Vietnam Air Defense System (part of 1)

66 925 81
Vietnam Air Defense System (part of 1)


The air force and air defense forces of the Vietnamese People’s Army were officially formed on 1 on May 1959. However, the actual formation of anti-aircraft units began at the end of the 40-ies during the anti-colonial uprising, which soon turned into a full-scale national liberation war.



Vietnamese guerrilla groups conducted successful offensive operations on the ground, but their actions were severely constrained by the French aviation. At first, the Vietnamese detachments did not have specialized anti-aircraft weapons, and the Vietnamese could only counter fire from small arms weapons and the art of camouflage in the jungle. In order to avoid losses from air raids, the Vietnamese guerrillas often attacked strongholds occupied by French troops at night, very good results were obtained by ambushes in the jungle, arranged on the supply routes of the French garrisons. As a result, the French were forced to use transport aircraft to supply and transport troops and spend considerable forces on the protection and defense of air bases.

In 1948, the French command tried to turn the tide in Indochina in their favor. In order to encircle the partisans, capture or physically eliminate the leadership of the Viet Minh, several large airborne assault forces were landed. The actions of the paratroopers were supported by Spitfire Mk.IX fighters and SBD-5 Dauntless carrier-based dive bombers operating from the Arromanches aircraft carrier and ground airfields. During the operation, which took place from November 29, 1948 to January 4, 1949, the Dontlesses made as many bombing sorties as the entire aviation of the Expeditionary Force for the entire 1948 year. However, despite the involvement of large forces and significant costs, the operation did not achieve its goal, and the partisan detachments avoided encirclement, evading a direct collision with paratroopers and disappeared into the jungle. At the same time, the pilots of the Dontless and Spitfires noted the increased intensity of anti-aircraft resistance. Now, in addition to small arms, 25-mm Type 96 anti-aircraft guns, inherited from the Japanese army and captured from the French, 12,7-mm Browning M2 machine guns and 40-mm Bofors L / 60 anti-aircraft guns fired at the aircraft. Although the accuracy of the fire was low due to the lack of experience of the Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners, French aircraft regularly returned from sorties with holes. In total, by the end of 1949, the partisans shot down three and damaged more than two dozen aircraft. Several aircraft, which received combat damage, crashed while landing.

I must say that the French aviation group was quite motley. In addition to Spitfire Mk.IX and SBD-5 Dauntless, captured Japanese Ki-21, Ki-46, Ki-51 and Ki-54 were involved in bombing and assault strikes on rebel positions. Former German J-52 and C-47 Skytrain transports received from the Americans were used as bombers. In the second half of 1949, worn-out Japanese and British-made aircraft were replaced by American P-63C Kingkobra fighters. Due to the presence of a 37-mm cannon on board, four heavy machine guns and the ability to carry a bomb load of 454 kg, the P-63S were capable of delivering powerful bombing and assault strikes. However, the partisans also did not sit idly by, in 1949, after Mao Zedong came to power in China, the Vietnamese communists began to receive military assistance. In addition to light small arms and mortars, 12,7 mm DShK anti-aircraft machine guns and 37 mm 61-K anti-aircraft guns appeared at their disposal. Already in January 1950, near the border with China, the first Kingcobra was shot down by dense fire from 37-mm anti-aircraft guns. As the partisans gained experience, the effectiveness of anti-aircraft fire from small arms also increased. In small detachments, where there were no specialized anti-aircraft guns, heavy and light machine guns were used to repel air raids, and they also practiced concentrated volley fire at one aircraft. Often this led to the fact that the French pilots, having fallen under heavy fire, preferred not to risk it and got rid of the combat load by dropping it from a great height.



The small arms of the partisans were the most diverse. At first, the Viet Minh detachments were armed mainly with rifles and machine guns of Japanese and French production. After the establishment of diplomatic relations in January 1950, the Soviet Union began to provide military assistance to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. At the same time, in the 50s, the Vietnamese were given a significant amount of German small arms captured by Soviet troops as trophies during the Great Patriotic War. Cartridges for rifles and machine guns made in Germany came from the People's Republic of China, where the 7,92 × 57 mm weapon was officially in service.


Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners with MG-34 machine gun


Initially, the French 50-x transferred to the Indochina received from the US carrier-based fighter fighter F6F-5 Hellcat. In general, this machine is well suited for counterinsurgency. In front of the anti-aircraft fire, the pilot was covering a powerful and reliable star-shaped air-cooled motor. And the built-in armament of six large-caliber machine guns made it possible to mow in real jungle in the jungle. The external combat load of up to 908 kg included 227 kg bombs and 127-mm missiles. Also against the partisans in Vietnam acted four dozen twin-engine bomber of American production B-26 Invader. This very successful bomber proved to be a very effective anti-insurgent aircraft. He could carry 1800 kg bombs, and in the front hemisphere there were up to eight 12,7-mm machine guns. Simultaneously with the combat vehicles, the French in the form of military assistance received military transport C-119 Flying Boxcar from the USA. Which were used for dumping tanks with napalm, supplying isolated garrisons and disembarking parachute assault forces. However, after several X-37 and C-47 were shot down by 119-mm anti-aircraft machine guns, the Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners disarmed the pilots of military transport aircraft from flying at an altitude of less than 3000 m.

In the first half of 1951, F8F Bearcat fighters began to take part in airstrikes. Just at that time, Birkaty began to decommission the US Navy and donated them to the French. Deck fighters F8F later series were armed with four 20-mm guns and could carry 908 kg of bombs and NAR.


Suspension 227-kg bombs on the fighter F8F


In the role of "strategic" bombers, the French used six heavy anti-submarine aircraft PB4Y-2 Privateer. This machine, created on the basis of the B-24 Liberator long-range bomber, could carry a bomb load of 5800 kg. Taking into account carrier-based aviation based on French aircraft carriers, more than 300 fighters and bombers operated against the Vietnamese. But, despite the high intensity of air strikes, the French expeditionary contingent failed to turn the tide of hostilities in Indochina.


Anti-submarine aircraft PB4Y-2 French Navy


In the spring of 1953, detachments of Vietnamese communists began to operate in neighboring Laos. In response, the French command decided to cut off the supply lines of the partisans, and not far from the border with Laos, in the area of ​​\u15b\u1954bthe settlement of Dien Bien Phu, they created a large military base with an airfield where six reconnaissance aircraft and six fighters were based. The total number of the garrison was 50 thousand. In March 250, the battle for Dien Bien Phu began, which became the decisive battle in this war. More than 37 12,7-mm anti-aircraft guns and XNUMX-mm machine guns were used for anti-aircraft cover for the advancing Vietnamese troops with a total strength of about XNUMX thousand.


Vietnamese anti-aircraft calculation 12,7-mm DShK machine gun


Simultaneously with the start of the offensive operation, Vietnamese saboteurs destroyed 78 combat and transport aircraft at the Gia Lam and Cat Bi airbases, which significantly worsened the capabilities of the French contingent. Attempts to supply the Dien Bien Phu garrison from the air were thwarted by heavy anti-aircraft fire. After a number of aircraft were shot down and damaged during the landing approach, the cargo was dropped by parachute, but the accuracy of the drop was low and about half of the supplies went to the besiegers. Despite the efforts of the French pilots, they failed to stop the offensive outburst of the Vietnamese. During the siege of Dien Bien Phu, anti-aircraft guns shot down 62 combat and transport aircraft and damaged another 167.


Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners and downed military transport aircraft C-119


7 May 1954, the garrison base Dien Bien Phu capitulated. 10 863 surrendered to the French military and Asians who fought on their side. All equipment that was in Dien Bien Phu, was either destroyed or captured. The grouping of French troops in Indochina suffered serious losses in manpower, equipment and weapons. In addition, the capitulation of a large garrison caused great damage to the prestige and influence of France internationally. The result of the defeat at Dien Bien Phu, which in Vietnam is considered to be its Stalingrad, was the beginning of peace negotiations and the withdrawal of French troops from Indochina. After the official cessation of hostilities, according to the agreement concluded in Geneva, Vietnam was divided into two parts along the 17 parallel, with the Vietnamese People’s Army regrouping to the north and the forces of the French Union to the south. In 1956, free elections and the unification of the country were envisaged. In October 1955, as a result of the proclamation in the southern part of the Republic of Vietnam and the refusal to hold free elections, the implementation of the Geneva Agreements was thwarted.

Understanding that as long as the country was divided into two parts there would be no peace in the region, the DRV leadership used the respite to strengthen its defense capability. In the late 50s, the construction of a centralized system began. Defense North Vietnam. Batteries of 85 and 100 mm anti-aircraft guns with radar guidance and searchlight installations appeared around Hanoi. The total number of 37-100 mm anti-aircraft guns available in the DRV exceeded 1959 units in 1000. Regular units of the Vietnamese army were saturated with Soviet-made equipment and weapons. Taking into account the experience of fighting French aviation, special attention was paid to the skills of firing at air targets with small arms. In the late 50s, several groups of Vietnamese cadets were sent for training in the USSR and the PRC. At the same time, runways, aircraft shelters, repair shops, fuel depots and aviation weapons were being built. In the early 60s, several radar posts equipped with P-12 and P-30 radars were already operating in the DRV. In 1964, two training centers were established in the vicinity of Hanoi, where Soviet specialists trained Vietnamese air defense crews.

The first North Vietnamese combat aircraft on which the air victory was achieved was the piston training T-28 Trojan, which was actively used as a light counter-guerrilla aircraft during the Vietnam War. The twin Troyan developed 460 km / h speed and could carry a combat load up to 908 kg, including heavy machine guns in suspended gondolas.


T-28D


In September 1963, a pilot of the Royal Lao Air Force hijacked a Trojan in the DRV. After the Vietnamese pilots mastered this machine, in January 1964, the T-28 began to be raised to intercept American aircraft that regularly flew over North Vietnam. Of course, the piston Troyan could not keep up with the jet reconnaissance aircraft, but at night the Americans often flew over the RFE in transport aircraft adapted for reconnaissance and special missions. Luck smiled on the Vietnamese on the night of February 16, 1964, the crew of the T-28, having received target designation from a ground-based radar in the area bordering Laos, by the light of the moon discovered and shot a C-123 Provider military transport aircraft in the air.


Military transport aircraft C-123


In February 1964, the first jet fighters appeared in the DRV, a batch of 36 single-seat MiG-17F and two-seat MiG-15UTI trainers arrived in Hanoi from the USSR. All aircraft entered the 921st Fighter Aviation Regiment. By the mid-60s, the MiG-17F was no longer the latest achievement of the Soviet aviation industry, but with proper use, this fighter could pose a serious danger to more modern combat aircraft.


MiG-17 fighters from the 36 of the first batch of aircraft transferred to the Air Force of the DRV


The advantages of the MiG-17F include ease of operation, good maneuverability, simple and reliable design. The fighter’s flight speed was close to the sound barrier, and powerful weapons included one 37 and two 23-mm guns.

