Military Review

How the air defense strategy influenced the air defense systems in the USSR, the Russian Federation and the USA. C-300 vs "Patriot"

108

The ambitious idea of ​​the multichannel complex C-300 - a leader for years to come


The fact is that the C-300 complex was conceived from the very beginning in NPO Almaz named after A. A. Raspletin (now Air Defense Concern Almaz-Antey) as a very ambitious, fantastic strategic state project: a regiment radar with a phased antenna array, leading dozens of targets at distances up to 300 km, giving through KP computers (command post) instructions to six divisions with S-300 air defense systems, each of which can simultaneously shoot down to 6 goals. We can say this: it was the ambitious, somewhat fantastic requirements for the capabilities of the complex, the bold design of the design team and provided him with a long leadership. The project was lucky in the sense that the state did not leave it halfway, did not stop financing and provided everything necessary.


How the air defense strategy influenced the air defense systems in the USSR, the Russian Federation and the USA. C-300 vs "Patriot"


The peculiarity of the C-300 does not begin with the regimental, but with the division level. Each medium-range divisional air defense system (up to 45 km) was to become the first serial multi-channel air defense system in the USSR. Multichannel in the sense of simultaneous firing of targets: 6 of fired targets, 12 of guided missiles in the air (two for one target). And in this case, each air defense system should, if something happens, work separately, without regimental radar and CP.

The C-300 complex is characterized by the following technical innovations: automation of all processes (except for deciding to fire at a target), short response time, noise-resistant communication lines with automatic frequency tuning, redundancy and fast switching of radar frequencies, flexible use of several different radars in one complex ( different ranges and operating principles), the flexible composition of the regiment - a different number of divisions (from 1 to 6), the vertical launch of powerful solid-fuel missiles (guided missiles were developed by the ICB “Fak” l ") weighing 1,5 tons, a length of more than 7 meters, speeds of up to 2,1 kilometers per second, and with a long warranty period of storage in containers.

Hence the unique properties of C-300: the destruction of a low-flying target by a rocket by striking from above at extremely low altitudes (only 25-10 meters above the ground), the possibility of hitting targets flying at speeds of up to 4 sound speeds, the ability to destroy ballistic missiles at a record height (up to 27 km) . After long and difficult trials (not everything went smoothly), the C-300 complex began to be mass-produced since the 1975 of the year, was adopted for service in the 1978 year, in the 1980-s it has already become the basis of the country's air defense.

Initially, the complex supported working with 3 types of missiles: special missiles (Type C) with a nuclear warhead (it was quickly removed from service), command (type K) - without a radar guidance head, but with a large explosive charge (130 kg), with half- active guidance (type P) - equipped with a radar receiver for homing, have greater accuracy, but less explosive charge (90 kg). The range of missiles has been increased from 45 to 75 km. Numerous tests and training exercises with "live" targets showed: a rocket explosion at 15 meters from the target is guaranteed to destroy a target like a fighter / cruise missile. In most cases, the rocket explodes even closer: at 3-7 meters from the target. Occasionally, missiles hit the target directly (and manage to report it to the air defense system).



Later, the arsenal of missiles expanded, as well as new types of C-300 complexes appeared: in addition to the initial (positionally transported) version of the C-300PT (to which I was related by virtue of my ASL), the tracked version of the C-1982PS arose in 300 ( self-propelled), and then in 1989 a quick-deploying complex was adopted for service on the new C-300ПМ element base (mobile), in 1997 it was modified to the “С-300ПМ2 Favorite” with an expanded range of missiles and a record target interception range (up to 195 km), which began to enter the troops only in 2012 year.

Even in this 2019 year, an intermediate (between the obsolete C-300PS and the too expensive new C-400) complex called the Vityaz C-350 (tested in the 2013 year) with an increased number of missiles at the launcher was adopted to reflect massive raids.

Simultaneously with this evolution of C-300 for air defense by another team (Design Bureau named after M.I. Kalinin), the development of C-300В (military) options for army air defense (front-line air defense of covering the battlefield) on tracked conveyors: C-300В, С -300В1, С-300В2, С-300ВМ "Antey-2500".

For large ships fleet the third design bureau (VNII RE, the former NII-10) developed the S-1980F (naval) Fort complex in the 300s, then the S-300FM Fort-M with missile range up to 200 km.

It seems to be understandable why C-300 is so popular in our country and abroad. However, there is one "BUT», Regarding doubts about the combat effectiveness of C-300 for external customers.

C-300 paradox: has never been used in battle, but is in demand in the world!


The most unusual fact about the combat merit of the C-300: it has never been used in real combat. Although he participated indirectly in military conflicts (for example, he recently played his role in the civil war in Syria). How, then, to explain the desire of many countries to buy a complex that, for 40 years, has not passed the baptism of war?

Only the simple fact that no one dared to attack the countries and objects covered by C-300. C-300 defended them without a single combat shot, without a single victory. C-300 defended all this time (about 40 years) of the USSR and the Russian Federation, 20 has been protecting China for years, and more than 10 has been protecting many other countries. The fact that these countries were not affected by the war is also due to the С-300 complex. Why is that?

Let me give you an example from another area (which I came across somewhere on the Internet): in one city in the summer, all residents were in a fever the news about apartment thefts - they happened several times a day. The author of the article conducted his own research in his and neighboring houses. As a result, he found out an amazing fact: none of the apartments where the owners had a dog and / or officially registered weapon was not robbed. The apartment with the dog is easy to determine, but the effect with the registered weapon suggests that the thieves had a database from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Why did thieves avoid such apartments? Because both a powerful dog and firearms are fraught with danger, which is completely unnecessary for experienced thieves. Nobody wants to get a portion of fractions or buckshot in the stomach - this is both painful and unpleasant, often just fatal. It’s not worth it to go if there are apartments nearby without such “surprises”. Similarly with C-300: why run into such a "pig in a poke", which can be very unpleasant, if not fatal surprise, if you can choose a victim without C-300 at all?

In this, C-300 resembles nuclear weapons: after all, countries that possess nuclear weapons on ballistic carriers are simply not at risk of attack - it is too dangerous! Similar история and with C-300: it is scary to attack where the C-300 is on round-the-clock duty because of the very possible heavy losses in expensive aircraft and professional pilots, but the success of such an enterprise is far from guaranteed. Roughly speaking, C-300 without a single shot protects the possessing countries with its unique combat capabilities, its image, inspires fear even without confirmation of its qualities in battle.

A little about buyers C-300


Which countries bought export options of C-300? Algeria, Venezuela, Vietnam, Iran, China, Greece, Syria ... Shipments to Egypt are expected soon, a contract with India is still possible. The first buyers appeared at C-400 (China, Turkey).

Which countries did you want to buy C-300, but could not?

1. Cyprus under pressure from the United States in 1997-2007 sold C-300 Greece on about. Crete (received in return Tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, howitzers and several air defense systems Tor-M1).

2. Iran. The first attempt to buy C-300 in 2007-10 failedBut the second in 2015-16 was a success.

3. Turkey. The first tender attempt was unsuccessful for C-300 (and the tender itself was canceled after the victory of the Chinese clone C-300 under the name HQ-9), but Turkey was able to buy C-400 this year, which simply put NATO in front of an unpleasant choice: to expel Turkey from NATO in disgrace or to wait for Turkey to leave NATO itself with a proudly raised head.

By the way, all the arguments of the Americans that C-400 in Turkey are allegedly dangerous for NATO because this complex is there "incompatible with NATO standards"Or in Turkey, Russian specialists using C-400 will learn to detect and fly new American F-35 fighters (also ordered by Turkey) with radars, it’s just ridiculous: what when these fighters fly over Norway right at the borders of the Russian Federation (or in the Baltic Sea) our complexes will not learn how to detect and track F-35 ?? Or do you forbid Norwegians to fly on F-35 at the borders of the Russian Federation? Why then to the Norwegians these fighters not flying because of secrecy? Show them in the museum? One would like to say: do not invent fairy tales, make an export air defense system at or better than C-400, offer your allies - then there will be no problem with Turkey ...

