-kogo-i-skolko-raz.ht
        ml # comment-id-8165952
        obviously from the State Department makes money
    5. meandr51
      meandr51 April 28 2018 11: 51
      +2
      Do not confuse a politically agreed “zone of responsibility” with technical capabilities, which, incidentally, depend on the topography and height of the target.
    6. andj61
      andj61 April 28 2018 12: 25
      0
      Quote: Snakebyte
      When it is necessary to show that the "sky of Syria is locked," the S-400 covers the entire territory

      And when the Kyrgyz Republic was intercepted, so "they did not enter our area of ​​responsibility."

      This purely theoretically covers. And it can fight not with massive raids, but with single goals. But in fact, a lot depends on the terrain, the height of the multifunctional radar, the presence / absence in the composition of the air defense system of means of combating specialized targets, such as stealth aircraft or low-flying targets with enveloping terrain like cruise missiles; the availability of relevant SR. And at the same time, low-flying targets beyond 400 km cannot be detected. In order to organize a full-fledged and effective air defense system, our forces and means need to be increased by a factor of 10 at least, and a full-fledged air defense system should be involved. hi
      1. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte April 28 2018 13: 21
        +2
        Well, don't downplay. The number of flying missiles was almost exactly calculated. The French, though not noticed, but also a jester with them.
        It only turns out that in words unique systems are capable of intercepting everything and everything. But in reality, “additional circumstances” immediately arise, and all possibilities become “purely theoretical”.
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 28 2018 13: 41
          0
          Quote: Snakebyte
          The number of flying missiles was almost exactly calculated.

          what are you talking about? about 71, 46 or about 2? the unworthy pentagon claimed that not one fell. lol
          1. Snakebyte
            Snakebyte April 28 2018 15: 44
            +1
            I'm talking about fixed spans. The Defense Ministry said 103, the Pentagon - 105. They counted quite accurately.
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 28 2018 16: 21
              0
              as always, it’s not about that it was released, + 2 fallen, flying 32 (103-71), and only 5 of them fell into the protected but abandoned object (airfield) and 4 into the uninhabited (western part, but did not cause significant damage )
              Quote: Snakebyte
              Choosing between shame and war they chose shame, but got a war.

              Passed already. it turns out that choosing a war, got a shame, and without the participation of the Russian Federation.
        2. andj61
          andj61 April 28 2018 14: 02
          +1
          Quote: Snakebyte
          It only turns out that in words unique systems are capable of intercepting everything and everything. But in reality, “additional circumstances” immediately arise, and all possibilities become “purely theoretical”.

          The systems are unique. You just need to clearly imagine that to ensure the air defense of Syria, forces and means need at least 10 times more, and not only air defense systems are needed - and that’s it!
          Hoping for the uniqueness of three or four S-300s and S-400s in Syria is almost the same as hoping that three or four Raptors can destroy all Russian aviation, and not in Syria but on our territory! bully hi
          1. Snakebyte
            Snakebyte April 28 2018 15: 50
            +2
            If you need 10 times more strength, why say that already existing "completely covered the sky"?
            It seems that the "zone of responsibility of the Russian Federation" is limited to several tens of kilometers from its bases. From the affected sites in Khim Shinshar, only 40 km to Tartus and 100 km to Khmeinim.
            1. Shahno
              Shahno April 28 2018 15: 59
              +2
              What do you mean why? To agree with us ..... Do you think this insanity in the media does not get on your nerves ....
            2. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh April 28 2018 19: 16
              +1
              And there is. 4th-generation high-flying aircraft bring down 50 kilometers.
      2. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE April 28 2018 13: 37
        0
        generally one ... and he ran to explain six.
        you can completely destroy the KR from drones at all, they do not conduct air combat ... laughing
        1. andj61
          andj61 April 28 2018 15: 15
          0
          Quote: YELLOWSTONE
          it is possible to destroy the KR very valuable from drones at all, they do not conduct air combat ...

          If it is a flat surface like a table, then do not care why destroy it. Really hills, trees, buildings. And accordingly - radar, and infrared, full-height shading! KR flies at low altitude - it can generally keep a height of 10 m, if you believe advertising. And at such an altitude, and with hilly terrain, the drone will notice it only if it hits him right on the course.
          1. YELLOWSTONE
            YELLOWSTONE April 29 2018 08: 27
            0
            from afar through AWACS will you fire a S-500 rocket on a tomahawk which is smaller than it?
            A drone will make it like a MiG-31 a small infrared rocket, which a whole bunch can take
  20. Evgenii Xolod
    Evgenii Xolod April 28 2018 10: 46
    +1
    The eternal war of shield and spear. The fight will show.
  21. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I April 28 2018 10: 51
    +6
    I especially liked one "place" ..... when the American enaral says: Russian air defense systems tracked the KR and aircraft, escorted ... but why didn’t they shoot, I don’t know ...... From this we can conclude: KR ( at least ...) were within reach of the Russian air defense missiles ... And why didn’t they "shoot", then there are considerations .... Alas ..... they are the same as I expressed earlier ... And the Russian the command in Syria, and the Syrians knew about the "priority" goals chosen by the Americans ... and so as not to risk, they removed everything "superfluous" from there. Therefore, there was no "air defense", but it’s important military facilities (airfields) were well protected. Suppose it turned out that not 71 was shot down, but 46 KR ... For Syrian (!) Air defense - this is a very good result! Remembering the previous "fighting" of the "Syrians in Syria" - even. Amazing! And here it’s worth “recalling” the phrase of the American general: .. ". Accompanied, but for some reason didn’t" shoot "... And if the Russian military in Syria checked the" Unified Air Defense Management System of the "region"? With components ( elements) of a network-centric system (network)! These "considerations" I expressed earlier. But I "came across" criticism ... they say, the "ancient" air defense systems and the "single control system" are not compatible! But is it really ? Firstly, these "air defense systems" are not so "ancient"! (Unless, with the exception of C-75 ...) Secondly, the control system component is its temporary alert .... And you can “notify”, as I said, at the “voice level” ..... even with the help of a “mobile phone” ... like: 5 KR are approaching your position from the northeast. ..height-60 m ... range-20 km .... But this, the case I have indicated, is extreme (!) Why not Russia bring to Syria "adapters" that can connect dissimilar anti-aircraft weapons at one level or another? After all, as a rule, these "heterogeneous" air defense systems include command and control centers, where the data is coming ..... for example, from the radar ..... well ... what other "data" cannot be transmitted? The decision to create a unified (if you want, united ...) air defense system of the "region" (Syria) is extremely advisable! This means that you can count on Syria to be “covered” with a continuous radar “field” ... or ... (whatever you want) a “cap” ... This will increase the survivability of regional air defense and the possibility of maneuver by air defense systems ...
    1. macgyver
      macgyver April 28 2018 12: 58
      +3
      They didn’t shoot, because they did not know how many more waves of attack there would be. Do not forget why the C-300 and C-400 are there. They specifically protect our bases and do not allow heavy American aircraft to impudent in the airspace of Syria. Spending ammunition on flying tomahawks does not make any sense. This is a target for small-radius air defense ... do not shoot from the cannon at sparrows ...
      And with the air defense cap there everything has been covered since 2013. And even the "old women" of the Soviet era integrated ...
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I April 28 2018 14: 05
        +4
        Quote: macgyver
        And with the air defense cap there everything has been covered since 2013 of the year. And even the "old women" of the Soviet era integrated ..