Almost simultaneously with the delivery of jet MiGs to North Vietnam, SA-75M Dvina air defense missile systems were sent. This was a simplified export modification of the complex with an anti-aircraft guidance station. missiles, operating in the 10-centimeter range. In the early 60s, the USSR Air Defense Forces already had S-75M Volkhov anti-aircraft missile systems with a guidance station operating in the 6-cm frequency range. However, in the 60s, the Soviet Union, fearing that more advanced SAMs could end up in China, did not supply them to Vietnam. The operation of all modifications of the "seventy-fives" was complicated by the need to fill the missiles with liquid fuel and oxidizer.


Behind the Vietnamese soldier, the anti-aircraft missile B-750В on the CM-90 launcher


Nevertheless, the SA-75M air defense systems were a valuable acquisition for the air defense of the DRV. The range of destruction of air targets reached 34 km, and the maximum reach in height - 25 km. The anti-aircraft missile division had six launchers with B-750V missiles ready for launch, another 18 missiles were to be located on transport-loading vehicles and in storage facilities. During the combat work of the division as part of a regiment or brigade, target designations issued from the command post of the unit were used to search for air targets. In addition, a separate SA-75M zrdn could conduct combat operations independently using the P-12 radar and the PRV-10 radio altimeter attached to it.

At the beginning of the 60-x object and army air defense of North Vietnam was reinforced 57-mm anti-aircraft guns C-60 with radar-guided and 14,5-mm single, twin and quad anti-aircraft machine guns.


Vietnamese calculation with ZPU-2


The ZU-2, ZPU-2 and ZPU-4 fires were particularly destructive for attack aircraft and combat helicopters operating at low altitudes. 14,5-mm machine-gun installations are able to effectively deal with covered armor air targets at a distance of up to 1000-1500 m.



Part of the 14,5-mm twin anti-aircraft guns in the ZPTU-2 modification was installed on the BTR-40A armored personnel carriers. In addition to Soviet equipment, the North Vietnamese army had a number of improvised SPAAGs in the form of former French 40-mm Bofors L / 60 assault rifles mounted on the chassis of GMC trucks. Also widely used were 12,7 mm ZPU mounted on various vehicles.

At this time, the guerrilla movement was gaining strength in South Vietnam. Most of the peasants living in the south of the country were dissatisfied with the policies pursued by President Ngo Dinh Diem, and supported the People's Liberation Front of South Vietnam, whose leaders promised to transfer the land to those who cultivate it. The North Vietnamese communists, not seeing peaceful ways of reunifying the country, made a choice in favor of supporting the South Vietnamese partisans. In mid-1959, supplies of weapons and ammunition began to the south. Military specialists who grew up in these places and ended up in the north after the division of the country also went there. At the first stage, the illegal transfer of people and weapons took place through the demilitarized zone, but after the military successes of the communist rebels in Laos, the delivery began to be carried out through Lao territory. This is how the "Ho Chi Minh Trail" arose, which ran through Laos and further south, entering the territory of Cambodia. In 1960, many rural areas of South Vietnam were under the control of the Viet Cong. Wanting to prevent the expansion of communist influence in Southeast Asia, the Americans intervened in the Vietnamese conflict. The matter was no longer limited to the supply of weapons and financial support, and at the end of 1961, the first two helicopter squadrons were deployed to South Vietnam. However, US aid did not help stop the communist advance. In 1964, the People's Liberation Front of South Vietnam, supported by the DRV, by 1964 controlled over 60% of the country's territory. Against the background of the military successes of the guerrillas and internal political instability in South Vietnam, the Americans began to increase their military presence in Southeast Asia. Already in 1964, there were almost 8 American troops in Indochina.

The official beginning of the armed confrontation between the DRV and the USA is considered to be the clash that occurred between the American destroyer USS Maddox (DD-731), F-8 Crusader fighters called to its aid, and North Vietnamese torpedo boats, which occurred on August 2, 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin. After the radars of the American destroyers allegedly detected the approach of unidentified vessels during a tropical storm on the night of August 4 and opened fire on them, President Lyndon Johnson ordered air strikes on North Vietnamese torpedo boat bases and fuel depots. Anti-aircraft fire returned fire artillery An A-1H Skyraider piston-engine attack aircraft and an A-4C Skyhawk jet were shot down.

After the first bombings, the flywheel of the war began to spin, and American reconnaissance and attack aircraft began to appear regularly in the airspace of the DRV. In response to the activity of South Vietnamese partisans in February 1965, two air raids were carried out as part of Operation Flaming Dart (Russian: Flaming Spear). On March 2, 1965, the United States began regular bombing of North Vietnam - the air operation Rolling Thunder (Rus. Thunder) - the longest bombing campaign by US aircraft since World War II. In response to this, in July 1965, the DRV and the USSR signed an agreement on assistance from the USSR in developing the national economy and strengthening the defense capability of the DRV. After the conclusion of this agreement, military and economic assistance from the Soviet Union increased many times over. China also made a significant contribution to ensuring the defense capability of the DRV during the Vietnam War. By the beginning of 1965, there were 11 regiments in the combat composition of the air defense forces, of which three were attached to radar units. The radar stations were equipped with 18 separate radar companies. The Air Force command had ten active airfields at its disposal.


Aerial view of the parking lot of the North Vietnamese MiG-17F at the Fuk Yen airfield, made by an American reconnaissance aircraft

After the start of massive bombardments, the main burden of countering American aviation fell on anti-aircraft artillery. Due to the small size and lack of experienced pilots, North Vietnamese fighter aircraft could not have a noticeable effect on the course of hostilities. However, flying on not the most modern fighters, the Vietnamese managed to achieve some success. The main tactic of the MiG-17F pilots was the sudden attack of American strike vehicles at low altitude. Due to the numerical superiority of American combat aircraft, the Vietnamese pilots tried to withdraw from the battle after the attack. The main task was not even to knock down the American fighter-bombers, but to make them get rid of the bomb load and thus protect the covered objects from destruction.


Preparation of the North Vietnamese fighter MiG-17F for combat mission


The first air combat of the pilots of the 921st Fighter Wing took place on April 3, 1965, when a pair of MiG-17Fs intercepted two Crusaders. According to Vietnamese data, two F-8s were shot down that day in the Ham Rong area. However, the Americans admit that only one carrier-based fighter was damaged in the dogfight. The next day, four MiG-17Fs attacked a group of eight F-105D Thunderchief fighter-bombers and shot down two Thunderchiefs. After that, the Americans drew the appropriate conclusions and now the strike group was necessarily accompanied by cover fighters, which flew light without a bomb load and carried only air combat missiles. The American pilots of the "air clearing" group, operating in conditions of overwhelming numerical superiority, had good flight training, and not very experienced MiG pilots began to suffer losses. The actions of the Vietnamese fighters were also constrained by the fact that ground-based radar posts, having detected approaching enemy aircraft, notified anti-aircraft gunners and the Air Force command about this, after which, to minimize losses, they most often turned off their stations. Thus, Vietnamese fighters, which did not have airborne radars, were deprived of information about the air situation and, often being detected by Phantom radars, were subjected to a surprise attack. Having received a warning about the presence of enemy aircraft in the air, their own anti-aircraft artillery often fired at the Vietnamese fighters. Shortly after the start of air battles, the Americans deployed EC-121 Warning Star early warning and control aircraft in South Vietnam. Flying radar posts patrolled at a safe distance and could warn American pilots of the appearance of MiGs.


AGM-4 Bullpup F-12C with two missiles


However, the main opponent of the air defense forces in the sky of Vietnam were not the "Phantoms". Approximately 70% of combat missions to bombard facilities located in North Vietnam were performed by F-105 fighter-bombers. These aircraft were the priority targets for the pilots of the MiG-17.


Pilots of the Vietnamese MiG-17F rush to take seats in the cockpit of their aircraft


In order to at least somehow increase the chances of the Vietnamese for timely detection of enemy aircraft and actions in conditions of poor visibility, at the end of 1965, a batch of ten MiG-17PF interceptors was sent to DRV. Visually, this aircraft was distinguished by the influx at the top of the air intake. The dielectric fairing closed the radar sight antenna RP-5 "Emerald", providing automatic tracking of the target at a distance of 2 km.


MiG-17PF


Instead of 37-mm guns, a third gun of the caliber 17-mm was mounted on the MiG-23PF. In addition to the radar sight, the MiG-17PF was distinguished by a number of improvements and was equipped with the Sirena-2 radar warning warning station and the NN-50B navigation indicator. However, by the middle of the 60-x, the RP-5 “Emerald” radar sight did not meet modern requirements and for this reason the MiG-17PF was not widely used in Vietnam.


J-5 in camouflage color, adopted in the air force of the DRV at the beginning of 70-x


As the conflict escalated, the military aid provided to the DRV by the Soviet Union and China increased. The North Vietnamese Air Force, in addition to the Soviet MiG-17F / PF fighters, received Chinese J-5s. The fighters supplied from the PRC were the Chinese version of the MiG-17F. In general, these aircraft had the same flight data as the Soviet prototypes and similar weapons. Simultaneously with the receipt of new fighters at the end of 1965, pilots and technicians who were trained there arrived from the Soviet Union and China.

The Vietnamese carefully studied the tactics of American aviation and analyzed the course of air battles. Purposeful interrogations of downed American pilots were carried out. It soon became clear that the pilots of the Air Force and US Navy fighters were trying to avoid horizontal battles with the more maneuverable MiG-17s, shifting air combat to the vertical. The Americans entered the battle in highly open combat formations. In the event of a fight with a single “flash”, the Americans tried to use numerical superiority, when meeting with several “flashes” they dispersed into pairs, trying to impose a duel situation on the enemy.


Vietnamese MiG-21 various modifications


In addition to the swept-wing fighters, the MiG-21F-13, which had a delta wing, were supplied to Vietnam from the USSR. The nature of the air battles has changed in many ways after the appearance of modern at that time MiG-21F-13 fighters in Vietnam.


MiG-21F-13 frontline fighter


The MiG-21F-13 reached speeds of up to 2125 km/h at altitude and was armed with one built-in 30 mm NR-30 cannon with 30 rounds of ammunition. The armament also included two R-3S short-range air combat missiles with a thermal homing head. The R-3S missile, also known as the K-13, was created on the basis of the American air-to-air missile system AIM-9 Sidewinder and could be used at a range of 0,9-7,6 km. However, the effectiveness of the use of missile weapons was reduced by the fact that on the first mass modification of the MiG-21, the radar was not included in the avionics. And the aiming of weapons at the target was carried out with the help of an optical sight and a radio range finder. The first air battles involving the MiG-21, which took place in April 1966, showed that the Soviet fighter had the best horizontal maneuverability, however, due to their own inexperience and better information awareness of the enemy, the Vietnamese fighters suffered losses, and therefore the tactics of air combat were changed .

The most numerous modification of the "twenty-first" in Vietnam was the MiG-21PF, modified for operation in the tropics. The MiG-21PF front-line interceptor was equipped with an RP-21 radar and targeting equipment for commands from the ground. The fighter did not have built-in cannon armament and at first carried only two R-3S missiles, which limited its combat capabilities. Air combat missiles had restrictions on overload during launch (only 1,5 G), which made it impossible to use them during active maneuvering. Guided missiles could effectively fire at targets maneuvering with an overload of no more than 3 G. Due to the lack of cannon armament, after the launch of missiles, the MiG-21PF became unarmed. A significant drawback of the MiG-21PF was a weak and insufficiently noise-protected airborne radar, which, according to its characteristics, was actually a radar sight. This made the fighter dependent on a system of ground-based target designation and guidance stations. These shortcomings affected the methods of using front-line missile interceptors.