Which countries received C-300 from the USSR and continue to use them? This is Croatia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan ... Why do they still continue to use them (even without being allies of the Russian Federation)? Because they do not have money and the desire to switch to something else, which is more expensive and not necessarily better. Some of these countries experienced conflicts on their borders, which, however, never turned into air raids.

Moreover, for a number of countries, C-300 analogues were developed and put on stream, either created through cooperation with Antei NPO as a complex KM-SAM Cheolmae-2 in South Korea in 2015 (which then led to the development in Russia of the S-350 air defense system), either by purchasing a license for the production of С-300ПМУ1, as in China with a licensed complex (HQ-15 "Hongqi-15", HongQi-15), or by copying techniqueAs in China created the HQ-9 / HQ-9 complex ("Hongqi-9" - HongQi-9) based on C-300 (https://rg.ru/2018/11/12/proryv-ili-kopiia-est-li-raznica-mezhdu-s-300-i-kitajskim-hq-9.html), причем он Already sold by China to Morocco, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Or like in Iran, where in 2019 the year was created suspiciously like C-300 complex Khordad 15.

The funny thing is that and The USA secretly acquired for 6 million dollars in December the 1994 complex, either C-300ПМУ, or С-300ПТ-1 in Belarus. At the same time, one should not forget that before and after this incident, the Americans could get a lot from C-300 from Croatia, from Slovakia, and from Greece, which has long been a member of NATO.

They could not get anything useful for copying from this transaction, since the American approach to both radars and electronics (at the lowest, elementary level) is different, and the structure of the connections of C-300 nodes and elements is as if deliberately confused to the limit - even studying the interaction of elements is very difficult. And then: what kind of normal American manufacturer admits that C-300 is better and will start to copy it stupidly when you can create something of your own? Moreover, Americans from the 1982 of the year have their own Patriot air defense system ("Patriot") with a rich history.

Why is the American analog of Patriot not quite the analog of C-300?


Compared with the C-300, the American Patriot MIM-104 (Patriot) SAM is less famous here. But in the West, in NATO countries, in Japan, he is just very famous, as he participated in at least three real wars and constantly defends the sky of Israel. That is, unlike the C-300, the Patriot air defense system was tested in real combat operations and proved to be in battle.



In print, media and the Internet, many copies are broken on the subject of which is better: C-300 or Patriot. I can’t add new arguments to this endless debate, I’ll only notice that the Patriot was developed by Raytheon at about the same time (tests began in the 1976 year), but was initially designed for a shorter range and height of defeat, it was not focused on defending borders countries, and to defend objects or troops on the battlefield. From the very beginning, the Patriot had slower missiles (1,8 km / s), smaller in size (but more precisely, due to the constant reception by the missile of the radar signal reflected from the target and its transfer from the missile to the air defense system), it had a slight advantage in multichannel (up to 6- 8 targets and up to 24 missiles aimed at them), however, its variants have a somewhat long deployment time, as they are placed on trailers. The Patriot is slightly cheaper to use, this SAM was not originally designed for the country's air defense, to protect airspace on the borders of the United States - mainly because of the differences between the American air defense concept and the USSR / Russian air defense concept. Therefore, it is not entirely correct to compare these two complexes, although their design has general principles, because their designers often followed similar paths.

The status of the battle-tested for the Patriot complex has both good and bad sides: during the 1991 war in the Persian Gulf, this air defense system had problems with the destruction of old primitive short-range Scud short-range ballistic missiles (according to some reports, about 25% of such missiles in Saudi Arabia and about 33% in Israel). Sometimes these problems led to mass deaths. Moreover, not all problems can be attributed to the human factor, technical problems due to service disruptions, bad weather and placement / application errors, misses in the work of combat crew due to the complexity of the target’s flight — some of the errors were caused by incorrect technical and software solutions, for example, poor synchronization of time in different elements of the complex (every 100 hours of uninterrupted operation led to deviation of the system clock by one third of a second) The Americans and Israelis improved a lot in the Patriot system after these failures and over time it got better (in 2003, 9 from 9 missiles were intercepted over Israel).

But recent experience with the Patriot complex in southwestern Saudi Arabia came out again not very successful, right up to firing rockets "Patriot" of the Saudi capital (one missile of this air defense system abruptly “went off course” and hit a residential area instead of a target;

.

Another rocket exploded / self-destructed in the first kilometer of flight.

As a result, the Husite partisans manage to strike at airbases, airports, which seem to be covered by Patriot divisions, with their own and Iranian ballistic missiles. destroy one Patriot installation with cheap Iranian drone Qasef-2K. Perhaps it is in brave partisans with ballistic missiles. Previously, only in computer games did the developers' imagination allow an unrealistic combination: partisans with ballistic missiles. Now it has become the truth of life and even a routine. Although specifically in these cases, the matter is probably still not only in them and in the Patriot complex, but in the Saudis using this complex, with unknown preparation.

By the way, I would not be surprised if, when comparing American and Israeli calculations of the Patriot air defense system, it turns out that the Israeli military, both in general training and in real combat experience, is a cut above their American counterparts. How can this be?

It’s very simple: Israeli air defense is constantly on alert, the calculations of the same “Patriots” in Israel often destroy drones and missiles flying towards them, sometimes airplanes - combat work is quite specific and directly related to the hourly defense of the air borders of a small country from real enemies.

Whereas the Americans are either training at home at training grounds with previously known false targets, or they are using Patriots divisions in areas where US expeditionary forces deploy in rare conflicts and US invasions abroad, when in fact a weak adversary can’t really oppose the US to the sky. Accordingly, the approach of the American Patriots ’calculations to the service is more formal, less connected with the real danger of defeat and death of the calculation, has nothing to do with the defense of the US borders (they are too far away, often just from the other side of the Earth).

But what about the use of "Patriot" for the defense of US borders directly? How is the Patriot air defense system used there?

The strangest thing is that the answer is: does not apply ...

Differences between the US Air Defense Strategy and the USSR / RF Air Defense Strategy


Not only the Patriot, but also other air defense systems in the USA have long been no longer used for round-the-clock combat duty, for the defense of the US borders, airspace on the borders or around important American sites, cities, and ports. It sounds strange, but the United States (in fact the most powerful military power in the world) does not use its best multi-channel air defense system in the country!

American air defense of the country relies entirely on defense against aviation enemy using fighter aircraft, which is controlled based on data from 127 military radars deployed throughout the United States. (And a massive retaliatory nuclear strike in the event of an enemy missile strike). And this makes its own sense: Americans since the days of the USSR are not so much focused on the defense of their own country, but on controlling ... all over the world at once. Simply put: if, having the best army, navy and aviation, the USA can suppress any countries, then why should the Americans tightly defend the entire air border of their country and Canada, as they tried to do since the late 50s with the help of expensive stationary stationary air defense batteries range? After all, instead, you can control those countries that are potentially dangerous for the United States (from military bases not far from them) by pre-suppressing any dangerous creeps for the United States far from the US borders!

This concept had a definite meaning, it worked for several decades against the USSR, which could not and did not want to control the whole world, did not even have the ability to block numerous US bases, and therefore, from the 70-ies it was striving with all its might with the help of radars and numerous complexes Air defense (such as C-200 and C-300) control the entire perimeter of the Soviet borders and the Warsaw Pact countries (widely using air defense fighters only in sparsely populated polar regions), hoping in case of which to stop American aviation at the borders.