        It would be nice! But there are some difficulties! And the “food” for entogo is the rather low efficiency of Syrian air defense in the past years ... negative
        Quote: macgyver
        They didn’t shoot, because they did not know how many more waves of attack there would be.

        And what about the “wave” air defense task or the “entrusted” objects to defend? what Maybe there will be no reason to consider if during the first (and last ...) “wave” the objects are destroyed? request
        In the end, and your conclusions can be interpreted in favor of my statement .... That is: Do not "shoot"; they “considered” that the launched number of missiles does not exceed the capabilities of the Syrian air defense, and the information about this, the corresponding target designation through the channels of the “unified control system” were transmitted to the Syrians! wink
        1. macgyver
          macgyver April 29 2018 15: 32
          +2
          ..low effectiveness of Syrian air defense over the years ...

          Wow low efficiency, 70% shot down missiles with such a small ammunition load.
          Moreover, "smart tomahawks" and other "stealth" is a rather difficult target for air defense.

          And what about the “wave” air defense task or the “entrusted” objects to defend?

          The task of the Russian air defense in Syria is to guard our bases. Everything else is secondary ...
          Do not underestimate the capabilities of our troops, all the same, there are more political constraints than technical ones. If they wanted to shoot down the Americans, the British, or the Jews who launched rockets in Syria, they would have shot down. They do not want to escalate the conflict, they are mainly shot down by "impudent" UAVs. The supply of S-300 to the Syrians will untie our hands.

          There is another factor why ours didn’t shoot - it’s PR. The massive attack of the three militarily leading Western powers, using their most advanced missiles, was repelled not by today's high-tech Russia, but practically destroyed by the war over the long years by the Syrian army, which used the development of the USSR 40 years ago.

          Yes, just for the sake of such an American shame, it would be worth repeating all this a couple more times! )))
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I April 29 2018 16: 10
            +2
            Quote: macgyver
            Wow low efficiency, 70% missiles shot down with such a small ammunition load

            Quote: macgyver
            .. low efficiency of Syrian air defense in the past years.
            , not an assessment of the events of 2018 of the year! fool

            Quote: macgyver
            The task of the Russian air defense in Syria is to guard our bases. Everything else is secondary ...

            Fir-trees! What am I? Forced "Russian air defense" bullet in the American KR? belay
            If only they read the comments more carefully! Especially, the primary one! am
            1. macgyver
              macgyver April 29 2018 16: 33
              0
              not an assessment of the events of 2018! ...

              So past tomahawks ... what did you send. Last week, We have already eaten a long time. And we wait, we won’t wait, When will you send again. For our dinner. A dozen ... also mysteriously did not fly.
              The Americans who pretended to be bombed by ISIS excavators, of course, did not touch. What does air defense have to do with it? They always acted stealthily, and type missed.
              Fir-trees! What am I? Forced "Russian air defense" bullet in the American KR?

              Well, you wonder why you didn’t “bullet”? The answers are obvious.
              1. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I April 30 2018 01: 04
                +2
                Well, oh well ... that there was something ... "Don’t knock out a wedge under an oat pancake ... fry it, it will fall down ..." We'll wait and see: what will happen and what happened .... wink
  22. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek April 28 2018 11: 16
    +2
    C300 / 400 in Kyrgyzstan did not shoot in Syria. At best, they shared radar data ...
    1. askort154
      askort154 April 28 2018 12: 14
      0
      Zaurbek.... C300 / 400 in Kyrgyzstan did not shoot in Syria. At best, they shared radar data ..

      Naturally. Ours help create modern air defense in Syria, pulling it out of the sample of the 70s. Training takes place not at training grounds, but in a real war. We teach them, and learn for ourselves. But we do not have a protection agreement
      throughout Syria. We can tell you without using our funds openly. Two unexploded American missiles (super smart), suggestive. Either this is a large percentage of the defect (these are new missiles, “smart” with B-1), or our electronic warheads “did not detonate” them. Americans admit it -
      a terrible undermining of credibility in the international arms market. This is a great reason for "trading." Ours do not show them publicly, in return for any concessions. It has always been something that is not reported to the public. Ours and in Soviet times, a lot of "squeezed" from the United States for the downed U-2. hi
  23. _Jack_
    _Jack_ April 28 2018 11: 45
    +4
    For those who doubt the ability to intercept the Stealth with the help of our air defense. S-300, 400 regularly in the exercises successfully intercept the boar target missile. Why is Boar not Stealth by EPR? EPR in the see range 0,02-0,06 m2.