MiG-21PF front interceptor with P-3C missiles


A surprise missile attack by American combat aircraft flying in close formation at a speed of 750-900 km/h from the rear hemisphere has become a standard combat technique. At the same time, the speed of the MiG-21PF itself was 1400-1500 km / h. To increase the probability of hitting a target, in one combat run, as a rule, two missiles were launched. Quite often, subsonic MiG-17Fs were used as bait, which forced enemy aircraft to gain altitude. An unexpected attack and a timely exit from the battle at high speed ensured the invulnerability of the missile interceptor.

According to Vietnamese data, in the first four months of 1966, 11 American aircraft and 9 North Vietnamese MiG-17s were shot down in air battles. After the MiG-21 was introduced into battle by the end of the year, the Americans lost 47 aircraft, the losses of the DRV Air Force amounted to 12 aircraft. In connection with the growth of losses, the American command increased the air cover squad and organized massive air strikes on the airfields based on North Vietnamese fighters. However, in 1967, the ratio of losses in air battles was not in favor of the United States. In total, 124 American aircraft were shot down and 60 MiGs were lost. For three months in 1968, the fighter aircraft of the Vietnamese People's Army in air battles were able to shoot down 44 American aircraft. At the same time, Vietnamese fighters operated in very difficult conditions. American pilots have always been outnumbered and generally better trained. On the other hand, the pilots of the DRV Air Force were better motivated, they were not afraid to engage in combat with an enemy outnumbered, and were ready for self-sacrifice. The Vietnamese flexibly changed tactics, due to which they achieved significant success in repelling US air raids. Despite the losses, thanks to Soviet and Chinese assistance, the strength of the North Vietnamese Air Force grew. At the beginning of the war, the DRV Air Force had 36 pilots and 36 MiG fighters. In 1968, North Vietnam already had two fighter aviation regiments, the number of trained pilots doubled, the number of fighters five times.

Before the start of full-scale bombing for the Americans, there was no secret of the presence of fighter jets and anti-aircraft missile systems in the DRV. American radio reconnaissance aircraft RB-66C Destroyer in the middle of July 1965 fixed the work of the SAM stations, while the photo reconnaissance RF-8A took pictures of the missile positions.


Aircraft EW and electronic intelligence RB-66C


However, the American command did not attach any importance to this, believing that the SA-75M, created to combat bombers and high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, did not pose a great threat to tactical and carrier-based aircraft. It soon became clear that the B-750V missiles, called “flying telegraph poles” by American pilots, are deadly for all types of combat aircraft participating in air raids on North Vietnam. According to Soviet data, on July 24, two anti-aircraft missile divisions shot down 4 American F-3C Phantom II fighter-bombers at the expense of 4 missiles. "Phantoms" were in close formation with a bomb load at an altitude of 2 meters. The Americans recognized only one F-000C shot down, and the other two were damaged.

At the first stage of hostilities, the control and maintenance of anti-aircraft missile systems was carried out by Soviet calculations. Fire divisions, formed from Soviet specialists, had a strength of 35-40 people. After the first shock caused by the use of air defense systems passed, the Americans began to develop countermeasures. At the same time, both evasive maneuvers were used, and intensive bombing of the identified firing positions of the air defense system was organized. Under these conditions, measures to comply with the regime of masking and radio silence began to be of particular importance. After combat launches, the anti-aircraft missile division had to immediately leave the area, otherwise it was destroyed by a bombing and assault strike. Until December 1965, according to American data, 8 SA-75M missiles were destroyed and disabled. However, not infrequently, American aircraft fiercely bombed false positions with sham missiles made of bamboo. Soviet and Vietnamese calculations announced the destruction of 31 aircraft, the Americans admitted the loss of 13 aircraft. According to the memoirs of Soviet advisers, before the anti-aircraft missile division was disabled, on average, it managed to destroy 5-6 American aircraft.



During 1966, five more anti-aircraft missile regiments were formed in the air defense forces of the DRV. According to Soviet sources, until March 1967, 445 combat firings were carried out, during which 777 anti-aircraft missiles were used up. At the same time, 223 aircraft were shot down, with an average consumption of 3,48 missiles. The use of air defense systems in combat forced American pilots to leave medium flight altitudes that were previously considered quite safe and switch to low-altitude flights, where the threat of being hit by anti-aircraft missiles was much less, but the effectiveness of anti-aircraft artillery sharply increased. According to Soviet data, by March 1968, 1532 aircraft were shot down by anti-aircraft guns in Southeast Asia.

After the American command realized what a threat the Soviet-made air defense systems posed, in addition to the standard means of combat in the form of bombing positions and setting active and passive interference, the creation of special aircraft designed to combat anti-aircraft systems and surveillance radars began. In 1965, the first six two-seat F-100F Super Sabers were converted to the Wild Weasel variant. This modification was intended to perform the tasks of detecting, identifying and destroying radars and guidance stations for air defense systems. The F-100F Wild Weasel was equipped with electronic systems designed for the U-2 high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. The equipment included AN / APR-25 radar radiation source detection and direction finding equipment, capable of detecting radar signals from air defense systems and anti-aircraft artillery guidance stations. The crew of the aircraft consisted of a pilot and an operator of electronic equipment. Modified F-100Fs were supposed to hit detected targets with 70-mm unguided rockets; for this, two LAU-3 units with 14 NARs were suspended under the wing. "Wild weasels" usually found the target, "marked" it with the launch of the NAR, after which fighter-bombers and attack aircraft of the strike group took over.


F-100F Wild Weasel 6234 Tactical Fighter Wing


However, "hunters" themselves often became "game". So, on December 20, during the next sortie, the Wild Weasel fell into a trap. An F-100F Wild Weasel escorting a strike group of four F-105Ds, covered by two flights of F-4Cs, tracked the radar, which was identified as a CHP-75 missile guidance station. After performing several descent maneuvers aimed at disrupting the escort, the “radar hunter” came under concentrated fire from 37-mm anti-aircraft guns and was shot down.

In fairness, it should be said that the creation of a specialized aircraft to counter air defense radars based on the Super Saber was not fully justified. This fighter had small internal volumes for mounting special equipment, carried a relatively limited combat load and had an insufficient combat radius in the strike version. In addition, the F-100 was inferior in speed to the F-105 fighter-bombers. F-100 fighter-bombers were used quite intensively at the initial stage of the Vietnam War to strike partisan positions in the South, but by the beginning of the 70s they were replaced by more payload combat aircraft.

In 1966, Wild Weasel II, created on the basis of the two-seater training F-105F Thunderchief, entered the business. The “wild caress” of the new generation was carried by AGM-45 Shrike anti-radar missiles, which at first had high hopes. The Shrike was aimed at the radiation of a working radar. But the rocket had a number of flaws, in particular, the range of its launch was less than the range of the launch of the B-750 B-9N SA-75М. In addition to the Shraykov under the F-105, F Wild Weasel II was often hung with cluster bombs CBU-24. Wild Weasel II was also equipped with active jamming stations and more advanced radio intelligence equipment.


The double "radar hunter" F-105D Wild Weasel II with suspended UR AGM-45 Shrike, and a single-seat fighter-bomber F-105D with a load of 227 kg bombs

"Double radar hunters" flew, accompanied by a single F-105G, which, after hitting a guidance station with an anti-radar missile, bombarded the position of the anti-aircraft division with high-explosive bombs and fragmentation cassettes.

Often, the position of the air defense system was detected after the Wild Weasel was taken for escort by the guidance station, or even after the launch of an anti-aircraft missile. Thus, the "radar hunter" actually played the role of a decoy. Having discovered a launched missile, the pilot directed the aircraft towards it in order to perform a sharp maneuver at the last moment and avoid defeat. A few seconds before the rocket approached, the pilot put the plane into a dive under the rocket with a turn, change in altitude and course with the maximum possible overload. With a lucky coincidence for the pilot, the limited speed of the guidance and control system of the missile did not allow compensating for a newly occurring miss, and it flew by. In the case of the slightest inaccuracy in the construction of the maneuver, fragments of the rocket warhead hit the cockpit. To perform such an evasive maneuver required considerable courage and endurance. According to the memoirs of American pilots, a missile attack always had a strong psychological effect on them. In a duel situation between the calculation of the air defense system and the pilot of the Wild Weasel, as a rule, the one who had the best training and greater psychological stability won.


The moment of defeat of the F-105 fighter-bomber with an anti-aircraft missile


In response to the appearance of “radar hunters” in the US Air Force, Soviet experts recommended that the air defense system be deployed with careful geodetic support. Equip false and spare positions and cover the air defense systems with batteries of anti-aircraft guns. In order to prevent the unmasking of the locations of anti-aircraft missile divisions, before the start of combat work, it was forbidden to turn on guidance stations, surveillance radars, radar rangefinders and go on the air of radio stations.

The great success of the US Air Force was achieved on February 13, 1966. On this day, B-750V anti-aircraft missiles unsuccessfully fired at an AQM-34Q Firebee unmanned reconnaissance aircraft equipped with electronic intelligence equipment. As a result drone information was recorded on the operation of the missile guidance systems and the radio fuse of the missile warhead. This made it possible to develop organizational and technical countermeasures, which significantly reduced the effectiveness of the use of air defense systems.


Intelligence UAV AQM-34


During the fighting in Vietnam, 578 AQM-34 UAVs were lost. But according to the American press, the data collected on Soviet air defense systems, in their value, paid off the entire program of unmanned reconnaissance aircraft. Active jamming containers appeared very quickly on Air Force and US Navy aircraft. At the end of 1967, the Americans began to interfere with the missile channel. Under their influence, the guidance station did not see the rocket, which was flying on autopilot, until the self-destruction system was triggered. Thus, the effectiveness of the SA-75M air defense system dropped sharply and the consumption of missiles per hit target was 10-12 missiles. The raid on Hanoi, carried out on December 15, 1967, was especially successful for the Americans. Then, as a result of the use of electronic jamming, about 90 anti-aircraft missiles were "neutralized" and not a single aircraft was shot down during this raid. It was possible to restore the combat capability of anti-aircraft missiles by restructuring the operating frequencies of the transponders and increasing the power of the response signal. In the process of the improvements made, it was possible to reduce the lower boundary of the affected area to 300 m, to reduce the minimum range of targets to 5 km. To reduce vulnerability from AGM-45 Shrike missiles, the CHP-75 equipment was improved, while the reaction time of the complex was reduced to 30 s. Anti-aircraft missiles supplied from the USSR began to be equipped with a new warhead with a wider field of fragmentation, which made it possible to increase the probability of hitting an air target. In November 1967, the method of target tracking without SNR radiation began to be used - according to the mark from the active interference of self-covering, when firing at a group of combat aircraft, this method gave good results. Subsequently, the SA-75M crews switched to using field commander's periscopes for visual tracking of the target, mounted on the "P" cockpits and coupled with air defense control units. In a number of cases, the calculations performed a "false launch" by switching on the corresponding mode of the guidance station without actually launching the rocket. As a result, an alarm began to chirp in the cockpit of the fighter-bomber, informing the pilot of the approach of an anti-aircraft missile. After that, the pilot, as a rule, urgently got rid of the bomb load and performed an evasive maneuver, exposing himself to anti-aircraft artillery fire. The greatest benefit from the "false launch" was achieved at the time of the direct attack of the object - the pilots of attack aircraft immediately became out of touch with the ground target.