The American concept of active defense (rather, even attack) on very, very distant lines and weak control of the air borders of their country by the US Air Force radar and fighter aircraft took shape in the 70 years too. Such a concept did not require the development of a serial S-300 air defense system at all, nor did it require dozens of such systems to be deployed at the borders in the round-the-clock operation. Instead, American defense gradually moved away from the 1975-79 year. the old concept of the polar DEW radar line and placed farther south in Canada and the USA stationary air defense systems long and ultra-long range development 50 years (265-174 batteries of the Nike-Hercules air defense system и 9 battery base SAM "Bomark" ) to new medium-range mobiles, but only to protect their bases and troops abroad - this role went to adopted by the Patriot MIM-1982 system in the 104 year. And before and now about half of all Patriot complexes deployed in the territories of US allies in Europe, South Korea and Japan, the Middle East. And everything was fine until this concept gave a terrible, but logical (and not completely realized by many) failure after the collapse of the Soviet Union - 11 of September 2001 of the year.

Unexpected collapse of American air defense concept


To understand the horror of the defeat of the United States (and the US Air Force's powerlessness) during the September 11 terrorist attacks, it is necessary to study the very planning of terrorist attacks. By chance, in the summer of 2017, I caught my eye the notorious Xnumx classified pages of the US intelligence report on the investigation of the September 11 attacks. I studied this issue from a political point of view and from the point of view of planning attacks, wrote about it Articlethen expanded the narrative in terms of air defense and air traffic control. I can say without exaggeration that I myself was amazed at the results of my research.

The truth turned out to be much worse than conspiracy theories ... The conclusion is very unpleasant: foolish terrorists could not have come up with such a complex and accurate plan - to plan it, you need certain specific knowledge in the field of civilian air control, air traffic control in the US sky, and in the field of interaction between air traffic controllers and air defense USA, and in the US airspace defense scheme. Simply put, the attacks were planned by those who possessed this special knowledge and understood the whole essence of the work of air traffic controllers and US air defense. Alas, after the attacks, many unpleasant facts were kept secret, hidden by the US military itself, leading politicians, and, most unpleasantly, by the US special services (which, in theory, should "serve and protect" their country, and in case of failure, investigate and avenge those responsible for tragedy). The attention of the public and experts was distorted by a flood of crazy conspiratorial ideas, lies, stuffing, newspaper chatter, and the Bush administration’s dominant media dominance, propaganda directed for some reason against ... Iraq. Only in the middle of the summer of 2016, when the 28 pages from the first report of the special services to the U.S. Parliament on 11 of September were declassified in the USA, it became clear who could have such special knowledge, who could draw up and implement this plan with treachery unprecedented in the world.

As early as 2002, US intelligence agencies drafted more than an 800-page report at the request of the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry (JICI) of the US Parliament on the events of September 11. Immediately 28 pages numbered 415-443 (https://28pages.org/the-declassified-28-pages/) from this report were classified. Secret by decree of the President of the United States, George W. Bush. What for?

Then, what exactly on these 28 pages contains the sensational data of the FBI investigation, which directly and unequivocally indicate that the attacks were prepared by Saudi intelligence agents Omar al-Bayumi (Omar al-bayoumi) and a bin Laden fan, a certain Osama Bassan (Osama Bassnan - p. 415-417, 438, 423), as well as diplomats and consular workers of Saudi Arabia: Fahad al-Fumayri, Saleh Hussein (Shaykh \ Fahad al-Thumairy, Saleh al-Hussayen - p. 417-418). These Saudis in the United States funded, directed, arranged for the terrorist kidnappers of the 11 airliners on September 2001 in a flight school (p. 421-423). These people rented and prepared apartments for terrorists, bought them telephones and helped to get a new place. And they even arranged a meeting with the future kamikaze with the local imam-Islamist Anwar al-Awlaki, who became the confessor of the “fighters for the faith”.

From the point of view of planning, it is Omar al-Bayoumi who is interesting, who is interested in his professional skills. He worked as a specialist, and then as an accountant in the civil aviation administration of Saudi Arabia from 1976 to 1993., At the same time he worked for the Ministry of Defense. The king’s minister of defense and aviation, Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the godfather of the Saudi Air Force, was his boss. Also, this prince was chairman of the board of the national airline of Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabian Airlines). Omar al-Bayumi himself advised the kingdom's Department of Defense on air traffic control until 1994, and then lived in the United States. But at the same time, he maintained ties with the government of Saudi Arabia, with the chief of the Saudi Ministry of Defense, responsible for air traffic control. He received thousands of dollars from the Ministry of Finance of the Kingdom of 20 for unnamed services. He studied at technical schools in the United States, and, submitting documents for admission in the 1998 year, he presented a certificate of tuition for the government of Saudi Arabia.

Obviously, both specific knowledge and a convenient moment for an attack by terrorists (from 19 suicide bombers are an absolute majority, 15, were just Saudis) they could get from their Wahhabi fellow tribesmen: Saudi civil aviation specialists who worked / studied in the USA, Saudi spies, diplomatic / consular officers of Saudi Arabia, Saudi military attaches, and Air Force officers with connections in the US Air Force trained there including the use of fighters in the field of air defense. As they say, with such allies no enemies needed! Therefore, the very mysterious 28 pages of the combined report of the US special services were hidden from the public, and therefore they were disclosed by Obama as skillfully and imperceptibly on the eve of the most scandalous presidential election (15 July 2016 year, the day when Trump announced the name of his vice president, 4 days before the official recognition of Trump as a candidate). All the long 14 years of disclosure of the contents of these 28 pages have been demanded by the relatives of the victims of the attacks and US senators.

Most importantly: the one who ordered the attacks on September 11 was guided not by the familiar combination of numbers 9 / 11, but by the fact that it was the best day for an air attack in the northeastern United States: the vast majority of pilots and fighters were recalled from there to the joint US-Canadian Air Force maneuvers called Northern vigilance in Canada and Alaska (against you know who you are). Covering the entire continental United States (from ocean to ocean) were only ... 14 fighter (of which only 6 pieces are in 15-minute readiness). New York and Washington, where all 4 terrorist targets were located, defended total 4 fighter.

Moreover, the US Air Force and Air Defense on this day in the morning planned the next "virtual" combined staff maneuvers and air defense training Global Guardian + Vigliant Guardianaccompanied by a bunch of false targets on radars (computer generated). The conditional seizure of the airliner also entered into the introduction to these maneuvers, which initially caused a regular reaction among the air defense operators "Well, this is the plot of the maneuvers, it’s not serious!"And as the song says:"... and the city thought, maneuvers were coming"- alas, for the city of New York it turned out sideways.



The first pair of F-15 fighters from an air base in the Boston area was simply late for the destruction of skyscrapers in New York (moreover, when the pilots arrived there, they still did not know why they were sent there!). The second pair of F-16 fighters from an air base in Washington itself, obeying the confused commands of the Navy's operators, somehow flew to the sea (as for the usual training to repel the attack of cruise missiles from the sea), and then just did not have time to return to Washington and defend the Pentagon - the military center relics of the USA ...

What does the C-300 and the Patriot air defense system have to do with it?


And despite the fact that neither the US capital nor the Pentagon were covered by either air defense missiles, or even a pair of soldiers with MANPADS. This is an omission was fixed after a few years: three NASAMS air defense missile systems were placed in a triangle around the US capital (Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System) medium-range (up to 15-40 km) joint Norwegian-American production. Even for the headquarters of the leadership of all US armed forces, for the Pentagon, protection with the help of the Patriot air defense system was considered unnecessary ... and too expensive.

Well, all the "extra" Patriot air defense systems - those that are not used in the USA for training and maneuvers (inside special training grounds) that do not guard American bases and allied cities far from the US borders (about half such Patriots) - those "Patriots" they are simply stored in 4 warehouses in the United States: these are Fort Sill, Fort Bliss, Fort Hood and Redstone arsenal. They have been kept there for years and do not use for combat duty on an ongoing basis in the country. In this sense lesson 11 September did not go for the future American air defense. It is understandable: the United States is still trying to control the whole world, which means that the country's air defense strategy does not need constantly combat-ready air defense systems at the borders of the United States.