    It’s not that we don’t give a damn about your stealth, it’s certainly more difficult to detect and shoot down such an aircraft than the 4th generation with a few meters EPR, but it will not be able to fly with impunity at any height of the F-35 in the S-400 area , still have to snuggle up to the ground and hide behind the relief.
    The old S-125, by the way, didn’t cope badly with the boar
    1. Micfoster
      Micfoster April 28 2018 12: 09
      +3
      What has been demonstrated in Yugoslavia! If the S-125 hits stealth, then the new systems are clearly no worse, just by logic. AND! Well, for sure! Where is the logic and where are the Americans with their singers!
  24. nikoliski
    nikoliski April 28 2018 12: 03
    +2
    In general, if there were a nuclear war, Khmeinin would be razed to the ground (along with the S-400 and everything else) with just one Trident missile warhead fired from somewhere in the southern part of the Atlantic Ocean (where our over-the-horizon radars do not take) so consider S-400 in terms of local conflict, this is one thing, and in terms of the “big war”, it’s completely different and I will tell all hooray patriots that I’ll say only one thing - if the S-400 is so invincible and invulnerable, while we will fight with China and Turkey, to which these systems were sold ?
    1. _Jack_
      _Jack_ April 28 2018 12: 23
      +2
      Firstly, what fright are you going to fight with China and Turkey? Secondly, I’ll tell you a terrible secret - there is no reception against scrap, with a mass attack of nuclear ICBMs, no missile defense systems will save at the moment, everyone will be guaranteed kirdyk. And it makes little sense to consider the S-400 “in terms of a big war” - they are completely useless against ICBMs, these are basically air defense systems and not missile defense.
    2. askort154
      askort154 April 28 2018 12: 27
      +5
      nikoliski ...in general, if there was a nuclear war, Khmeinin would be razed to the ground (along with the S-400 and everything else) with just one Trident missile warhead launched from somewhere in the southern part of the Atlantic Ocean (our over-the-horizon radars are not there)

      Young troll! tongue This site is not for you to "master" hi
    3. Soho
      Soho April 28 2018 13: 08
      0
      better explain what nonsense you smoke negative A trident from the South Atlantic over Hmeimim ... war with China .... tin belay
    4. nPuBaTuP
      nPuBaTuP April 28 2018 14: 35
      0
      Quote: nikoliski
      if the S-400 is so invincible and invulnerable, then how are we going to fight China and Turkey, to which these systems were sold?

      But strangely enough, this system can’t shoot at Russian planes .... from the word AT ALL ...
  25. macgyver
    macgyver April 28 2018 12: 32
    0
    The hulking F-35 hardly has a chance to get away from the S-300 missiles. Well, all the calculations for the invisibility of an elephant in the sky, from radars that see a bullet, are commercial advertising.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 28 2018 14: 14
      +5
      The maneuverability of the F-35 is about the same as that of the F-16. If you do missile defense maneuvers on time and not yawn, you can be saved. Of course, 2-3 missiles are launched at intervals, based on the anti-ballistic maneuver of the target. But all this is good if the radar of the complex sees the target and can accompany its missiles to it. But this is the difficulty in the case of stealth ...
      1. _Jack_
        _Jack_ April 28 2018 14: 46
        +1
        Most manufacturers of modern radar afar state that their radars (for example, sea radars) without any problems capture a target from an golf ball at a distance of 80-100 km.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh April 28 2018 19: 21
          +2
          This was stated only by the British, speaking of the radars of their new destroyers. But they have no missile systems for their radars.
          Patriot radars (a fairly powerful AFAR) at the US air defense exercises flying F-35 simply did not notice. I had to equip the F-35 with lenses to continue the exercises.
          1. _Jack_
            _Jack_ April 28 2018 21: 07
            +2
            That the F-35, that the patriot radars (AN / MPQ-65) are made by the same Lockheed Martin corporation, it is not surprising that when it came time to sell the F-35, Patriot did not see him point-blank, which, by the way, trumpeted the whole world, as if by chance advertised. Americans are good at it, in marketing they are exactly ahead of the rest. I won’t be surprised if export Patriots don’t really see the F-35, and they see their own when necessary.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh April 29 2018 09: 59
              +2
              The teachings were inside the USA. Checked the local air defense.
              The result was a surprise for air defense.
              Just today there are no radars,
              allowing to accompany missiles to stealth aircraft.
              Meter radar can see "something" and pass on
              air defense systems, but that’s all.
              1. _Jack_
                _Jack_ April 29 2018 11: 47
                +3
                to date, there are no radars to accompany missiles to stealth aircraft
                on the basis of what is such a categorical conclusion made?
              2. _Jack_
                _Jack_ April 29 2018 12: 07
                +1
                BAE Systems claimed that their SAMPSON is capable of detecting a pigeon (EPR 0,008 m²) at a distance of 105 km - practically and not theoretically. What is BAE Systems ahead of the rest in radar engineering? Do they have the latest technology inaccessible to other manufacturers of AFAR? As far as I know, no, and this radar of the 80s of the last century. I think AFARs of other manufacturers with similar characteristics will show the same results, but now they are the best. A target with an EPR of 0,008 m² per 105 km is not enough to capture stealth? I doubt it very much.
                1. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh April 29 2018 14: 55
                  +1
                  As far as I know, software simply cuts off such
                  small objects before they hit the radar screen - otherwise
                  there will be continuous interference. And shooting ZURami at the pigeons.
                  1. _Jack_
                    _Jack_ April 29 2018 19: 26
                    0
                    That's right, it was basically not necessary to capture targets with such a small EPR before, if now such a task appeared, software isn’t a problem to solve, of course it’s not so simple if the goal is almost at the noise level, but about 40 years have passed since then, I doubt that the problem remains in the same place, and given that stealth will become truly massive (as the 4th generation is now) in 10-15 years, I think the air defense will be tightened in the coming years. In principle, I agree that at the moment stealth for air defense is a very big problem, but given the potential of Afar of the last century, this situation is unlikely to last long, the cancer on the mountain has already whistled, I think the development of effective ways to fight stealth is in emergency mode
                    1. voyaka uh
                      voyaka uh April 29 2018 23: 44
                      +1
                      The Israeli military also believes that after about 10 years, missile defense will learn how to deal with stealth. But stealth technologies do not stand still, and the means of suppressing and deceiving air defense are becoming more sophisticated. If anti-aircraft gunners see several dozens of objects on radars at once, with an EPR the size of a tennis ball, but only one of them will be F-35, then the officers will have to make a difficult decision: shoot all missiles at all targets or it’s better to get everyone on jeeps and dump them. smile
                      1. _Jack_
                        _Jack_ April 30 2018 22: 11
                        0
                        At the moment it is, it’s like false targets for ICBM warheads, but even now there are already working options for filtering targets for sifting false ones. For stealth, they try to combine radars of different wavelengths - on the meter range radar all really small targets will not be visible, and if images from radars of different wavelengths overlap, many false targets can be filtered out, and those targets that coincide in different ranges should be considered correct. But this, of course, crutches from hopelessness - the meter range radars are very bulky and inconvenient to use.
                  2. Yarhann
                    Yarhann April 30 2018 23: 45
                    0
                    dear man, do not write nonsense about modern air defense systems, especially with modern computers that will in no way miss even a small target that has all the characteristics of an aircraft, that is, transonic or more flight speed, constancy of the trajectory, etc., etc. The interference has nothing to do with the signal reflected from the aircraft. At the same time, a modern PTA already at the hardware level emits a useful signal against a background of noise that exceeds it hundreds of times. I'm not talking about an integrated radar system when several complexes from different directions scan space sectors - and receive the very same interference that has aircraft characteristics - with this use no stealth will help.
                    The only option for a more or less guaranteed overcoming of air defense today is to fly at a very low altitude along highways or a river or other water surface. BUT in this case, there is a chance of running into military air defense systems operating in the optical and thermal ranges - which are invisible to stealth aircraft due to the lack of radiation.
              3. macgyver
                macgyver April 29 2018 15: 59
                +2
                The result was a surprise for air defense.