Radar P-15


To prevent the possibility of a breakthrough by American combat aircraft at low altitudes in 1967, the supply of P-15 radar stations placed on the ZIL-157 chassis was requested. Simultaneously with the P-15 radar, the air defense forces of North Vietnam received P-35 standby radars and PRV-11 altimeters, which were also used to guide fighters. In total, by 1970, more than a hundred radars were delivered to the DRV.

In addition to increasing the combat capability of the Air Force, ZRV and radio engineering units of the VNA, during this period there was a significant increase in the number of anti-aircraft artillery. A year after the start of large-scale bombing of North Vietnam, more than 2000 37-100-mm caliber guns could participate in repelling American air raids, and the number of anti-aircraft guns supplied from the USSR and China was constantly increasing. If batteries of 85 and 100-mm anti-aircraft guns, which mainly fired barrage, were located around Hanoi and Haiphong, then 37 and 57-mm quick-guns, which also had better mobility, were used to protect bridges, warehouses, fuel storage, cover airfields, positions SAM and surveillance radar. Also, a lot of anti-aircraft guns were deployed along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. To escort military and transport columns of the Vietnamese People's Army, anti-aircraft machine gun installations of 12,7-14,5-mm caliber installed in the back of trucks were widely used. Since the ZPU fire at an altitude of more than 700 m was ineffective, American aircraft bombed without entering the zone of destruction of anti-aircraft machine guns.


ZSU Type 63


In the late 60s, Type 63 Chinese ZSU appeared in the North Vietnamese army. These self-propelled anti-aircraft mounts were created in China by replacing the turret tank T-34-85 open top of the tower with a twin 37-mm anti-aircraft gun B-47.


ZSU-57-2 in Vietnam


The Soviet ZSU-57-2, built on the basis of the T-54 tank, had a greater range and height of destruction of air targets. The self-propelled anti-aircraft gun was armed with a 57-mm twin C-68. A common drawback of the Chinese and Soviet ZSU was the lack of a radar sight, data on the height and speed of the target were entered manually, and therefore the accuracy of the shooting turned out to be low and, in fact, 37 and 57-mm ZSU fired barrage. However, these machines played their part, forcing American aircraft to drop bombs from high altitudes, which reduced the effectiveness of the bombing.

Although domestic and foreign literature on the war in Southeast Asia, in the confrontation between the air defense system of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and American aviation, much attention is paid to the combat use of North Vietnamese air defense systems and fighters, anti-aircraft artillery still carried the main load. It was precisely the anti-aircraft guns that hit the 2 / 3 aircraft that were shot down during the Vietnam War. For more than three years of incessant massed air strikes, aircraft of the Air Force, Navy and USMC have lost a total of 3495 aircraft and helicopters. Due to increased losses and the unpopularity of the US war, peace negotiations began in Paris 1968 in Paris, and the air raids on the territory of the DRV were temporarily stopped.

To be continued ...

Based on:
https://www.flying-tigers.co.uk/2018/vietnam-peoples-air-force-new-corgi-announcement-new-model-arrivals-and-updated-photo-gallery/
http://pvo.guns.ru/s75/s75.htm
https://theaviationist.com/2014/03/13/wild-weasel-f-100/
https://airport.cv.ua/sistema-pvo-severnogo-vetnama/
http://army.lv/ru/PVO-v-lokalnih-voynah-i-vooruzhennih-konfliktah-Vetnam/2632/4716
https://warspot.ru/3537-zenitnye-rakety-vo-vietname-pervaya-krov
http://www.airaces.ru/stati/sovetskie-specialisty-vvs-i-pvo-vo-vetname.html
https://vpk.name/news/172728_vetnam_predstavil_modificirovannuyu_versiyu_rls_p19.html
https://coollib.com/b/255638/read
http://arsenal-info.ru/b/book/26184032/8
http://www.plam.ru/transportavi/tehnika_i_vooruzhenie_2003_04/p2.php
81 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. + 10
    3 July 2018 15: 10
    Excellent article ... In fact, the war was between the USSR and the USA ... and the USSR won it ...
    1. + 16
      3 July 2018 15: 14
      Quote: Vard
      Great article ...

      Thank you! hi
      Quote: Vard
      In fact, there was a war between the USSR and the USA ... and the USSR won it

      I would say the war between the USSR and the PRC on the one hand, and the United States and their allies: South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan on the other.
      1. avt
        + 17
        3 July 2018 15: 59
        Quote: Bongo
        I would say the war between the USSR and China on the one hand

        Well, actually, our guys had a hard time with the Chinese specialists there. Actually, a lieutenant colonel who had been there told us about this when he was a student. Again, he spoke very unkindly about the "Shrikes" - he got it when the radar was destroyed. In general, he spoke about the US like this - they quickly developed new tactics after losses, they put pressure on us with numbers and tactical quality of use. They carried out raids using several different groups. And about our SAMs, he said this - there were not enough for such a mass of airplanes. About the Vietnamese, he said this - they were small and the crew did not have enough strength to do anything, but they were brave and during the raid it seemed like they were even shooting with sticks.
        1. +5
          3 July 2018 23: 18
          The text also refers to "tension" with the Chinese.
          For example, the refusal of supplies to Vietnam of more advanced air defense systems:
          Almost simultaneously with the delivery of jet MiGs to North Vietnam, the SA-75M Dvina air defense systems were sent. It was a simplified export modification of the complex with an anti-aircraft missile guidance station operating in the 10-centimeter range. In the early 60s, the USSR Air Defense Forces already had S-75M Volkhov anti-aircraft missile systems with a guidance station operating in the 6-cm frequency range. However, in the 60s, the Soviet Union, fearing that more advanced air defense systems could get to China, did not supply them to Vietnam.
      2. +6
        3 July 2018 18: 32
        Quote: Bongo
        I would say the war between the USSR and the PRC on the one hand, and the United States and their allies: South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan on the other.

        I would also add: a clash of not only two perfectly aware, pursuing their goals, cold, prudent and cynical geopolitical systems, but also two worldviews, two views on the formation of man and society - and although in the end the States seem to have lost, but in historical -strategic consequences, it seems like they won (given the current course, the socio-political structure and the economic direction of the countries of Southeast Asia). So the Vietnam War - like earlier conflicts - the further, the more it is of academic rather than practical interest, which means that it is less and less in demand in society in any form: educational, cultural, ethical, etc. crying
        Unless it continues to occupy an important place in textbooks for officers' educational institutions, for many tactical devices, techniques, methods of action and counteraction that first appeared and were tested at that time, and improved in later conflicts, remain relevant today. what
      3. +4
        4 July 2018 01: 14
        Quote: Vard
        and the USSR won it ...

        The United States lost it, perhaps more accurately.
  2. + 16
    3 July 2018 15: 58
    Sergey, Thank you. The most interesting thing for me is the beginning of the formation of the air defense of Vietnam, about the war between the French and the Vietnamese. For some reason, this fragment of the Vietnam War has always been in the shadow of the Vietnam-American War. Regarding the SAM, I will add that the first SA-75Desna SAMs came to Vietnam not in 3-cabin versions, in semi-trailers, but in 5- or 6-cabin versions. In these conditions, this option was better, since separate tractors for the cabins were not required. By the way, this version of the SAM was shown in the film "Keys to the Sky". Thank you Sergey, especially for the beginning. There is a lot new for me in it.
    1. + 10
      3 July 2018 16: 14
      Quote: Amurets
      Sergey, thank you.

      Glad to see you, Nikolai! I hope health has improved?
      Quote: Amurets
      The most interesting thing for me is the very beginning of the formation of the air defense of Vietnam, about the war between the French and the Vietnamese. For some reason, this fragment of the Vietnam War has always been in the shadow of the Vietnam-American war.

      The topic is very extensive, requiring its researchers. About this period of war, you can make a separate cycle.
      Quote: Amurets
      About the air defense missile system, I will add that the first CA-75 air defense missile systems the gums did not come to Vietnam in the 3-x cabin options, in semi-trailers, but in the 5-ti or 6-ti cabin options. Under these conditions, this option was better, since no separate tractors were needed for the cabs.

      Well, there are pros and cons ... Have you seen the first version of the CA-75 on the launcher charged?
      But I certainly did not find 10-cm. When I was C-75М3, Volkhov with cameras on CHP-75 was already written off.
      1. + 12
        3 July 2018 16: 48
        Quote: Bongo
        Have you seen the first version of the CA-75 on the launcher charged?

        Of course I saw with an AK-5 truck crane. EMNIP first closed loop tests.
        There is another, but it is fresher, but I don’t remember what’s there, but the rocket, what kind of modification, you have to look at the book of the “Torch rocket”.
        What about health? It seems to have broken through. Hi ole.
        Quote: Bongo
        But of course I didn’t find the 10 cm “Dvina”.
        In 1970, the Nikolaevsky/on-Amur regiment was disbanded and we had to unload barges with one division in Amursk.
        And then I had to take a closer look at what was in those cabins. We already had the Volkhov, although it was far from being modernized to the S-75 M3, he was far away, but we could take low-altitude targets, shoot 17D, 20DP rockets, I'm not talking about the rest. On the Desna, what appeared to be with us later, the main system of interference suppression, appeared.
        1. +3
          3 July 2018 23: 18
          Quote: Amurets
          Quote: Bongo
          Have you seen the first version of the CA-75 on the launcher charged?
          Of course I saw, truck crane AK-5

          Colleagues, please forgive me, but still this is not a start-up but a TZM.
          With respect to the missile defense! soldier
          1. +7
            4 July 2018 01: 20
            Quote: Lekov L
            Colleagues, please forgive me, but still this is not a start-up but a TZM.
            With respect to the missile defense!

            Mihalych, it was about loading with TZM on PU.

            Here is the first version of TZM and PU
  3. + 11
    3 July 2018 16: 40

    a picture depicting a S-119 transporter dropping loads for the besieged garrison of Dien Bien Fu under intense anti-aircraft fire. This machine with the radio call sign Earthquake was provided to the French by the Americans (the smeared USAF abbreviation emerges from under the paint) and was controlled by American pilots recruited by the CIA. She did not return to the base, the entire crew died.
  4. +6
    3 July 2018 16: 46
    ...Unable to suppress the fierce fire of anti-aircraft guns by conventional means, the French mobilized S-119, which they took on board six tons of napalm, to fight them. The first strike of C-119 was delivered on March 23. But even the masses of napalm did not give the desired effect, since the jungle soaked with moisture from the past rains extinguished a significant part of its damaging effect.
  5. +9
    3 July 2018 16: 52
    As always, great article. Thank you.
  6. +4
    3 July 2018 17: 31
    Now, in addition to light small arms, aircraft were fired with 25-mm anti-aircraft guns of the 96 type, inherited from the Japanese army and captured from the French by the 12,7-mm machine guns Browning M2 and 40-mm anti-aircraft guns Bofors L / 60.
    And where are the Hotchkiss M13,2 and mlie1929 1930-mm machine guns?
    1. +5
      3 July 2018 20: 52
      And their "mole fucked" in childhood we loved this expression.
      Seriously, the author apparently did not find mention of them
      1. +1
        4 July 2018 03: 19
        Quote: Royalist
        the author apparently did not find mention of them

        It seems so... but 13,2 mm Hotchkiss machine guns were produced quite a lot and they were widespread in the French troops... (at least outside of Vietnam...)... and the Japanese also produced them under license (Type 93). That is why it is "hard to believe" that they "were not at all" in Vietnam...
    2. +3
      3 July 2018 21: 43
      In Japan, Hotchkiss machine guns since 1933 were issued under license as the “Type 93”, being the main infantry heavy machine gun of the Japanese army and navy during the Second World War. 2 mm cartridges are also mass-produced in Japan under license.