I am not saying that U.S. air defense could have shot down planes hijacked by terrorists had the U.S. air defense in September 2001 in the New York and Washington area been equipped with combat-ready air defense systems on round-the-clock duty (as was the case in both the USSR and the Russian Federation). Still, in such a situation, in order to give a morally difficult order to “shoot down a passenger plane”, the iron will of the air defense commander and permission from the very top, from the commander in chief (such permission in the Russian air defense adopted by law in 2006finalized at the level of regulations in 2019 year), as well as a clear miscalculation of the situation by dispatchers and the military, impeccable fast communication from radar operators to the very top and again down to the air defense commander. But with the SAM, the Americans would at least have a chance.

With fighters, they simply did not have this chance ...

Thus, we see that the right choice in the 70s of the whole country's air defense concept for the USSR led to the creation of a very ambitious complex project of the S-300 multi-channel air defense system, which overtook time. Which, since the 1980s, has not only reliably guarded the air borders of our country, but also allowed for over 40 years to develop and sell this complex abroad, bringing a peaceful sky and confidence to other countries that bought C-300.

And we see the opposite result for the USA: the choice of a different concept of air defense of the whole country led to the creation in the USA of the Patriot air defense system, which is not needed by its armed forces in its homeland, inside the borders of the mainland USA (it is idle in warehouses) needed only for US bases outside the borders of the country. Perhaps this is the reason for his average success (even taking into account the combat use) against the background of the success of the S-300 air defense system family.
Author:
Photos used:
mtdata.ru
108 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. andrewkor
    andrewkor 11 September 2019 06: 14 New
    +4
    "The best air defense" - tanks at enemy airfields "- Louis Napoleon Bonaparte!
    1. PavelT
      11 September 2019 10: 07 New
      +3
      In modern conditions, it is possible to rephrase: "one flying thermonuclear warhead per enemy airfield" ...
    2. PavelT
      11 September 2019 10: 07 New
      0
      In modern conditions, it is possible to rephrase: "one flying thermonuclear warhead per enemy airfield" ...
    3. Professor
      Professor 11 September 2019 10: 39 New
      +11
      Quote: andrewkor
      "The best air defense" - tanks at enemy airfields "- Louis Napoleon Bonaparte!

      This was said by Alexander the Great. I heard it myself.
      1. ivanec
        ivanec 11 September 2019 11: 59 New
        -2
        It’s said Henry Ford, but about the chosen ones "
      2. aws4
        aws4 12 September 2019 03: 45 New
        +3
        as always, I took the Professor’s word to you and in the end I looked like a fool in front of my comrades ... Alexander the Great died long ago ... shame on you !!! if you continue to deceive, I promise that I will become an anti-Semite
        1. Professor
          Professor 12 September 2019 06: 55 New
          +3
          Quote: aws4
          as always, I took the Professor’s word to you and in the end I looked like a fool in front of my comrades ... Alexander the Great died long ago ... shame on you !!! if you continue to deceive, I promise that I will become an anti-Semite

          Dead? Why didn’t they report to me? Or do you think Napoleon talked about airfields? wink
          1. Harry.km
            Harry.km 17 September 2019 00: 20 New
            0
            Quote: Professor
            Dead? Why didn’t they report to me? Or do you think Napoleon talked about airfields?

            He talked about tanks! And the airfield is for rhyme ...
            1. Professor
              Professor 17 September 2019 09: 32 New
              +1
              Quote: Harry.km
              Quote: Professor
              Dead? Why didn’t they report to me? Or do you think Napoleon talked about airfields?

              He talked about tanks! And the airfield is for rhyme ...

              Did Napoleon talk about tanks? In the next room? wassat
              1. Harry.km
                Harry.km 18 September 2019 18: 51 New
                +1
                Quote: Professor
                Did Napoleon talk about tanks? In the next room?

                Well, yes ... When I sailed to Argentina in a submarine, I just said that they say either tanks on airfields or an iPhone on Windows NT. And he, Napoleon then, knew a lot about cavalry.
      3. Grits
        Grits 23 September 2019 05: 34 New
        0
        Quote: Professor
        Quote: andrewkor
        "The best air defense" - tanks at enemy airfields "- Louis Napoleon Bonaparte!

        This was said by Alexander the Great. I heard it myself.

        I hope he told you this through a closed telephone line?
  2. Ilya Melnov
    Ilya Melnov 11 September 2019 06: 55 New
    -16
    The air defense did not win a single war, but the sacred faith in having no analogues in the world of Luja, which did not bring down a single plane, is indestructible. Straight sacred cow. what
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 11 September 2019 09: 49 New
      +2
      Not lost a single war - so right.
      And yes, which has no analogues in the world.
      You can beat your head on the pan by jumping in the square, but it is.
    2. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 11 September 2019 09: 56 New
      +12
      Do the examples of London and Moscow tell you nothing?
      Consider that in the 41 the USSR survived also because most of the German bomber aircraft prepared and flew for the bombing of Moscow and did not bombard railway stations, bridges, factories, warehouses and other objects in our near and far rear. And she flew almost to no avail. Moscow’s air defense stood up and caused significant damage to Goering’s squadrons.
      And if not?
      That's the question, won the air defense war or not ...
      1. alstr
        alstr 11 September 2019 11: 48 New
        +6
        Of the more modern, you can add Vietnam.
      2. Ilya Melnov
        Ilya Melnov 12 September 2019 08: 38 New
        -2
        Quote: Vlad.by
        Do the examples of London and Moscow tell you nothing?
        Consider that in the 41 the USSR survived also because most of the German bomber aircraft prepared and flew for the bombing of Moscow and did not bombard railway stations, bridges, factories, warehouses and other objects in our near and far rear. And she flew almost to no avail. Moscow’s air defense stood up and caused significant damage to Goering’s squadrons.
        And if not?
        That's the question, won the air defense war or not ...

        The Air Force won the battle for Britain, and the Germans did not get the best air defense against the armada of American aircraft from the word at all.
        As for Vietnam, it’s debatable actually, but even after the change of tactics by the Americans, the air defense did not live for a long time ...
  3. Amateur
    Amateur 11 September 2019 06: 57 New
    +2
    Question from an amateur to experts: Was there ever a C-300 system (except for popular articles)?
    There were C-300P developed under the direction of the General Designer of the Central Design Bureau “Almaz” B.V. Bunkin for the defense of administrative and industrial facilities, fixed control centers, staffs and military bases against strategic and tactical aircraft, as well as strategic cruise and aeroballistic missiles.
    Were X-NUMX. The lead developer of the S-300В air defense system as a whole, as well as the developer of the manual gearbox, multichannel missile guidance station, and programmatic radar, was determined by the Electromechanical Research Institute (NIEMI). V.P. Efremov became the chief designer of the system and these tools. The S-300B air defense system was supposed to be a front-line air defense system and was intended for the destruction of ground-based ballistic missiles (such as Lance, Pershing) and aviation (SRAM type) ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, strategic and tactical aviation aircraft, barring active jamming directors, combat helicopters in conditions of massive use of the indicated air attack means, in difficult air and jamming situations, when conducting covered by troops maneuver combat operations.
    They say besides the numbers "300" they had nothing in common.
    Specialists! Please comment !!!
  4. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 11 September 2019 06: 59 New
    +2
    regiment radar with a phased array, leading dozens of targets at distances up to 300 km, giving through the computers KP (command post) six divisions
    maybe six batteries?
    1. PavelT
      11 September 2019 10: 09 New
      +2
      No, in our regiment, the air defense system in the regiment was called the division, and the PU group inside the division was called the battery. Of course, such a battery cannot shoot separately (without a radar division), but they called it that.
      1. KVU-NSVD
        KVU-NSVD 11 September 2019 10: 15 New
        0
        A regiment (brigade) - from two divisions, a division - from two batteries, a battery of two (rarely) and more PU. Therefore, the regiment - from six batteries or at least 12 PU (usually more). So in RviA. Is it different in air defense? .
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 11 September 2019 14: 13 New
          +2
          Quote: KVU-NSVD
          Is it different in air defense? .