                American air defense generally raises big doubts. In Riyadh thrashing on his own, there is nothing to do.

                It’s just that today there are no radars that allow you to accompany missiles to stealth aircraft.


                Any modern Russian radar (and many older versions), perfectly sees all the "stealth" from the distance declared in its performance characteristics, this is a fact. What is the difficulty of sending missiles there? Moreover, in place at the missile launcher, its own GOS is switched on, which can even be guided without a radar and do not care if it is invisible in front of it or an ordinary bomber. There is practically no chance of a slow F-35 getting away from a rocket, unless of course it accelerates above 3000 km / h. Just try to fool a rocket. But judging by the "Abrams" burning all over the world, the Americans are all bad here ...
              4. Soho
                Soho 3 May 2018 08: 39
                0
                voyaka uh (Alexey)
                Just today there are no radars,
                allowing to accompany missiles to stealth aircraft.

                from whom, from whom, and from you, uv. Warrior, I did not expect such stupidity. First you recall the physics of the process.
      2. macgyver
        macgyver April 29 2018 15: 37
        +1
        There are no difficulties in finding small winged "stealth" missiles. Do you think a 25-ton bomber can be hidden? Amazed by your optimism!
      3. Yarhann
        Yarhann April 30 2018 23: 34
        -1
        what the fuck is this fucking radar accompanying the target - this is an air defense system with a radio command guidance system - this is the last century. All modern SAM systems use missiles with GOS or AGSN. In long-range missiles, a complex with 300-s400 AGSN is the default because at a great distance the target can always disappear during the flight of the rocket to the target. All long-range air defense systems use an inertial guidance system + correction if the target is aerodynamic and has sharply changed the trajectory, but in any case, when approaching the meeting zone with the target, the side radar will turn on and there will no longer be any stealth - the missile detects the target and destroys it. The only thing that the goal can do is make a turn with the climb to the opposite side of the rocket - for the ZR, the main engine runs a small part at the beginning of the flight - then we fly by inertia - because of this, the speed drops dramatically at the extreme distance and naturally there is a chance when climbing and flying away from the rocket to be saved. With a frontal attack by a missile with an AGSN, the plane simply has no chance, no maneuvers will save anything - incomparable overload capabilities when maneuvering - well, and a large powerful warhead will do its job.
        1. Mimoprohodil
          Mimoprohodil 1 May 2018 09: 45
          0
          Quote: Yarhann
          on the final section, when approaching the meeting zone with the aim, the onboard radar will turn on and there no stealth will help anymore - the rocket detects the target and destroys it
          Why does this stealth not help?
          ARGSN 9B-1103M, target capture range with EPR of 5 m2, km - at least 20
          And if the EPR is 0.1 m2? What will be the capture range then
          1. Yarhann
            Yarhann 4 May 2018 09: 09
            -2
            short distance and very large radiation power of the radar of the GSN ZR. . Stealth does not make the aircraft invisible to radars - it becomes invisible, that is, under all equal conditions, the stealth will be detected at a shorter distance than the aircraft without the use of such technologies. Well, I can also assume that he will not sit at the helm and try to make an anti-aircraft maneuver - you yourself understand that in this case the plane’s ESR will increase significantly. Destruction of an aircraft, even with stealth technology, is not a problem - the problem is its detection. It's like with submarines - destroy them is not a problem - try to find.
          2. E_V_N
            E_V_N 4 May 2018 23: 59
            0
            Quote: Mimoprohodil
            Why does this stealth not help?
            ARGSN 9B-1103M, target capture range with EPR of 5 m2, km - at least 20
            And if the EPR is 0.1 m2? What will be the capture range then