      An exhibition of captured weapons captured by South Vietnam government forces in battles with Vietnamese partisans; ~ 1964-1965 years
    3. +6
      4 July 2018 01: 25
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      And where are the Hotchkiss M13,2 and mlie1929 1930-mm machine guns?

      But it's hard to say request At least I did not find any mention of them. No. The French in Indochina used mainly American 12,7mm M2. It seems to me that the Vietnamese most likely had Japanese 13,2mm Type 93 and 20mm Type 98. But they apparently left quickly due to a shortage of ammunition and poor technical condition.
  7. +6
    3 July 2018 17: 38
    Not really about air defense, but the Vietnamese also successfully destroyed aircraft at airfields using sabotage groups.
  8. + 10
    3 July 2018 18: 17
    Great stuff! In the first half of the article, I confess, a de thought flashed: “Eh, these constantly detailed and balanced review and analytical works of St. Sergey should be multiplied by the undisputed (albeit in some places pretentious) literary talents of Oleg Kaptsov - whatever books would be published! Best sellers, at least in a popular science, at least entertaining techno-thriller format, "but in the end I admit, each subsequent cycle becomes more readable and at the same time - the most important for me personally (and, I hope, most interested in the topic) - without losing useful information leaving, which is usually cried by many, unable to master more than a hundred lines and a couple of beautiful illustrations. Keep it up, win this way! good
    From SW. hi
  9. +5
    3 July 2018 20: 08
    You know how to read thoughts, just read articles on Vietnam, thank you very much.
  10. +5
    3 July 2018 20: 34
    Sergey + air defense topics = another interesting article cycle !!
  11. +4
    3 July 2018 20: 44
    Deliveries to Vietnam
    1. +4
      4 July 2018 01: 30
      Quote: marat2016
      Deliveries to Vietnam

      Thank you for the table. hi But unfortunately there is no delivery date. It is known that C-125 appeared in small numbers in the DRV at the beginning of the 70-s, but there is not some evidence of their combat successes. LAW C-75M "Volga" were delivered after the end of the war.
      1. +5
        4 July 2018 10: 14
        There was another table - with dates (it looked almost like a sheet from a school notebook). Therefore, BMPD cites such data - Deliveries of Soviet air defense systems of the country abroad
        The well-known website on the history of the country's air defense missile systems historykpvo.narod2.ru has links to interesting files with documents with figures on deliveries of the country's air defense missile systems (S-75, S-125, S-200 and S-300 families) abroad during the Soviet period (the files are here and here). The origin of the documents is unclear - presumably, they were compiled in the early 1990s at NPO Almaz (although they have handwritten notes dating back to 1998).
        Our blog compiled a consolidated database of shipments of Soviet air defense systems of the country during the Soviet period using these files.
        82 SAM SAM-75M "Dvina"
        21 TDN SA-75M
        8055 V-750 missiles
        14 SAM S-75M Volga (8 - 1979, 3 - 1980, 3 - 1982)
        22 SAM S-75M3 "Volga" (4 - 1985, 8 - 1986, 10 - 1987)
        10 TDN S-75M
        526 V-755 missiles
        886 missiles V-759 + 78 training missiles
        40 air defense systems S-125 / S-125M / S-125M1A "Pechora"
        10 TDN S-125M
        1788 V-601PD missiles + 82 training missiles
        17 TH "Accord-75/125"
        3 P-14 radars
        2 ACS ASURK-1ME
        ---- As you can see, the abundance of ACS tools is striking - as many as 2 (two) ASURK-a. And about the supply of many radars, in particular, the P-15/19, P-35/37, P-12/18, P-40 there is not a word there. Not only on Wetnam, but in general.
  12. +6
    3 July 2018 20: 45
    GREAT. The author described in detail the fight of the Vietnamese air defense with the French and Americans. Once in the 70s I read how a 37mm installation fought against several bombers and I imagined: a Vietnamese looking through an optical sight. Older people should remember the photos from the DRV. I remember Vietnam riding a buffalo and reading a book, and behind his back is a rifle
  13. +6
    3 July 2018 21: 30
    Good article. But there is an annoying typo:
    [/ quote] At the end of the 50, several groups of Chinese cadets were sent to study in the USSR and China. [quote]
    Well, still not Chinese, but Vietnamese.
    1. +6
      3 July 2018 23: 02
      Quote: Aviator_
      Well, still not Chinese, but Vietnamese.

      Perhaps Sergei did not formulate the proposal clearly? The first deliveries to the frontier and the first aircraft shot down by the SA-75 complex were in the PRC: "Meanwhile, few people know that the leaders in the number of U-2s shot down to this day are the anti-aircraft gunners of the People's Liberation Army of China (PLA). In the mid-60s, they destroyed five U-2 spy planes, thus becoming "aces" in fighter terminology. In addition, they hold the palm of primacy in the world's first successful combat use of the S-1 anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) against a real target - the RB-75D reconnaissance aircraft. This happened on October 57, 7 in the skies over Beijing, more than six months before the Soviet air defense forces "landed" G. Powers."
      http://www.nnre.ru/transport_i_aviacija/aviacija_
      i_kosmonavtika_2002_02 / p9.php

      So everything is correct, and the first Chinese anti-aircraft gunners and Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners studied both in the USSR and from each other.
      1. +3
        3 July 2018 23: 13
        On October 7, 1959, a Taiwanese high-altitude reconnaissance RB-20D was shot down near Beijing with three rockets.
      2. +3
        3 July 2018 23: 20
        All this is true, but the proposal does not mention the Vietnamese at all, and if you replace the Chinese with the Vietnamese, then the meaning will appear - the Vietnamese were sent to the USSR and China. A typo, however.
    2. +6
      4 July 2018 01: 34
      Quote: Aviator_
      Well, still not Chinese, but Vietnamese.

      Of course you are right! + To you for attentiveness! Unfortunately, it is very difficult to avoid such annoying flaws. request
  14. +4
    4 July 2018 01: 29
    Sergey, as usual, thoroughly, thank you.

    But, nevertheless, the usual problem for such a topic is striking.
    Soviet and Vietnamese calculations announced the destruction of 31 aircraft, the Americans recognized the loss of 13 aircraft

    etc.

    You understand that doing so is not good? Even if you leave out the personal qualities of A.A.Episheva?
    1. + 10
      4 July 2018 01: 52
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Sergey, as usual, thoroughly, thank you.

      drinks
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      You understand that doing so is not good? Even if you leave out the personal qualities of A.A.Episheva?

      I appreciate your irony! good But I do not suffer from "urya-patriotism" and I try to write objectively, voicing the data presented by different parties. It is clear that in a war each side overestimates the losses of the enemy and tries in every possible way to underestimate its own. For example, in the US Navy, if a carrier-based aircraft, having received combat damage, could not land on an aircraft carrier and the pilot ejected nearby, then the lost car was attributed to flight accidents.
      1. +2
        4 July 2018 06: 55
        Quote: Bongo
        objectively, voicing data submitted by different parties

        You understand that when, on the one hand, an application for shot down (or even the total number of triggered warheads) is indicated, and on the other hand, a loss report, this is not “objectivity”, but littering the theme in the style of Mr. Konoshenkov?
        Quote: Bongo
        It is clear that in war, each side overestimates the losses of the enemy and in every possible way tries to underestimate its

        As far as I am informed, all claims to the reports of Americans go along the line of combat / non-combat. There are no questions regarding the general losses, especially in the war, where the dead were counted by name.
    2. +7
      4 July 2018 04: 00
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Soviet and Vietnamese calculations announced the destruction of 31 aircraft, the Americans recognized the loss of 13 aircraft

      The anti-aircraft gunners of that time had a different criterion for counting the downed: the K-3 command passed, the warhead exploded and the auto-tracking was disrupted. The entire division is credited with hitting the target, but in fact the target is only damaged and can return to base, and then Sergey explained the criteria by which the Americans counted losses.
  15. +3
    4 July 2018 03: 07
    The author is certainly the best at HE, but does not want to think with his head (analyze).
    Why?
    He did not even take into account that the actions of the air defense systems in Vietnam were not far from failure. Of course, the winners write the story and the Vietnamese certainly won. And the air defense systems helped, even very much, only their effectiveness for some reason tended to 0. Why do I think so ?. let's let's think!
    About 1 \ 3 planes were shot down by the Soviet air defense systems (we’ll subtract the fragments of the LiSiZin fighters).
    But the author writes here:
    During 1966, five more anti-aircraft missile regiments were formed in the air defense forces of the DRV. According to Soviet sources, by March 1967 of the year, 445 combat firing was conducted, during which 777 anti-aircraft missiles were spent. This was shot down 223 aircraft, with an average consumption of 3,48 missiles.

    223 aircraft. Great.
    Next:
    According to Soviet data, by March 1968, 1532 aircraft were shot down by anti-aircraft gunfire in Southeast Asia.

    1 year. Until 223. After that there should be about 766. Therefore, for the year about 543. Oops ... If someone did not understand the mathematics course for the 5th grade of the secondary school, then I’ll explain, I hope there aren’t particularly “gifted” ones, still not with Damantsev. Yes, I did not take into account the killing frags
    1. +7
      4 July 2018 03: 29
      Quote: KKND
      The author is certainly the best at HE, but does not want to think with his head (analyze).