          But yak! smile In our Air Defense Forces, for the same C-125, one division is one fire complex:
          The tactical and fire subdivision of the anti-aircraft missile troops (ZRV) is understood as the subdivision capable of independently performing combat missions. In the anti-aircraft defense system, the main tactical and firing unit of the C-125 is the anti-aircraft missile division. He is part of the anti-aircraft missile regiments of a mixed composition of air defense air defense.
          The anti-aircraft missile division (SAM) is the main tactical and fire subdivision and is designed to destroy enemy air attack weapons.

          The S-125 anti-aircraft missile division organizationally consists of a command, a combat support unit — a command platoon, combat units — a radio engineering and launch battery, and a service unit.
          The control platoon has an SSC, radio, microwave and wireline communication equipment, an interface booth and a subscriber station. The control platoon provides control of the battalion’s combat operations and consists of the calculations of the SRC, the calculation of communications equipment and interface equipment.
          The radio battery has a missile guidance radar and power supplies. The personnel of the radio-technical battery is organizationally reduced to the calculations of: an antenna post, indicator equipment and target tracking equipment, a device for determining coordinates and main amplifiers (UOC), a device for synchronizing and selecting moving targets (SDC), a device for generating and transmitting commands (UVPK), power supplies complex.
          The starting battery is armed with anti-aircraft guided missiles, four launchers (launchers), launch control system equipment and transport-loading vehicles (TZM). Start control system (CMS) equipment is located in the UNK cockpit and on each launcher. Launchers are located around the CHP and are numbered clockwise from 1 to 4. Each launcher provides two channels of radio control missile systems missiles. The starting battery consists of two starting platoons. The starting platoon includes two starting calculations, which are numbered in accordance with the numbers of the launcher. Each calculation serves one PU.

          And further this ideology did not change: the division remained a tactical-fire subdivision, single and indivisible.
          1. KVU-NSVD
            KVU-NSVD 11 September 2019 14: 33 New
            0
            In the RV&A, too, the division is the main combat unit - independent and little dependent on the brigade in the war in fact. As part of the brigade, it rarely acts - it usually has its own tasks, its own RS, its ODA, etc. It has the wartime states in its composition all the necessary auxiliary and support units. There the questions to the author were a little different.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 11 September 2019 15: 56 New
              +3
              Quote: KVU-NSVD
              In the RV&A, too, the division is the main combat unit - independent and little dependent on the brigade in the war in fact.

              In the Air Defense Forces, independent actions of the division are extremely undesirable - because this means that the air defense system has come to an end. The regular division operates under control and according to the data from the brigade - its own radars are broadcast only after receiving target designation from above.
              And since individual PUs of the starting battery without a divisional radar and a control cabin can not do anything, then there is nothing to consider below the division. It’s the same as dividing the self-propelled guns into engines and guns. smile
              But in military air defense, battalion batteries and even individual vehicles can operate independently (again, according to data received from the battalion and above). For according to the results of the use of military air defense systems in air defense systems, self-propelled launchers of even a new medium-range air defense system received their radars.
              And earlier in the military air defense it was the same as in the Air Defense Forces: the same "Cube" had 1 radars for the division and the "blind" PU.
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 12 September 2019 18: 22 New
              0
              Quote: KVU-NSVD
              In the RV&A, too, the division is the main combat unit - independent and little dependent on the brigade in the war in fact.

              In the RV&A division is also absolutely not independent.
              1. KVU-NSVD
                KVU-NSVD 12 September 2019 18: 29 New
                0
                In the tornado brigade, where I served at the beginning of the 2000s in the event of war, our division would operate autonomously from the brigade, although it might have received goals and instructions from the brigade headquarters, but no more.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 12 September 2019 18: 35 New
                  +1
                  Quote: KVU-NSVD
                  autonomously from the brigade

                  Separate from the brigade, maybe. But not autonomously. Especially jet divisions. Intelligence tools. The Smerchevsky division is completely dependent on external target designation.
                  1. KVU-NSVD
                    KVU-NSVD 12 September 2019 18: 52 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Spade
                    Smerchevsky "division is completely dependent on external target designation.

                    Well, the goal is clear, the stump is lowered from above. The Smerchev brigades, or rather divisions - they are of district (front) subordination - there they decide where to be and where to shoot. Also, security units attach. But we don’t see the brigade commander ... laughing
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 12 September 2019 18: 58 New
                      +1
                      Quote: KVU-NSVD
                      Well, the goal is clear, the stump is lowered from above

                      Well, here it seems.
                      Just reactive brigades pull because of that. that their full application is redundant. There are no such goals.
                      1. KVU-NSVD
                        KVU-NSVD 12 September 2019 19: 02 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        Just reactive brigades pull because of that. that their full application is redundant. There are no such goals.

                        Quote: Spade
                        Just reactive brigades pull because of that. that their full application is redundant. There are no such goals.

                        Here you are right. The volley of the division at night and in the afternoon had to be watched - a sight of course, I will tell you not for the faint of heart - such power! And I would look at the brigade .. but I didn’t even hear that this was practiced ..
        2. PavelT
          12 September 2019 02: 03 New
          +2
          Approximately true.
          It is rare for a C-300PT regiment to have only two divisions, usually from three (in the outer ring of the Moscow Air Defense Regiment there were in the regiments and 6 divisions). A division usually has more than two batteries. The number of PUs is definitely not less than 6 per division, or even more. And in general, there can be spare launchers on trailers that are nearby unconnected, as they are fired, empty launchers are disconnected, new ones are connected with cables. So the number of PUs is not a very clear question.
  5. Avior
    Avior 11 September 2019 07: 10 New
    +2
    Honestly, something not very Syria fits into the author’s idea that it is easy to be afraid of attacking countries with c-300, so there was no possibility to apply it.
    And the September attacks, in my opinion, simply pulled by the ears.
    Maybe instead it was worth expanding the part where s-300 is compared with Patriot, and take into account the different versions of Patriot and C-400, as a follower of c-300 and compare them by characteristics, time of occurrence and according to the country's air defense concept?
    1. mister-red
      mister-red 11 September 2019 09: 58 New
      +1
      And what, Israeli fighters violate the border of Syria? It seems not - they beat from the sea and from Lebanon. Can I bring them down there? From Lebanon, it’s unlikely, but from the sea, probably yes. But probably not Syria in its position.
      1. Professor
        Professor 11 September 2019 10: 38 New
        +1
        Quote: mister-red
        And what, Israeli fighters violate the border of Syria? It seems not - they beat from the sea and from Lebanon. Can I bring them down there? From Lebanon, it’s unlikely, but from the sea, probably yes. But probably not Syria in its position.

        From Lebanon to the east of Syria? Oh, what truckers they are however. wassat
        1. mister-red
          mister-red 11 September 2019 20: 43 New
          0
          You can in more detail about the East - where and when? Usually bombed Damascus and Homs 25-30 km from Lebanon
          1. Professor
            Professor 12 September 2019 11: 20 New
            -1
            Quote: mister-red
            You can in more detail about the East - where and when? Usually bombed Damascus and Homs 25-30 km from Lebanon

            http://newsru.co.il/mideast/24jul2019/syr_603.html
            1. mister-red
              mister-red 15 September 2019 15: 19 New
              0
              "Buy a card, bast shoe." Gentlemen of fortune.
              From the province of Daraa, which was bombed according to your link, to the Golan Heights 35 km. And Izmail has been occupying the Golan Heights since the beginning of the 70s.
              1. Professor
                Professor 15 September 2019 15: 27 New
                0
                Quote: mister-red
                "Buy a card, bast shoe." Gentlemen of fortune.
                From the province of Daraa, which was bombed according to your link, to the Golan Heights 35 km. And Izmail has been occupying the Golan Heights since the beginning of the 70s.