            While the plane just flies, it can be invisible, as soon as it is brought into a combat state, it includes its radars for target detection and targeting, all stealth completely disappears.
            You can, of course, pre-lay the coordinates of the target in the rocket and shoot, but .... it rolls in the case of inactive enemy air defense, and so ... with active air defense ..... use an expensive aircraft as disposable the launcher is extremely wasteful.
            Israel and the coalition therefore shoot from the territories of other countries or from neutral waters, and do not declare war on Syria, declare war and planes will begin to fall like overripe apples.
  26. air wolf
    air wolf April 28 2018 12: 33
    0
    I would recommend, to increase the effectiveness of all S-300s, S-400s, to install an aerostat in the area of ​​their air defense, UAVs, or a tethered AWACS, so that everyone wipes their nose, the price is not comparable to the A-50.
    1. askort154
      askort154 April 28 2018 13: 05
      +1
      air wolf .... I would recommend, in order to increase the effectiveness of all S-300s, S-400s, to install an aerostat in the area of ​​their air defense, UAVs, or a tethered AWACS, if they wiped their nose on everyone, the price is not comparable with the A-50.

      Balloons have already passed the stage. Both we and the USA refused it. (The last option, about five years ago, in the USA "broke", it was searched for a long time). Now it’s becoming fashionable to take out the antenna with the help of a “quadrocopter UAV”. hi
      1. _Jack_
        _Jack_ April 28 2018 14: 49
        +1
        only you can’t raise a serious antenna with a quadcopter - there are different sizes, weights, and windage, but not much of a little, but in certain cases it will certainly help
    2. Yarhann
      Yarhann April 30 2018 23: 55
      -2
      stationary radars have no special value. the future is with mobile electronic intelligence systems through heavy and medium UAVs. In general, with the development of modern radio electronics, more and more radio intelligence equipment will rise from the earth into the air. On earth will be an extremely powerful fire system of self-propelled guns, MLRS, BR, and other missile weapons.
  27. spektr9
    spektr9 April 28 2018 12: 54
    +2
    Quote: konstantin68
    Quote: Snakebyte
    And when the Kyrgyz Republic was intercepted, so "they did not enter our area of ​​responsibility."

    They were waiting for your team to declare war on America! You probably want this?

    Yes, no, they were expecting that, just as with the seizure of ships in Ukraine, awake a deep defense of lvl 80 to cost, and then with serious mines prove that the US strike failed))
    It’s just that all the allies of the Russian Federation understood very well that in the event of which no one was going to defend them, for they were afraid of a nuclear war .. Kazakhstan was already doing feet. In Armenia, a new coup to which the Russian Federation also does not respond
    1. Soho
      Soho April 28 2018 13: 12
      0
      It’s just that all the allies of the Russian Federation understood very well that in the event of which no one was going to defend them, for they were afraid of a nuclear war .. Kazakhstan was already doing feet. In Armenia, a new coup to which the Russian Federation also does not respond

      Lord, again, everything was gone ... "putinsil" ... until! laughing
      1. spektr9
        spektr9 April 28 2018 13: 14
        +1
        You know better until he merges everything, you’re his fan, not me winked
        1. Soho
          Soho April 28 2018 13: 19
          +1
          Well, judging by the statement, you are a fan of funds falling under the control of the Federal Drug Control Service winked . se la vie
          1. spektr9
            spektr9 April 28 2018 13: 25
            0
            Yes, yes I see against the facts you only have FSKN with its reserves, good luck to you yes
            1. Soho
              Soho April 28 2018 13: 27
              +1
              facts? indicate at least one fact in a bunch of stupidity that you naively consider your mature inference))
              1. spektr9
                spektr9 April 28 2018 13: 32
                0
                Really?)) So you freed the ship in Ukraine? Defended Syria with their air defense, Have troops been introduced to support the government in Armenia? ... Mmm, no, so what are you arguing with them, or maybe Kazakhstan does not change the Cyrillic alphabet to the Latin alphabet and fully supports the Russian Federation at the UN? ....
                But yes, all of this you have one FSKN answer)))
                1. nPuBaTuP
                  nPuBaTuP April 28 2018 14: 37
                  +4
                  Quote: spektr9
                  Have troops been introduced to support the government in Armenia?

                  Well, how can I not mention FSKN after this?
                  1. spektr9
                    spektr9 April 28 2018 15: 14
                    0
                    And you try not to use, and you won’t have to mention winked
                2. _Jack_
                  _Jack_ April 28 2018 15: 00
                  +1
                  So you freed the ship in Ukraine?
                  propose starting a war against the outskirts to free the ship? so perhaps this is achieved by these provocations, and the trolls, like you, are pushing everyone, like “how long we will endure bros”, etc., etc., would you go from here to the forest, then these cheap tricks do not channel
                  1. spektr9
                    spektr9 April 28 2018 15: 11
                    0
                    Why should I offer something? Do not stick your head out of the sand ...