      Cyril, consider that I am flattered! wink
      key phrase, according to Soviet data. I didn’t write about Vietnamese yet, there it’s really ... wassat To that:
      During 1966, five more anti-aircraft missile regiments were formed in the air defense forces of the DRV. According to Soviet sources, by March 1967 of the year, 445 combat firing was conducted, during which 777 anti-aircraft missiles were spent. This was shot down 223 aircraft, with an average consumption of 3,48 missiles.
      I am critical, but the American data are very far from the truth. In addition, the statistics of aviation losses in Southeast Asia are generally very confusing. It is often not clear whether we are talking about airplanes and helicopters shot down over the territory of the DRV or China, South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. In addition, losses of the air forces of South Vietnam, Australia and Thailand are often not taken into account. As already mentioned, the parties strongly exaggerate their own achievements and downplay their losses. Hence the discrepancies.
      In any case, I thank you for the comment! More to these! good drinks
      1. +1
        4 July 2018 04: 05
        The Americans called the SA-2 "flying pillars" for a reason. The missiles are super-powerful. If these were missiles from some "Buk", Americans They wouldn't have bothered at all. All they needed was a SPO and somehow detect the fact of the launch (in those years, a problem especially in the jungle). Then just maneuvers at the maximum "thrust" at high altitude along the approximate borders of the Buk, preferably with a "shrike". Then a division without missiles, then without SPO, then without anything at all. It would be good if they managed to escape into the jungle.
        But the rockets were really scary, Summed up the electronics (flying poles), well, and the Americans were "cool" guys
        1. +6
          4 July 2018 04: 11
          Quote: KKND
          But the rockets were really scary, Summed up the electronics (flying poles), well, and the Americans were "cool" guys

          Kirill, the happiness of the Americans that because of problems with delivery through the Chinese territory to the DRV then there were only actually outdated CA-75М with 10-cm CHP and ZUR B-750В. Appear there in time. C-75M, C-125 and mobile "Squares" war might end earlier.
          1. +4
            4 July 2018 05: 59
            Quote: Bongo
            Cyril, Americans are happy that due to problems with delivery through Chinese territory to the DRV, then there were only actually obsolete SA-75Ms with 10-cm SNR and V-750V SAM.

            The misfortune of Soviet analysts is that they made such a bet on the air defense system. And from the experience of Vietnam, only the wrong conclusions were drawn. In the 60s, air defense systems were a formidable weapon, the Americans could do little, but nevertheless they were able to resist. Now they can easily break through even Russian air defense systems. With losses but break through. Stealth, satellites, drones, excellent aerial reconnaissance, powerful (maneuverable) aircraft, knowledge of the performance characteristics of complexes, excellent anti-aircraft defense, cruise missiles, electronic warfare. What do we have? Approximately the same missiles in terms of energy performance characteristics (S-200 is probably the best) + ACS + excellent radars. If the Americans, as in Vietnam, try to bomb the CAS or the dirt road or chase them, then we will still resist. But to protect industrial, infrastructural and large military facilities, our vaunted air defense (excluding the air component) will not be able to from the word at all.
            It was necessary to think and put on aviation, and not on air defense, it is also not much cheaper, and utility is "several times" less.
            And then we are surprised that this is not enough “money” for us.
          2. +5
            4 July 2018 10: 18
            I forgot about Kroogi. But also - they could play at some period. By the way, they put carat on them much earlier. And the doghouse on the SNR in Vietnam is just a horror. No ventilation was provided there.
            1. +4
              4 July 2018 10: 30
              Quote: sivuch
              About Circles forgot. And after all, they could have played in a certain period.

              Could Yes But I did not mention your favorite “Circles” because I compared it with Arab countries. And they were not delivered there.
        2. +3
          4 July 2018 17: 29
          If you think that the Soviet and Russian air defense systems of any basing were few and are ABLE, then what are the "ERRORS" of the British developers due to which the British fleet suffered losses from the not-so-powerful Argentine Air Force?
          The Argentines paid a high price for this in blood, but they sent several Grand Fleet ships to the bottom!
          So the defense of British ships was not so "European quality"!
        3. +6
          4 July 2018 21: 13
          Do you have any examples of the same large-scale use of American or European-made air defense systems comparable in scale to Soviet-made air defense systems?
          Since they were all just such awesome air defense systems ... give a couple of examples
        4. +3
          6 July 2018 04: 27
          Quote: KKND
          Americans called SA-2 "flying pillars" for a reason

          So the publication says that these complexes were originally intended to counter strategic bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. Because of the problems with China, no new air defense systems were supplied to Vietnam, which Seryozha already wrote about in the comments. In any case, history has judged everything, despite the enormous superiority in the air, the Americans lost this war.
      2. +1
        4 July 2018 06: 43
        Quote: Bongo
        The key phrase, according to Soviet data. I haven't even started writing about the Vietnamese yet, there's just... To this:

        Here is a competent book, from a person in the "topic".
        Airpower in Three Wars, by Gen. WW Momyer (1978).
        Maybe he "lied" there and I think I’m sure not much. Especially when compared with Soviet statistics (worse Goebels propaganda wassat ).
        1. +6
          4 July 2018 10: 24
          If the book is 78 years old, then it’s forged. And not even because the Cold War was going on or because of cheers-patriotism, he simply could not check the Vietnamese or Soviet archives.
          1. 0
            4 July 2018 12: 53
            Quote: sivuch
            If the book is 78 years old, then it’s for sure

            Of course he did, the US bureaucratic machine is not a robot.
            Quote: sivuch
            And not even because the Cold War was going on or because of cheers-patriotism, he simply could not check the Vietnamese or Soviet archives.

            You correctly noted this, if you wanted to lie, you had to justify the “defeat” in Vietnam. Like us. The South Vietnamese are to blame for everything, bad wars, the Congress did not give money, someone from the leadership was tyrants, we had the wrong grenades.
            But the man writes on the contrary. On business. Meaning? Even the Chukchi know that American planes in Vietnam have bits of missiles like little boys. Whom will he convince with a book teeming with complex technical terms? Who will read it? A specialist can deceive? Oh well.
            But here that the Soviet and especially the Vietnamese archives did not check, perhaps even for the better. soldier
  16. +2
    4 July 2018 03: 51
    Ugh, I pressed it, I continue.
    So 543 aircraft per year. LiSiZinov did not take into account frags, there is little information. Let 530.
    But we read the Author and are surprised:
    At the end of 1967, the Americans began to interfere with the missile channel. Under their influence, the guidance station did not see the rocket, which was flying on autopilot, until the self-destruction system was triggered. Thus, the effectiveness of the SA-75M air defense system dropped sharply and the consumption of missiles per hit target was 10-12 missiles. The raid on Hanoi, carried out on December 15, 1967, was especially successful for the Americans. Then, as a result of the use of electronic jamming, about 90 anti-aircraft missiles were "neutralized" and not a single aircraft was shot down during this raid.

    Already funny. Conclusion: do not read Soviet newspapers before bedtime. Because apparently 500 planes were shot down from March 1967 to the end of 1967. But not 1000, Soviet statistics are such statistics.
    Moreover, if to think it gets scary for our air defense systems (there are no complaints about anti-aircraft guns).
    Americans on low-gravity aircraft, without any counteraction experience, without steel technology, without precision-guided weapons, without cruise missiles, without cruise missiles, without drones, without electronic warheads on most aircraft, without exercises, without ...., collided with missiles from the "space" "era. Missiles, for a minute, larger in mass and size characteristics than, for example, S-300 missiles. And, no need, my young friends, to "flood" about old rockets with a range of 37 km laughing , S-300-2 staged rocket with 2 TTRD, smaller sizes, B-750V-2 staged with 1 LRE and other TTRD, who will understand the topic. Yes, the electronics of the complexes has advanced greatly. Yes, there are more “advanced” guidance algorithms, but fuel speed is fuel speed. And it has changed quite differently from electronics. That's why apples are not blooming on Mars right now.
    Now we understand our defeats from the Israelis, the flight of Rust, the complete domination of the Americans over countries without their own aviation, but with some sort of air defense?
    That is the conclusion: either Glory to the American hero pilots easily suppressing any air defense systems, or we have all air defense systems in vain only eat their bread.
    1. +6
      4 July 2018 07: 06
      Quote: KKND
      Now we understand our defeats from the Israelis, the flight of Rust, the complete domination of the Americans over countries without their own aviation, but with some sort of air defense?

      All in one pile.
      Rust is not about that. In terms of anti-aircraft defense, the Americans had a good brains in Vietnam, so they seriously got down to business. Syrians (on the example of the bear), Libyans, Iraqis can confirm that in the 80s the issue of air defense was resolved. Now it’s impossible to imagine a local conflict in which Americans lose thousands of cars.
      Quote: KKND
      Now they are air defense systems, even Russian easily break through. With losses but break through.

      If this is not an accidental incident, but a planned operation, with electronic warfare and the MassKR, it is rather strange to talk about the losses of the Americans from the air defense bush. If there will be losses, then from other branches of the armed forces.
      1. 0
        4 July 2018 07: 42
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Rust is not about that. In terms of anti-aircraft defense, the Americans had a good brains in Vietnam, so they seriously got down to business. Syrians (on the example of the bear), Libyans, Iraqis can confirm that in the 80s the issue of air defense was resolved. Now it’s impossible to imagine a local conflict in which Americans lose thousands of cars.

        Of course, I understand that you are pouring water into the mill, but would you study the hardware?
        The problem is not us or the Americans. The problem is that initially we made the wrong bet.
        The ZV missiles looked cool in the 60s. But a fundamental increase in performance can only be achieved by increasing their energy. Yes, we have come a long way in air defense. We made missiles mobile, automated control systems. But the Americans easily developed reconnaissance systems and high-precision weapons. The main problem for aviation has always been finding a target. And destroying it is not a problem. The mobility system is limited by the internal combustion engine, the automated control system can be developed and developed, but the Americans can also develop reconnaissance almost endlessly. And here, in my opinion, the ball is in the Americans' court.
        The whole question was not it easier to not bother with the air defense system and build aircraft?
        Although we did this and that (in any case, the Americans have almost no air defense systems) and in theory the air defense systems + airplanes are clearly more spectacular than just airplanes.
        1. +8
          4 July 2018 08: 03
          Quote: KKND
          The whole question was not it easier to not bother with the air defense system and build aircraft?

          Not easier ... No.
          Quote: KKND
          Although we did this and that (in any case, Americans have almost no air defense system at all)

          It is at least strange to compare our situation with the Americans, it is better to compare it with what was in the NATO countries during the Cold War years. The air defense system there they still had that palisade.
          The American territory was never threatened by numerous deck and tactical aircraft, and our country was and is, surrounded by numerous bases and has a long maritime border.
          Quote: KKND
          and in theory ZRK + Airplanes are clearly more spectacular than just airplanes

          In Soviet times, we had it that way. Not long ago, I gave a breakdown of our native 11th Air Defense Army. But airfields are quite easily put out of action. But there were more than 70 fixed positions of air defense missile systems in the Far East, and that's without taking into account the "Kubovskie" and "Krugovskie" air defense brigades, in which individual divisions also carried combat weapons. In the 80s, the Americans would have been washed in blood just from the impact of our air defense systems, even without using "special" charges. Now, our capabilities are, God willing, 10% of the Soviet ones, but before the early 90s, the air defense systems were a very formidable force.
          1. +2
            4 July 2018 10: 01
            Quote: Bongo
            In the 80s, Americans would wash themselves with blood only from the effects of our ZRV

            If you were a breakthrough, I would suggest writing a history of the Desert Storm in the Far East theater of operations with the State Emergency Committee in the role of Saddam and Skorea in the role of Kuwait. But for you, it would probably be too addict experience)))))
            1. +6
              4 July 2018 10: 22
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              If you were a breakthrough, I would suggest writing a history of the Desert Storm in the Far East theater of operations with the State Emergency Committee in the role of Saddam and Skorea in the role of Kuwait. But for you, it would probably be too addict experience)))))

              Thank you, I already had a “drug experience” when I tried to write an “alternative” on the Caribbean crisis.
          2. 0
            4 July 2018 13: 09
            Quote: Bongo
            The American territory was never threatened by numerous deck and tactical aircraft, and our country was and is, surrounded by numerous bases and has a long maritime border.