                "Chukchi is not a reader. Chukchi is a writer." Russian folk wisdom.

                You read the article to the end. There "announced the whole list." fool

                PS
                And here are the anti-Israeli media:
                http://anna-news.info/vvs-izrailya-nanesli-udar-po-sirijskoj-provintsii-aleppo/
                Presumably, Israeli aircraft bypassed the Syrian air defense zone, attacking Aleppo from the US-occupied areas on east Syria in the provinces of Deir ez-Zor and Hasak. The missiles were fired from a safe distance, where the means at the disposal of the Syrian army could not oppose the enemy aviation.
    2. PavelT
      11 September 2019 09: 58 New
      +4
      I agree that Syria does not fit very well with this idea, but here it is also about who commands exactly how to use C-300 (C-400). If there is a delusional task to satisfy the two sides of the conflict (which, in general, we observe in Syria), then the whole logic of uncompromising defense is in vain: well, let it be bombed there, but here it isn’t necessary ... don’t touch us. It was the avoidance of conflict that led to the tragedy with IL-20M in September 2018. The logical result.
      1. Avior
        Avior 11 September 2019 10: 14 New
        +2
        You have forgotten to include Ukraine in this list, and many more smile
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1-300
        Let's honestly say that there is no direct connection for such a statement.
        And they buy C-300, because in the world there are not so many SAM systems of this type.
        NATO countries traditionally rely on aviation for air defense, for them ground-based air defense systems
        - this is something auxiliary, the range of products is very narrow. Only recently has the world grown an assortment of land-based air defense systems for sale, mainly Israeli and Chinese, before that the USSR / Russia dominated this market, and c-300 was the best that was, here and bought.
    3. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 11 September 2019 09: 58 New
      0
      Quote: Avior
      not very Syria fits into the author’s idea that countries with c-300 are simply afraid to attack

      Well, if there is an agreement that they won’t shoot, then we can say that these complexes are not there.
  6. Ravik
    Ravik 11 September 2019 07: 13 New
    +3
    I liked the article.
  7. rocket757
    rocket757 11 September 2019 08: 21 New
    +5
    Good air defense, this is one that does not have to work .... because the horns do not fly!
    All the same, it must change, modernize, so that they would not fly further !!!
    The article ... a review, provides food and an incentive for reflection, further search for information on the topic, if it is interesting.
  8. 3vs
    3vs 11 September 2019 09: 23 New
    0
    The fact that these countries were not affected by the war is also due to the С-300 complex.

    Yes, it’s a pity that these complexes did not exist in Yugoslavia, perhaps history would have taken a different path ...
  9. 3vs
    3vs 11 September 2019 09: 28 New
    0
    Most importantly: the one who scheduled the attacks on September 11 was not guided by the familiar combination of numbers 9 / 11, but by the fact that it was the best day for an air attack in the northeastern United States:

    And who said that there were some kind of aircraft crashing into the towers?
    Where are the photos of the wreckage of the twin towers?
    Where is the chassis, wings, stuff.
    What, the planes completely flew into the buildings from the strongest reinforced concrete and burned down without a trace ?!
    And where are the wreckage of an airplane flying into the pentagon ?!
    1. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 11 September 2019 10: 01 New
      0
      Well yes, on TV the frames of the rams of the twin towers were a hologram. And they shot it all and sundry on cameras and mobile phones ...
      The fact that the towers were mined does not cancel the fact of ramming. It was rather a symbolic act.
      1. PavelT
        11 September 2019 10: 14 New
        0
        The fact that the towers were mined does not cancel the fact of ramming.

        Thanks for the clear thinking - against the background of the rest of the conspiracy theories.
        By the way, I thought a lot about the option of combining two conspiracies: with the ram of the Wahhabi suicide bombers that we saw and with the preparation of the towers for a collapse from the fire. And I came to the conclusion that this could be done to the owner of the buildings without any mining (without the risk of performers revealing / detecting / accidental detonation) - there is a simple idea how. I will not write here, since I myself work in a skyscraper ...
        1. alstr
          alstr 11 September 2019 12: 04 New
          +2
          Somewhere I watched that the Towers had SPECIALLY laid charges for the instant destruction of buildings. It was made so that if that tower formed without unnecessary damage to neighboring buildings. Which incidentally happened.
          Those. the thought was that only planes for collapse were not enough
          1. Glory1974
            Glory1974 11 September 2019 13: 34 New
            +2
            the thought was that only planes for collapse were not enough

            There was a third building, in which not a single plane hit, there was no fire there, but it collapsed. And it crashed in 20 minutes after it was announced.
          2. PavelT
            12 September 2019 00: 40 New
            +1
            charges are laid for the instant destruction of buildings.

            The idea itself is contradictory: why lay charges that themselves can destroy the building, and then still suffer with the complex scheme of abducting airliners?
            From the point of view of conspiratorial work at all seams: it’s difficult to get the charges, it’s hard to deliver and lay secretly, keep this plan secret, the charge installers will understand everything, they can accidentally undermine themselves, they can be detected at the time of setting ... just one big hemorrhoids.
            Everything can be made simpler, cheaper, without charges, it will not be suspicious at all, but there will be a system of not instant action at all and it will work only in case of a strong fire, which cannot be caused by anything other than airliners ...
            1. alstr
              alstr 12 September 2019 08: 52 New
              +1
              There are no difficulties in conspiring if it is done under the roof of the special services.
              The simplest option is a team of sappers under the guise of finishers. Explosives sweep under the guise of building mixtures.

              And according to the scheme - remember at least the battleship "Maine". Here the situation may be similar.
  10. Professor
    Professor 11 September 2019 09: 51 New
    +1
    Roughly speaking, C-300 without a single shot protects the possessing countries with its unique combat capabilities, its image, inspires fear even without confirmation of its qualities in battle.

    Yes Yes. For example, Syria possessing C-300 is not bombed only by the lazy.

    In this, C-300 resembles nuclear weapons: after all, countries that possess nuclear weapons on ballistic carriers are simply not at risk of attack - it is too dangerous!

    For example, Israel allegedly possessing nuclear weapons from 1960's was safely attacked by neighbors in 1973.
    1. Avior
      Avior 11 September 2019 10: 03 New
      +2
      Yes, and Argentina something is not very scared of English nuclear weapons
      1. PavelT
        12 September 2019 00: 42 New
        0
        Precisely, Argentina was not scared. But somehow it didn’t help her at all. If she resisted even more, then it would be possible on some deserted islands to get tactical nuclear weapons along the cumpole. To speed up the inevitable ...
        1. Avior
          Avior 12 September 2019 06: 15 New
          0
          No, the British had a principled position not to use nuclear weapons for any result
  11. PavelT
    11 September 2019 10: 21 New
    0
    Quote: Professor
    For example, Israel allegedly possessing nuclear weapons from 1960's was safely attacked by neighbors in 1973.

    Judging by the "Vela incident" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident (which occurred in September 1979), only from that moment Israel itself was convinced that it owns working nuclear weapons. And then with non-ballistic delivery vehicles at that time.
    Question: why is Israel still embarrassed to recognize the presence of nuclear weapons? As it already becomes frivolous, 40 years have passed ...
    1. Professor
      Professor 11 September 2019 10: 34 New
      -1
      Quote: PavelT
      Judging by the "Vela incident" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident (which occurred in September 1979), only from that moment Israel itself was convinced that it possesses working nuclear weapons.