                    PS By the way, when a nuclear mine is shunned, we will not answer either, in the name of saving the planet laughing
                    1. _Jack_
                      _Jack_ April 28 2018 15: 41
                      +1
                      in vain you strain, there are a lot of trolls like you already, they don’t find fertile soil here, they don’t take root, work out salaries on other sites
                      1. spektr9
                        spektr9 April 28 2018 15: 49
                        +1
                        Well, you get the RFP rather, trying to say that the Russian Federation does not need to defend its geopolitical interests, and all the moves of the West are “provocations” to which in no case can be answered otherwise a nuclear war immediately !!! Need to endure and hope ...

                        So, Mr. Liberal, you failed .. I advise you to change the threshold or immediately run to Navalny
                  2. Snakebyte
                    Snakebyte April 28 2018 15: 54
                    +1
                    Quote: _Jack_
                    propose starting a war against the outskirts to free the ship?

                    Passed already. "Do not succumb to provocations," "appease the aggressor."
                    Choosing between shame and war they chose shame, but got a war.
                3. Soho
                  Soho 10 May 2018 06: 13
                  0
                  Really?)) So you freed the ship in Ukraine? Defended Syria with their air defense, Have troops been introduced to support the government in Armenia? ... Mmm, no, so what are you arguing with them, or maybe Kazakhstan does not change the Cyrillic alphabet to the Latin alphabet and fully supports the Russian Federation at the UN? ....

                  yeah ... how old are you then? ... such a stupid thing to write is excusable only to a primary school student. Or marginalized citizens of the same level of development.
  28. Maksim prikolof
    Maksim prikolof April 28 2018 12: 56
    +2
    ........ Although the Russian side has not done anything, it is directly connected with the existing systems in Syria ................
    = Schizophrenic disorders generally differ in characteristic fundamental disorders of thinking and perception, as well as inadequate or reduced affect. The most common manifestations of the disease are auditory hallucinations, paranoid or fantastic delusions, or disorganization of speech and thinking against the background of significant social dysfunction.
  29. Operator
    Operator April 28 2018 13: 00
    +2
    "According to updated data from the Russian military, Syria was able to shoot down 46 enemy missiles from 105 launched," no need to lie, 46 KR was shot down only on approach to targets in the Damascus area.

    And even before writing an article, it is useful to study arithmetic at least at the level of the central vocational school:
    105 launched - 46 shot down - 22 flew = 37 got lost? bully
  30. turbris
    turbris April 28 2018 13: 01
    0
    These are their problems, even if they are considered dummies, but then why does the coalition aviation not fly in air defense zones? Everyone really wants a real combat use of the S-400 in Syria, it’s completely not interesting for us to disclose the parameters of the RES of the complex ahead of time, when you need to, then you will encounter "dummies", only hardly anyone will return. All of Israel’s statements about the S-300 are from helplessness, because in order to destroy the complex, you still have to fly to it, and these positions are covered by the "Shell", and soon the time will come when it will be unsafe to fly over the Lebanese territory. If “dummies”, then why doesn’t Israel use its “invisible" F-35s?
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 28 2018 14: 08
      +1
      "then why Israel does not use its" invisible "F-35?" ////

      Applies. Since February of this year, F-35s have been participating in combat operations.
      1. turbris
        turbris April 28 2018 20: 11
        0
        Of course it applies, but outside the S-300 zones of defeat, from the territory of Lebanon, and even informing the Russian military.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh April 29 2018 10: 00
          +1
          F-35 operated in the depths of Syria. And even flew to Iran.
          1. turbris
            turbris April 29 2018 11: 05
            +2
            These tales are for personal consumption in Israel, there is no evidence of this. The F-35 is perfectly detectable by a meter range radar, they are in Syria and everyone knows about it, so the span would be unambiguously recorded.
  31. Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill April 28 2018 13: 27
    +3
    C-300 and C-400: real F-35 killers or overpriced dummies?

    Neither one nor the other.
    C-300 / 400 are simply overvalued SAMs, I would even say idealized, which is not gud.
    Any air defense missile system can be suppressed, the only question is in the funds that have to be spent.
    If simple, then there is no such protection that could not be overcome.
    1. _Jack_
      _Jack_ April 28 2018 14: 53
      +1
      Yes, who would doubt it, but in their class they are one of the best in the world, and in terms of efficiency / cost ratio, they are clearly the best, otherwise the line of buyers would not be built on them, and buyers are capricious, anyway
    2. SETTGF
      SETTGF April 29 2018 18: 05
      0
      Tales and no more ... For a long time the S-400 will have to crush! At such a distance, the production aircraft will lose interference, and anti-radar missiles are only used at a distance of no more than 50 km ...
    3. Conserp
      Conserp April 29 2018 20: 36
      0
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      S-300/400 simply overrated air defense systems

      Such powerful statements must be substantiated.

      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      Any air defense system can be suppressed, the only question is the funds that will have to be spent. If simple, then there is no such protection that could not be overcome.

      So what? Truisms and verbiage.
      1. Shahno
        Shahno April 29 2018 20: 49
        +1
        Well, what can I say to this ... You can live in the 20 century .... And now, well, I'm sorry electronic war (digital information). And how strong is your complex from the 20 century in this war. Or maybe Russia has become a leader in IT and electronics ...? You simply can’t understand in any way, no one will fight with you according to your rules, in accordance with your level of technology ....
        1. stalkerwalker
          stalkerwalker April 29 2018 20: 55
          +2
          It’s hard for us, backward cabbage soup, to slurp soup ... This is not matzo.
          1. Shahno
            Shahno April 29 2018 21: 03
            0
            Well, really. Do not be discouraged. You work hard. And I think ..... The only right political solution for both sides is now. Well, certainly provoke us now, it's beyond .....
            1. stalkerwalker
              stalkerwalker April 29 2018 21: 06
              +1
              Quote: Shahno
              Well, certainly provoke us now, it's beyond.