            And what prevented us from surrounding the Americans with bases (aircraft carriers)? Price? So many missiles with RADARs to build is that a cheap asymmetric answer? Then I watch the S-400 for half a billion rich pinocchio for sale. RADARS aren't cheap. They also have a very limited resource of literally tens of hours.
            Quote: Bongo
            In the 80s, Americans would have washed their faces with blood only from the effects of our air defense systems, even without the use of “special” charges.

            Yes, it would be hard for them and there would be losses. But the country would be left without factories in the European part of Russia, bridges, warehouses, etc. Air defense would not have fulfilled the main task.
            A low-altitude breakthrough would then be certain ground complexes just would not have prevented.
            1. +4
              4 July 2018 15: 12
              Quote: KKND
              What prevented us from surrounding the Americans with bases (aircraft carriers)? Price? So many rockets with RADARs to build it, cheap assembly response?

              Do you want to compare how much an aircraft carrier costs with an air wing and an anti-aircraft missile regiment?
              Quote: KKND
              Air defense would not perform the main task.

              What makes you think so? Only the country's air defenses carried up to 70% enemy aircraft in the first strike. The CD is certainly smaller, but without nuclear charges they did not make sense.
              Quote: KKND
              A low-altitude breakthrough would then be certain ground complexes just would not have prevented.

              Do you need me to remind you of the number of interceptors in the USSR air defense, even without taking into account frontline fighters?
              Quote: KKND
              RADARs are not cheap. They also have a very limited resource of literally dozens of hours.

              Don't give a fuck, you're on fire... wassat Take an interest in the P-18, P-37, "Defense-14" radar, 35-6 radars, etc. ... Standby stations have a very large resource. Many radars built in the USSR are still in service.
              1. +1
                4 July 2018 17: 17
                Quote: Bongo
                Do you want to compare how much an aircraft carrier costs with an air wing and an anti-aircraft missile regiment?

                It is clear that the aircraft carrier is much more expensive, only from the regiment of anti-aircraft missile sense is much less. I mean that the spear is not always better than a gun, just because they can be made a hundred.
                Quote: Bongo
                What makes you think so? Only the country's air defenses carried up to 70% enemy aircraft in the first strike. The CD is certainly smaller, but without nuclear charges they did not make sense.

                I repeat (I ask) 3 times, tell me how to take out low-altitude aircraft at night in the 80s (thermal imager, in units). Let the ZGRLS detect the attack azimuth at distant boundaries. Or in one way or another the aircraft are detected from afar.
                Tell me I'm dumb.
                CDs seem ridiculous without nuclear charges, but with conventional warheads they are very necessary.
                Otherwise, thousands would not have launched them in Iraq. Important goals, even in Iraq, were what to say about the USSR.
                Quote: Bongo
                do you recall the number of interceptors in the air defense of the USSR, even without taking into account front-line fighters?

                Well this is Sergey, it’s not good. negative About the air defense system it was, but about anti-aircraft guns. For the planes, I just "drowned." And he just said that why then the air defense system if the interceptors do everything. I do not understand you. No.
                Quote: Bongo
                You're not on fire... Look into the service life of the P-18, P-37, "Oborona-14", 35D6 radars, etc...

                Well, you could have also given the radio antenna as an example. There, nothing will break for sure. I'm talking about the AFAR and especially the PFAR resources. There, the resource really goes into the tens.
                Although I agree with you here. Many of the tasks of cheap air defense can be performed, which is a plus.
                The truth is that recently Standby stations are becoming more and more complicated. request
                1. +4
                  5 July 2018 09: 41
                  Quote: KKND
                  It is clear that the aircraft carrier is much more expensive, only from the regiment of anti-aircraft missile sense is much less. I mean that the spear is not always better than a gun, just because they can be made a hundred.

                  Cyril, it seems to me, you exaggerate a little. The aircraft carrier and the air defense missile system products are about the same technological level.
                  Quote: KKND
                  3 repeat (please) tell me how to carry out low-altitude vehicles at night in 80's

                  Did you ever hear about P-15, P-19, "Caste-2" radar? And I frankly doubt that other planes other than the F-111, well, maybe the A-6E could operate effectively at low altitudes. At least, on the Far Eastern coast, in 80, the existing radar posts were perfectly seen by airplanes going at low altitude from the sea.
                  Quote: KKND
                  Tell me I'm dumb.

                  Yes, you sho? belay
                  Quote: KKND
                  CDs seem ridiculous without nuclear charges, but with conventional warheads they are very necessary.

                  They never seemed funny to me. But let's compare the number of goals in Iraq and in the USSR. As well as how many targets of the Kyrgyz Republic and tactical (deck) aircraft can be obtained.
                  Quote: KKND
                  Well, this is Sergey, it's not fair. negative About the air defense missile system was, but about anti-aircraft guns. For airplanes, I just "stoked". And he just said that why then SAMs if the interceptors do everything. I do not understand you.

                  And what is dishonest in a fairly balanced system Air defense of the USSR. It was exactly system. You can not consider the air defense system in isolation from interceptors. Their command was one. also do not forget about the air defense of the SV, front-line aviation and the fleet, which also had its own fighters and an air defense missile system.
                  Quote: KKND
                  Well, you would have given an antenna to the radio for example. There certainly will not break anything. I’m talking about the resources of AFAR and especially PFAR. There really is a resource for dozens.

                  And we only AFAR and PFAR? No. How do you like stations like 55Ж6 and Caste-2? And about 64Л6, 59H6-E, and even Soviet-made 36D6, you cannot say that they have a low resource. Soviet P-37, 22Ж6 and 5Н84А - generally have an awesome resource.
              2. +1
                4 July 2018 18: 07
                Quote: Bongo
                You're not on fire... Look into the service life of the P-18, P-37, "Oborona-14", 35D6 radars, etc...

                Listen Sergey is not good recourse
                Purpose and composition of the P-18 radar station. P-18 radar ..... The average time between radar failure (To) - 135 hours; average resource. 11 h ...
                (vii.sfu-kras.ru/images/libs/BP_P18.pdf)
                I mixed up the mean time between failures and when the antenna should be thrown out. My mistake. hi
                I had data on PFARs. And if the transmitter fails there, then an expensive repair will come out. So I overestimated the cost of maintaining RADARs.
                I meant that serving the radar is also expensive. Although, of course, planes are more expensive.
        2. +2
          4 July 2018 12: 53
          Quote: KKND
          Would you study materiel or something

          A little interested. Why did you say that?
          Quote: KKND
          The problem is that initially we made the wrong bet

          Maybe. Moreover, here your opinion coincides with the US Air Force.
          However, as far as I am in the material, in the USSR they tried to make a “knight's move” realizing that they would never catch up with Americans in direct rivalry. Perhaps it didn’t work out, but if you only compete in aviation, it wouldn’t work out for sure.
          1. 0
            4 July 2018 13: 18
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            A little interested. Why did you say that?

            This is to ensure that you do not need to get a little involved.
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            However, as far as I am in the material, in the USSR they tried to make a “knight's move” realizing that they would never catch up with Americans in direct rivalry. Perhaps it didn’t work out, but if you only compete in aviation, it wouldn’t work out for sure.

            It turned out to make a "knight's move". Many times superior to air defense and not much inferior to aviation. Now imagine that the CPSU cut the country's resources for air defense 4 times, and sent half to aviation, and the second half to the national economy. Computers in the 80s are excellent to do instead of excellent RADARs, and not that 16-bit squalor that could not be bought. am
    2. +5
      4 July 2018 10: 36
      Excuse me, but who told you that rockets are from the "space age"? In my opinion, Sergey told in the most accessible form that the air defense system of Vietnam was dense, but by no means modern, even in comparison with what the Arabs received. Yes, and who is “my young friends”?
      And countries without aviation, but with air defense - is, presumably, Libya and Iraq? What you don’t know ...
      just in case - this is a response to the post KKND from 03.51
      1. -1
        4 July 2018 12: 37
        I came up with the idea about space-age rockets myself, which is not far from the truth. Moreover, common sense and the fundamentals of the theory of motion of bodies of variable mass say that they are not much inferior to early rockets, S-300 in energy. I can't vouch for the later ones, maybe chemists have invented something.
        As for my young friends, I can say, run to Vika, the missiles there do not change in mass and design, but the range grows by leaps and bounds laughing
        Apparently, the chemists are working in 3 shifts, but when it comes to civilian missiles, they immediately run away. Miracles and nothing more. fool
        And about countries with Arabs and other natives, but the air defense was weak. From this it follows that we have super strong? Rust did not think so. tongue
        Once again, everything is relative. If the American Air Force of the 60s faced modern Russian air defense, they have no chance. Now ask yourself what modern air defense can do against modern American air defense?
        All strategic goals will be destroyed. It will be difficult for them to destroy the equipment, but without bridges, warehouses, fuel and other things, it will not last long. And this is not a problem of air defense systems, they are excellent with us, the problem is that the Americans have an STV and intelligence is even better.
        I understand that you, who served in the Air Defense Forces, are sad to hear this, but I am afraid that this is a bitter truth.
        Then repeat further, the Arabs are bad wars, if they were faced with an equal opponent, if not the old technique, if ... and so on.
        1. +4
          4 July 2018 15: 05
          Quote: KKND
          And about countries with Arabs and other natives, but the air defense was weak. From this it follows that we have super strong? Rust did not think so.

          Do not confuse warm with soft. No. Syrian air defense in 1982 year in Lebanon, it was not the Soviet air defense, for example in the European North or the Far East. Rust has nothing to do with him, his flight is a separate topic.
          Quote: KKND
          Once again, everything is relative. If the US Air Force 60-faced with a modern Russian air defense, then they have no chance.

          They and in 60-e special chances to win without the use of nuclear weapons was not.
          Quote: KKND
          Now ask yourself what the modern air defense system can do against the modern American EAS?

          Cyril, it is strange that you wrote this ... request What is the relationship between START and air defense systems designed to combat aerodynamic targets?
          Quote: KKND
          I understand that you, who served in the Air Defense Forces, are sad to hear this, but I am afraid that this is a bitter truth.

          Kirill, are you saying that I am overestimating our current capabilities?
          Quote: KKND
          Then repeat further, the Arabs are bad wars, if they were faced with an equal opponent, if not the old technique, if ... and so on.

          Sorry, but when did I say that? Although the soldiers, the Arabs are really unimportant. The Syrians are probably the best.
          1. 0
            4 July 2018 15: 37
            Quote: Bongo
            Don't confuse warm with soft. Syrian air defense in Lebanon in 1982 was far from Soviet air defense, for example, in the European North or the Far East. Rust has nothing to do with it, his flight is a separate topic.

            Then repeat further, the Arabs are bad wars, if they were faced with an equal opponent, if not the old technique, if ... and so on.

            Quote: Bongo
            They also had no special chances to win without the use of nuclear weapons in the 60s

            Sergey, please read carefully. In the 60s they were poorly prepared, nevertheless they managed to resist. In the 80s, 2018, they are much more prepared. I have listed why above.
            Quote: Bongo
            Kirill, it's strange that you wrote this... What is the connection between the START and air defense systems designed to combat aerodynamic targets?