      As you can see, the Arab neighbors were not afraid that they would experience nuclear weapons in the 1973 year. Hamas and Hezbollah are not afraid to bombard a nuclear state, and the Islamic State of Iran generally threatens to erase a nuclear state from the world map. Paradox. fellow

      Quote: PavelT
      And then with non-ballistic delivery vehicles at that time.

      Israeli aircraft bombed the capitals of the countries attacking Israel without any problems.

      Quote: PavelT
      Question: why is Israel still embarrassed to recognize the presence of nuclear weapons? As it already becomes frivolous, 40 years have passed ...

      What for? request
      1. PavelT
        12 September 2019 00: 54 New
        0
        Islamic State of Iran threatens to erase nuclear state from world map
        This is from the category "And under communism it will not be necessary to work and everyone will have free apartments / cars" ... No one takes this propaganda seriously.
        How many years do they promise something already? To promise is not to marry!
        Won Kim from the DPRK also all the time promises something in this regard.

        Here we all in the USSR lived under the yoke of US promises to deal with the "evil empire", they lived there under the yoke of the fact that "the issue of American imperialism will be resolved." And nothing - calmly survived.
        So I don’t understand: what is Israel complaining about?
        The virtual threats of a country where people still believe in genies? Himself not ashamed?
        That's why I say that it’s time for a long time to stop behaving in a childish way: nuclear weapons have existed for 40 years, and they cannot recognize this at the state level. It reminds one of a drawn-out comedy where normal boys in society wear open knives, and one builds himself as an eternally offended “defenseless” child, while having a deadly stylet in his bosom for 40 years ... And he insists on special rules for himself.

        Israeli aircraft bombed the capitals of the countries attacking Israel without any problems.

        Yes, but the question is in the time of delivery, the probability of a breakdown. Ballistic weapons have no competition here. And by the way, it’s easier to get to Iran ... In general, only countries with nuclear weapons + ballistic means of delivering nuclear weapons to all their potential opponents can feel calm: they will not be touched, they will not conduct another “peacekeeping operation”.
        1. Professor
          Professor 12 September 2019 06: 54 New
          0
          Quote: PavelT
          This is from the category "And under communism it will not be necessary to work and everyone will have free apartments / cars" ... No one takes this propaganda seriously.

          Let’s not confuse “me” and “nobody”.

          Quote: PavelT
          How many years do they promise something already? To promise is not to marry!
          Won Kim from the DPRK also all the time promises something in this regard.

          So far, their marriage has not grown, but the Islamists are actively working in this direction. Kim does not threaten to erase a neighbor from the world map.

          Quote: PavelT
          So I don’t understand: what is Israel complaining about?
          The virtual threats of a country where people still believe in genies? Himself not ashamed?

          Threats are not virtual. We saw this in 2006 and now we see it in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

          Quote: PavelT
          That's why I say that it’s time for a long time to stop behaving in a childish way: nuclear weapons have existed for 40 years, and they cannot recognize this at the state level. It reminds one of a drawn-out comedy where normal boys in society wear open knives, and one builds himself as an eternally offended “defenseless” child, while having a deadly stylet in his bosom for 40 years ... And he insists on special rules for himself.

          Israel insists on special rules for itself from the word "completely." We require ALL compliance with contracts.

          Quote: PavelT
          Yes, but the question is in the time of delivery, the probability of a breakdown. Ballistic weapons have no competition here. And by the way, getting to Iran is easier ...

          20 minutes to destroy a country or 2 hours has absolutely no difference. Moreover, even one plane breaking through will cause unacceptable damage.

          Quote: PavelT
          In general, only countries with nuclear weapons + ballistic means of delivering nuclear weapons to all their potential adversaries can feel calm: they will not be touched, they will not conduct another "peacekeeping operation".

          Again trying to pull the owls on the globe. In order to attack countries that have no analogous world, C-300 is attacking, we figured out the case of Syria and Ukraine. Nuclear weapons is a utopia. It is impossible to apply.
  12. PavelT
    11 September 2019 10: 23 New
    0
    Quote: Avior
    for them ground-based air defense systems
    - this is something auxiliary

    Exactly, I tried to highlight this in the article.
  13. 3vs
    3vs 11 September 2019 10: 26 New
    -1
    Quote: Vlad.by
    Well yes, on TV the frames of the rams of the twin towers were a hologram.

    That's it, on TV!
    Eyewitnesses who were on the street did not mention any planes.
    And yet, where are the spare parts from airplanes crashing into the towers ?!

    Please note that the twins were generally towers, and how these constructions could
    completely fly planes ...


    A source:
    kykyryzo.ru/photo-building-worldwide-torg/
    1. Professor
      Professor 11 September 2019 10: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: 3vs
      Eyewitnesses who were on the street did not mention any planes.

      And the Americans did not fly to the moon.
      1. 3vs
        3vs 11 September 2019 10: 38 New
        0
        Yes they flew.
        And where are the wreckage of some aircraft, where are the photos of a burning shopping center and below are the wreckage of the aircraft?
        Any links?
        1. Professor
          Professor 11 September 2019 10: 40 New
          +1
          Quote: 3vs
          Yes they flew.
          And where are the wreckage of some aircraft, where are the photos of a burning shopping center and below are the wreckage of the aircraft?
          Any links?

          Dumb Americans did not think of throwing the wreckage of aircraft into the ruins. lol




          [img]https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/photo/2011/09/911-the-day-of-the-attacks/a43_0RTR911S/main_1200.jpg?1420519565[/img]
          1. 3vs
            3vs 11 September 2019 12: 44 New
            -1
            Unconvincing!
            Production shot - an FBI employee removes the remains of an imported engine, which,
            for some reason, next to him, he destroyed nothing, flying from a great height, and another employee of himself ...
            From the same series of moonrays.
            But why is it incomprehensible to the American government.
            1. Professor
              Professor 11 September 2019 15: 42 New
              +1
              Quote: 3vs
              Unconvincing!
              Production shot - an FBI employee removes the remains of an imported engine, which,
              for some reason, next to him, he destroyed nothing, flying from a great height, and another employee of himself ...
              From the same series of moonrays.
              But why is it incomprehensible to the American government.

              I expected you to show serial numbers. Swim fine. Here's another:
              https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
              1. 3vs
                3vs 11 September 2019 16: 15 New
                0
                To this I offer you the movie of Julietto Chiesa 9 / 11, which was not shown in the democratic States.
                1. Professor
                  Professor 11 September 2019 19: 41 New
                  +1
                  Quote: 3vs
                  To this I offer you the movie of Julietto Chiesa 9 / 11, which was not shown in the democratic States.

                  No, really. It is better to discuss whether the Americans were on the moon or not.
                  1. 3vs
                    3vs 11 September 2019 20: 48 New
                    0
                    What, three hours is tiring to watch?
                    Or arguments against the fact that the film is not voiced?

                    With the Moon, of course, not everything is clear either!
                    Why, one wonders, so many kin and studio shoots?
                    You can’t deceive the professionals in your business!

                    Personally, I get the feeling that some flights
                    to the moon, it was, but the gigantic sums spent on it, yes
                    even the war in Vietnam tore the economic power of the United States,
                    because the rest of the "flights to the moon" due to lack of finance
                    starred in the pavilions.
                    And to this we can tie the sudden warming of relations with the USSR,
                    Again, they were able to earn on us.

                    And so, about ichtamnebyl, as much as you like:
                    USSR bonuses from the USA for silence about the lunar fake.
                    www.proza.ru/2018/12/31/1287

                    There are enough lunar compasses, here you are, if you please get straight from the tin:
                    Consolidated List of Claims for American Moon Falling. To help those who seek the truth. (Americans on the Moon: 100 + facts against) Part 4
                    aftershock.news/?q=node/784317
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 12 September 2019 06: 44 New
                      0
                      Quote: 3vs
                      What, three hours is tiring to watch?
                      Or arguments against the fact that the film is not voiced?