              Yes, no one provokes. There is an exchange of views between the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and the IDF. And to troll - well, not only you do this.
              There will be a contract. Though unspoken. There was also not enough Israel to put on one side with the broads.
  32. vadivm59
    vadivm59 April 28 2018 13: 41
    +4
    everyone writes that 2 whole missiles were brought to Russia. and they show scrap. where are the products? that would be bad for the west. and so everything is la-la-la-la. there is no talk about anything.
  33. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 28 2018 14: 06
    +1
    S-300 is effective against 4th generation aircraft. High-altitude missile defense capabilities have been added to the S-400.
    1. SETTGF
      SETTGF April 29 2018 17: 58
      +1
      voyaka uh! It's ugly to write nonsense! The S-300 easily knocks down 5th generation aircraft, the detection distance depends on the image intensifier tube (EPR) ...
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh April 29 2018 23: 51
        +1
        The S-300 has never shot down anyone. smile Even a corncob. Zero combat experience.
        This does not mean that it cannot, of course. I wrote about this.
  34. Gust
    Gust April 28 2018 14: 38
    +2
    Any air defense can be hacked. The S-400 is a cool system, but ... If you use the F-35 squadron with jammers and false targets, they will demolish the entire air defense and air defense systems, including, and the second squadron will take out the C 400 division while they reload. If the same 2 F-35 squadrons try to break into the regiment's layered defense, the regiment will take them out in two. Well, in short, the logic is clear ...
    1. turbris
      turbris April 28 2018 20: 17
      0
      Any air defense system can be destroyed and hammered by obstacles, but dealing with deeply echeloned air defense is much more complicated and then if it is not single attacks, but open aggression, then all types of troops are involved in repelling the strike and therefore aviation can be destroyed at airfields.
    2. Conserp
      Conserp April 29 2018 20: 34
      0
      Quote: Rafale
      If you use the F-35 squadron with jammers and false targets, then they will demolish the entire air defense and air defense cover, including, and the second squadron will take out the C 400 division while they reload.

      Gee, son, lol.

      But do the S-400s themselves already have no false targets and interference detectors?
      No RTR and long-wave radars that provide reliable selection of real targets?
      No means to intercept TSA?

      Kindergarten, pants on the straps.
  35. Ivan Tucha
    Ivan Tucha April 28 2018 14: 40
    +1
    The journalist voiced quite logical questions. And sensible people understood the catch.
    Again, over the past 20+ years - only our air defense (albeit old, in different countries, with varying degrees of preparation of calculations) and "worked" in real combat. But their systems, capabilities, as I understand it, are still mostly on paper.
  36. Tomato
    Tomato April 28 2018 15: 09
    +2
    The eternal argument. And only real combat use can give an answer. And that is not always the case, the only case of both a plane defeat and a miss cannot guarantee an undisputed conclusion.
  37. Kantemir shardanov
    Kantemir shardanov April 28 2018 15: 30
    0
    Good day to all! I read the article and the comments on it! I have a couple of questions: if the S-3OO and S-400 Triumph are “ineffective” in the opinion of US and NATO military analysts, why is there a massive hysteria in the US military-industrial complex regarding purchases by Turkey S-400 complexes? In Kaliningrad there are several S-400 divisions and for some reason NATO DOES NOT WANT to check their effectiveness! And the second question, who benefits from this?
    1. Gene Concrete
      Gene Concrete April 28 2018 17: 46
      +1
      1) Because Turkey is a member of NATO, the purchase of the S-400 contradicts the network-centric concept of the development of the bloc.
      2) Lost profits of the American defense industry
      3) Strengthening Russian-Turkish cooperation, for the United States this is a risk of losing a key ally in the region.
      4) The Kaliningrad s-400/500/100500 West, and Americans in particular, are not very worried; only Soviet nuclear warheads left by the Russian Federation by inheritance keep them from active operations.
      1. turbris
        turbris April 28 2018 20: 20
        +2
        Everything is very simple, the Turks have ceased to trust the hegemon and are afraid of attacks on their territory, in which case the NATO air defense systems will be blocked, and the S-400 will work.
        1. Gene Concrete
          Gene Concrete April 28 2018 20: 36
          0
          A direct war between Turkey and the West is a priori impossible, the Americans will never take risks where there is even the slightest chance to grab an otter in the mouth, and the Turkish army is far from being whipping boys even without air defense systems.
  38. Wolka
    Wolka April 28 2018 16: 57
    0
    conclusion, soon the war game will become too much for many, even those who will not be at all nearby ...
  39. russianbush
    russianbush April 28 2018 17: 35
    +1
    The best confirmation of the effectiveness of the strike is the images of those three objects that were bombed. If all the missiles (according to America) have reached the goal, the question arises: are such missiles needed, when 30 pieces hit the object, there are destruction that could well create a pair missiles. If less than 30 hits, say 3-4, then the question is, where are the other missiles, after all, nobody could shoot them down? Just publish pictures from space, from the earth, eyewitnesses, Google maps in the end of those objects that the Americans designated as the target .... before and after the blow. Let Ankara think about whether it is necessary to throw millions of dollars on tomahawks that are damaging comparable to infantry grenade.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 28 2018 19: 30
      +2
      Photos er. intelligence satellite "before" and "after" were published.
  40. klm-57
    klm-57 April 28 2018 17: 50
    0
    The question poses a muffled irritation.
    1. turbris
      turbris April 28 2018 20: 22
      0
      I agree with you, the question in the title of the article was made absolutely stupid, not professional, based on a sensation. Therefore, there is nothing to discuss here.
  41. Yak28
    Yak28 April 28 2018 19: 40
    0
    S-300 and S-400: F-35 real killers or overvalued dummies? And this can only be shown by a real battle, they insist that our weapons have no analogues, in the USA they say that they have the best, the truth can only be learned in practice wink
  42. NordUral
    NordUral April 28 2018 19: 42
    0
    The Yankees would know how I would like them to finally check on their own skin the real, and not the declared effectiveness of our missile defense. Although the Vietnamese experience shows that everything is not at all the way they paint. I think that by looking at the video from Damascus, at least half was shot down. But it would be better to have more explicit evidence in the form of downed stealth and missiles by our guys. The people will sleep calmer. And we ourselves remain alive in Syria, and the impudent Anglo-Saxons point out the behavior inappropriate decent people.
  43. dDYHA
    dDYHA April 28 2018 21: 31
    0
    Boltology. Good is the air defense system or so-so knows a very narrow circle. So we all and even journalists who don’t even know what kind of cowards they themselves can now tell.
  44. kig
    kig April 29 2018 01: 52
    0
    Firstly, already tired of these blah blah. Judge for yourselves, the blow was inflicted on targets that were protected by some kind of but air defense, while the air defense itself was not previously touched. What is it, such combat manuals in partners? But doesn’t it seem to you that all this was deliberate, to test Syrian (read Russian) capabilities?