            Read carefully, START (Air Assault), and not START (Strategic Offensive Arms ???)
            Quote: Bongo
            Kirill, you want to say that I am overstating our current opportunities?

            Here either overestimating our capabilities, or belittling the capabilities of Americans.
            Specifically, the end of the 80s, how to repel low-altitude attacks against well-explored strategic infrastructure facilities, etc. using only the ground component of air defense (air defense systems + anti-aircraft guns). Reconnaissance of air defense deployment sites (especially object, military is much more difficult) is easily carried out by satellites and drones. This is not the 60s with reconnaissance aircraft.
            Your suggestions (just do not need about 100 SAMs per square kilometer). hi
            Quote: Bongo
            Sorry, but when did I say that? Although the soldiers, the Arabs are really unimportant. The Syrians are probably the best.

            This is flawed logic. Yes, the Arabs could not be better than the Soviet specialists by definition. So what? Shall we blame everything on them? Or maybe it is not the Arabs that are so bad, but the Soviet SAMs that can no longer withstand a cunning enemy. Equipped with solutions to overcome these SAMs?
            It’s direct adults, but they believe that the Arabs lost because they didn’t equip false goals (laziness). Some kind of kindergarten. recourse
            1. +4
              4 July 2018 15: 46
              Quote: KKND
              Specifically, the end of 80-x, how to repel low-altitude attacks, on well-proven strategic infrastructure facilities, etc. using only ground component of the air defense system (SAM) + anti-aircraft guns). The reconnaissance of air defense deployment sites (especially object, military, much more difficult) is easily carried out by satellites and drones.

              Please remind me what drones were in the US in 80?
              Quote: KKND
              Your suggestions (just do not need about 100 SAMs per square kilometer).

              You read my cycle about air defense of the CIS? There what the data is. I don’t want to repeat myself, but in 80-ies American aircraft had no chance in ordinary war.
              Quote: KKND
              And maybe not the Arabs are so bad and the Soviet air defense system can no longer resist the cunning enemy. Equipped with solutions to overcome these air defense systems?

              You forget about the scale of our country, for the USSR the existing air defense system was optimal. The resources of the United States and NATO in the field of military aviation were also not endless.
              In addition, the Arabs have never delivered some combat control and communications systems.
              1. 0
                4 July 2018 16: 35
                Quote: Bongo
                Please remind me what drones were in the US in 80?

                Listen Sergey, you hit me right now. And that's why. Everyone knows that in the 90s, and then there was a direct era of UAVs. But why aren't they in the 80s? In the 70s ?. What is not critical to create them? In the 70s there were few military communications satellites. OK. But the 80s? And how then to comment on this: http: //airwar.ru/enc/bpla/checker.html
                http://airwar.ru/enc/bpla/scout.html
                http://airwar.ru/enc/bpla/ranger.html
                http://airwar.ru/enc/bpla/harpy.html
                And for the Americans, things were completely quiet in the 80s, and then there was an explosion in the 90s and beyond.
                That Israel bypassed the Americans, and then shared its experience, sharply so.
                Then, in articles about air defense that are sometimes read in our press about air defense systems of the late 80s and early 90s, information about the possibilities to deal with targets with low EPR suddenly skips (at the same time, some generally incomprehensible types of American medium and small (but not very small) UAVs are indicated quite large by today's standards.)
                Then infa skips about the active use of UAV by Israel in operation Medvedka-19. Both for reconnaissance and for the destruction of air defense SAR.
                Comparing the facts, I concluded that the Americans actively developed and produced UAVs in the 2nd half. 70s and 80s. As a weapon against air defense. And just like the Israelis tried to keep them secret (remember the case in Iran). But Israel had to use them, so the veil fell off a little. The United States are secretaries and I think they are still secret (small and ultra-small).
                Now the UAV does not produce only the lazy, that’s where the infa went from the 2000s.
                Why am I droning such an effective tool in the fight against air defense systems (in conjunction with other IOS), I still wonder.
                Quote: Bongo
                You read my cycle about air defense of the CIS? There what the data is. I don’t want to repeat myself, but in 80-ies American aircraft had no chance in ordinary war.

                Specifically, how to shoot down low-altitude fighters at night in the 80s? Even if they are spotted from afar? Their reconnaissance will figure out the main positions of long-range air defense systems. All that remains is to hope that they will run into some undiscovered medium- or short-range complex. But the low-altitude fighter must fly along a very favorable trajectory so that the complex can hit it before it goes over the horizon.
                Offers in the studio. Maybe I'm dumb request
                Quote: Bongo
                You forget about the scale of our country, for the USSR the existing air defense system was optimal. The resources of the United States and NATO in the field of military aviation were also not endless.

                Now, if you transfer all the USSR air defense to any Israel, then you definitely won’t fly here Yes
                Only the USSR has a slightly larger area.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. +1
    4 July 2018 11: 40
    Although in the domestic and foreign literature on the war in Southeast Asia, in the confrontation between the air defense system of the DRV and American aviation, much attention is paid to the combat use of North Vietnamese air defense systems and fighters, the main load was still carried by anti-aircraft artillery. It was anti-aircraft guns that hit 2/3 of the aircraft shot down during the Vietnam War. For more than three years of incessant massive air strikes, the aircraft of the Air Force, Navy and the USMC have lost a total of 3495 aircraft and helicopters.

    The main weapon of air defense in the late 60's is anti-aircraft artillery. Although very little attention was paid to its development and it remained at the level of World War II. No one knew this lesson, and today again only fighters, S-300, S-400, S-500 are redundant. No one thinks about the modernization and development of anti-aircraft guns except maybe only the fleet.
    1. +3
      4 July 2018 11: 55
      Quote: Kostadinov
      The main air defense weapon at the end of the 60-quiet's is anti-aircraft artillery. Although very little attention was paid to its development and it remained at the level of the Second World War.

      Come on...
      One can recall such Soviet post-war anti-aircraft systems as the 100-mm KS-19, 130-mm KS-30, 57-mm S-60 anti-aircraft gun, 23-mm twin ZU-23, numerous ZPU caliber 12,7 and 14,5- mm. At the same time, the fire of 130, 100 and 57-mm guns was directed with the help of gun-guided radar stations. The most advanced of them RPK-1 "Vase on the basis of" Ural ". In addition, the ZSU-4-23 "Shilka" with radar search and guidance is also anti-aircraft artillery.
      1. +3
        4 July 2018 12: 46
        All the same, the 152-mm KM-52 anti-aircraft guns were forgotten in vain. After all, the 2 batteries (16 guns) were adopted for trial operation ...
        1. +5
          4 July 2018 14: 56
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          All the same, the 152-mm KM-52 anti-aircraft guns were forgotten in vain. After all, the 2 batteries (16 guns) were adopted for trial operation ...
          Yes In the Baku air defense district.
          1. +4
            4 July 2018 15: 23
            Quote: Bongo
            In the Baku air defense district.

            Yes sir ! soldier
      2. +1
        4 July 2018 13: 56
        Quote: Bongo
        Come on...

        I think that a man of corrected projectiles to anti-aircraft guns wants ....
        Here, in my opinion, it is even worse than with the air defense system in terms of the cost / efficiency ratio. recourse
        1. +3
          4 July 2018 14: 55
          Quote: KKND
          I think that a man of corrected projectiles to anti-aircraft guns wants ....
          Here, in my opinion, it is even worse than with the air defense system in terms of the cost / efficiency ratio.

          For army complexes is quite a promising direction.
      3. +5
        4 July 2018 14: 02
        Sergey, almost on the topic. Did you see me already in the PVOshniki fired? wink
        In a good way, it should be noted.
        And with Vaz is not entirely accurate. The point is not that they were not in Vietnam, as well as many other things, just VAZ + PUAZO stood on all AUs, except C-60, because Vase itself did not install RVs. But it is fine petty
        1. +3
          4 July 2018 14: 54
          Quote: sivuch
          Sergey, almost on the topic. Did you see me already in the PVOshniki fired?

          Congratulations! But you have to admit that you own the topic better than many who served in the HAP.
          Quote: sivuch
          And with Vaz is not entirely accurate. The point is not that they were not in Vietnam, as well as many other things, just VAZ + PUAZO stood on all AUs, except C-60, because Vase itself did not install RVs. But it is fine petty

          However, there was definitely no Vasa in Vietnam during the war with the USA.
        2. +2
          4 July 2018 15: 48
          Quote: sivuch
          Sergey, almost on the topic. Did you see me already in the PVOshniki fired?
          In a good way, it should be noted.

          Uh ... I was sure that you served in the air defense forces. They even wrote a monograph about The Circle.
          In a good way, we should get together, Sergey, you, Nikolai, my humble person, other members of the forum who at least understand something and evaluate the possibility of air defense systems but repulsing modern means of air attack. For example, I think that the Soviet-Russian propagandists piled up too many myths. We must try to figure it out. So far, American air defense weapons are breaking through, no matter what. The question arises of the better more modern samples. I was trying to prove here that from the point of view of the energy characteristics of new missiles, almost nothing. Provide counterarguments to my statement, please.
          And jokes are easier to joke.
          1. +2
            5 July 2018 08: 41
            In order to understand such issues, it is necessary to open the doors of the archives of the Moscow Region and design bureaus with your foot. I am not one of those and all my information is secondary. But in general, I can only say that in most cases the range of an air defense system is determined not only by chemistry. Much more often, by the capabilities of the guidance system. Well, it’s completely banal - by definition, air defense alone cannot win a war. By the way, Sergei, in my opinion, has not yet written about political games on the other side - you can bomb here, you can’t here, but here I wrapped the fish.
  19. 0
    4 July 2018 15: 55
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: Kostadinov
    The main air defense weapon at the end of the 60-quiet's is anti-aircraft artillery. Although very little attention was paid to its development and it remained at the level of the Second World War.

    Come on...
    One can recall such Soviet post-war anti-aircraft systems as the 100-mm KS-19, 130-mm KS-30, 57-mm S-60 anti-aircraft gun, 23-mm twin ZU-23, numerous ZPU caliber 12,7 and 14,5- mm. At the same time, the fire of 130, 100 and 57-mm guns was directed with the help of gun-guided radar stations. The most advanced of them RPK-1 "Vase on the basis of" Ural ". In addition, the ZSU-4-23 "Shilka" with radar search and guidance is also anti-aircraft artillery.

    57 mm automatic, SON, POISSO, anti-aircraft self-propelled guns, so this is the level of the Second World War, although their development was somewhat late.
  20. 0
    4 July 2018 16: 06
    Quote: KKND
    Quote: Bongo
    Come on...

    I think that a man of corrected projectiles to anti-aircraft guns wants ....
    Here, in my opinion, it is even worse than with the air defense system in terms of the cost / efficiency ratio. recourse

    For tanks developed guided missiles and didn’t look worse than ATGM.
    The fleet hit new anti-aircraft guns in the 60s and 70s, and for the ground forces only the post-war generation.
  21. +3
    4 July 2018 20: 22
    The author as always pleased, great article
  22. +3
    4 July 2018 23: 09
    Respected Sergey, respect for another excellent article, I read it with pleasure, now I’ll print it and will analyze it with a pencil in my hands! (not a joke)