    Secondly, something mysterious numbers give us something again. It launched 105, shot down 46. 105-46 = 59, and reached the goal of 22. What happened to the rest 59-22 = 37? They were rejected by interference, they fell themselves, they did not fly out of the launchers at all, they were put in and taken to Moscow?
  45. Alex NEWS
    Alex NEWS April 29 2018 09: 24
    0
    I believe there would be dummies, then Israel and the United States would have long plowed Syria. And they flew over Damascus, bombing at will.
  46. Alecsandr
    Alecsandr April 29 2018 10: 09
    0
    During the service in 1976 we called anti-aircraft gunners "fly swatter"
  47. Monarchist
    Monarchist April 29 2018 11: 10
    0
    S300 and S400 really have NOT WORKED and PRAISED TO THE ALMOST, and all the statements of amers remind ....
    Syrian air defense systems are of course already outdated and there are few technical specialists for them anyway, they still work.
    Stealth "technologies are also doubtful: do you remember the" invisibility "squandered in Yugoslavia? And this at least testifies that the" invisible "is still at least a little visible
  48. Mikhail Anokhin_2
    Mikhail Anokhin_2 April 29 2018 13: 17
    0
    Why crush water in a mortar?
    Need to try.
  49. Outsider
    Outsider April 29 2018 14: 00
    +2
    Quote: kventinasd
    And it will not be a disappointment for you when your planes, in the event of a mess, at the sight of the Syrian C300, do not even dare take off from airfields?

    “How stupid these ram sheep are, forever and endlessly forgetting that the Earth is round!” And that there is such garbage as a radio horizon. And neither the Syrian S-300, nor the Russian S-400, which really cover the entire territory of Israel at very high altitudesbut (attention!) the range of the radio horizon (line of sight) is calculated by the formula D = 110√H, where H is the height in kilometers. A plus closing angles due to hills, mountains, etc.
    Therefore, Israeli planes at all Israeli airfields will calmly take off and land, and quietly destroy those vigorous who will try to threaten Israeli planes at home - then all Syrian air defense systems will just get an Ambassador, a tryndets, which there are still euphemisms for the white polar fur beast? laughing
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 29 2018 14: 17
      0
      why then were the S-200s so afraid? were the hills lower?
    2. SETTGF
      SETTGF April 29 2018 20: 10
      0
      Outsider! Do not write nonsense, Israeli infant couch strategist! Silenok Israel is not enough to destroy the Syrian anti-aircraft systems S-300! This was shown by the latest battles using the not-new S-200! Only you can shoot from the territory of a foreign country of Lebanon, warriors ...!
  50. Outsider
    Outsider April 29 2018 14: 04
    +4
    Quote: Monarchist
    S300 and S400 really have NOT WORKED and PRAISED TO THE ALMOST, and all the statements of amers remind ....
    Syrian air defense systems are of course already outdated and there are few technical specialists for them anyway, they still work.
    Stealth "technologies are also doubtful: do you remember the" invisibility "squandered in Yugoslavia? And this at least testifies that the" invisible "is still at least a little visible

    - Normal people call them not “invisibles”, but inconspicuous, secretive (stealth) planes. As for Yugoslavia - they shot down 1 (one), but for 78 days, exactly the same F-117 aircraft completed in total ~ 850 sorties!
    Compare with the results of the five-day Russian-Georgian war: how many flights did the Su-24M and Tu-22M3 fly there ?!
    1. SETTGF
      SETTGF April 29 2018 18: 20
      0
      Outsider! In Yugoslavia there were no S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft systems, otherwise the result was different! And your “vaunted ones” would not even have taken off from fear, couch strategist! Your stealth aircraft F-22, F-35, and even more so
      B-2 ... it's good to see on the radar the detection of our S-300 and S-400 systems!
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh April 29 2018 23: 58
        +1
        "good to see on the radar detection of our complexes S-300 and S-400" ////

        This is if the listed aircraft fly at an altitude of 10 km directly above the complex.
        Then to these Khan planes .... sad
        1. SETTGF
          SETTGF April 30 2018 02: 51
          +1
          voyaka uh! You have knowledge on radar at the “baseboard” level ... you need to fly another 400 km to the funnel, and this is a problem for Israeli aircraft and not only ... S-400 target detection height (40N6 missile) from 5m to 185-250 Km! Read the speech of American generals in the US Congress!
    2. Mihail28
      Mihail28 April 30 2018 09: 56
      0
      And you compare the duration of these wars. In how many days did Russia solve the problem of the Georgian army, and how many days did NATO hammered Yugoslavia into democracy?
      Now compare the total losses of NATO and the Russian army.