                      Guessed it. I'm not going to spend 3 hours of my life on conspiracy theory.

                      Quote: 3vs
                      With the Moon, of course, not everything is clear either!
                      Why, one wonders, so many kin and studio shoots?
                      You can’t deceive the professionals in your business!

                      Personally, I get the feeling that some flights
                      to the moon, it was, but the gigantic sums spent on it, yes
                      even the war in Vietnam tore the economic power of the United States,
                      because the rest of the "flights to the moon" due to lack of finance
                      starred in the pavilions.
                      And to this we can tie the sudden warming of relations with the USSR,
                      Again, they were able to earn on us.

                      And so, about ichtamnebyl, as much as you like:
                      USSR bonuses from the USA for silence about the lunar fake.
                      www.proza.ru/2018/12/31/1287

                      There are enough lunar compasses, here you are, if you please get straight from the tin:
                      Consolidated List of Claims for American Moon Falling. To help those who seek the truth. (Americans on the Moon: 100 + facts against) Part 4
                      aftershock.news/?q=node/784317

                      Is getting warm. So the moon landing is Hollywood. All clear.

                      PS
                      Spread the wreckage of the aircraft?
                      1. 3vs
                        3vs 12 September 2019 09: 16 New
                        +1
                        Guessed it. I'm not going to spend 3 hours of my life on conspiracy theory.

                        But it would not hurt! yes
                        Is getting warm. So the moon landing is Hollywood.

                        And you do not agree that much was shot in the pavilions?
                        Spread the wreckage of the aircraft?

                        But what about, especially that which crashed into the pentagon!
                        What is left of the tomahawk?
                      2. Professor
                        Professor 12 September 2019 11: 17 New
                        0
                        Quote: 3vs
                        Guessed it. I'm not going to spend 3 hours of my life on conspiracy theory.

                        But it would not hurt! yes
                        Is getting warm. So the moon landing is Hollywood.

                        And you do not agree that much was shot in the pavilions?
                        Spread the wreckage of the aircraft?

                        But what about, especially that which crashed into the pentagon!
                        What is left of the tomahawk?

                        Here is another statement.
                      3. 3vs
                        3vs 12 September 2019 11: 48 New
                        +1
                        And where is it, only some scaffolding is visible? ...

                        Yes, and the above FBI employee has a withered engine.
                        If you see the engine of airplanes, which supposedly went in like oil
                        entirely inside the shopping centers, then there will be more than two meters in diameter:
                      4. Professor
                        Professor 12 September 2019 13: 11 New
                        -1
                        Quote: 3vs
                        And where is it, only some scaffolding is visible? ...

                        At Ground Zero, CEP.


                        Quote: 3vs
                        Yes, and the above FBI employee has a withered engine.
                        If you see the engine of airplanes, which supposedly went in like oil
                        entirely inside the shopping centers, then there will be more than two meters in diameter:

                        Yeah. 2 meters. fool


                      5. 3vs
                        3vs 12 September 2019 13: 58 New
                        0
                        Yes, from this angle it seems to be true.
                        But questions remain ...
                      6. Professor
                        Professor 12 September 2019 14: 22 New
                        -1
                        Quote: 3vs
                        Yes, from this angle it seems to be true.
                        But questions remain ...

                        18 years have passed. No more questions.
                      7. 3vs
                        3vs 12 September 2019 14: 24 New
                        +1
                        Well yes, nobody needs it ...
                        Except, probably, the relatives of the victims.
  • Roman070280
    Roman070280 12 September 2019 15: 27 New
    -3
    Iron beams of centimeters under 50 thick ??) Every meter and a half somewhere ??
    Apart from concrete .. and a similar inner frame ..
    In a good way, yes .. the plane should just “drain” along the outer wall ..))
  • kutuz
    kutuz 11 September 2019 10: 31 New
    +3
    "no one dared to attack the countries and objects covered by S-300" - you tell Israel this.
    1. mister-red
      mister-red 11 September 2019 20: 51 New
      0
      Syria has so many C-300 that they cover the whole country?
      Do Israelis fly freely where C-300 can get them?
      Tartus has bombed Israel at least once?
      And by the way, have the Syrians already learned how to use these complexes? And then in the spring they were still being taught in Russia.

      PS Something like that. There is an amball at the entrance, healthy, whom the hell will let go.
      Someone comes in from the back door. Is the entrance ambulade to blame or is it not an ambulance at all?
      Answered the question? Rate your opus.
      1. kutuz
        kutuz 11 September 2019 23: 11 New
        +4
        With 300, Syria is still alive just because the Russian military or specialists are there, as you prefer. Netanyahu in the media stated that if the С300 will stop them from flying they will destroy them - believe me they will, they have the means and capabilities.
        1. alstr
          alstr 11 September 2019 23: 24 New
          +1
          You can destroy any air defense complex. The question is at what cost?
          1. kutuz
            kutuz 12 September 2019 15: 39 New
            +2
            They probably know how to do this and will not be put under attack, believe me there are no fools there and they have plenty of experience in carrying out such operations that they have already proved more than once.
        2. mister-red
          mister-red 15 September 2019 15: 22 New
          0
          I have no doubt that the Syrian S-300 can be destroyed. As far as I remember, there were problems with the training of Syrian specialists, and at the end of spring they were still at school. I don’t know now. But the fact that it will be unpunished, I doubt it.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 11 September 2019 13: 53 New
    +3
    Perhaps it is in brave partisans with ballistic missiles. Previously, only in computer games did the developers' imagination allow an unrealistic combination: partisans with ballistic missiles. Now it has become the truth of life and even a routine.

    Yes, my ... well, how much can you write that the Hussites are not partisans. More precisely, not only partisans, but also regular armed forces of Yemen, including missile units.
    The Western media call the Hussite partisans or militias to create the impression that in Yemen there is a rebellion of a paramilitary religious sect (read, Islamic radicals) against a legitimately elected democratic government - and in no case is a civil war with a complete split in society and popular support among the Hussites. While the weapons used in battles were limited to shooting and other weapons of the company-battalion level, the template held on. But when the Hussites began to successfully use the "Elbrus", "Points" and Iranian anti-ship missiles - here the template, imposed by Western media, began to crack and crumble.
    1. PavelT
      12 September 2019 01: 01 New
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      But when the Hussites began to successfully use the "Elbrus", "Points" and Iranian anti-ship missiles - here the template, imposed by Western media, began to crack and crumble.


      I mean this: when an imposed scheme begins to crumble, it is hard for those who invented this scheme themselves, implemented it, and supported it in the media. Similarly, with the moronic estimate of the number of China’s nuclear warheads voiced from the USA (Association of American Scientists), these 240-270 warheads are simply ridiculous to believe, and now the whole propaganda machine of the United States needs to be deployed to China’s new main geopolitical adversary, and that supposedly has as many warheads as France.
      That’s the stalemate: one’s own repeated a hundred times in the media disinhibited the new realities of one’s own propaganda!
  • bandabas
    bandabas 11 September 2019 15: 02 New
    +1
    Everything is beautiful on paper !!!! An article, on the one hand, is informative. S, the other ... About nothing.
  • gregor6549
    gregor6549 11 September 2019 15: 54 New
    +4
    The article mixed horses, people, and volleys of thousands of guns ....
    The 9 / 11 attacks are generally far-fetched. After all, we also had incidents such as the landing of Rust in Red Square. And if the countries had to intercept Rust defense, then with civilian planes turned by terrorists (or rather, Saudi Arabian military personnel), the matter is much more complicated. First, these aircraft appeared in the US airspace not from outside, but from within the country, and their control during the flight is the task of the air traffic control system (ATC) controllers, which, in principle, was supposed to interact with the US air defense systems, but so far the controllers ATC tried to figure out what was going on with several of the hundreds of airborne aircraft, while contacting the appropriate Air Defense / Air Force command, while they were deciding "where what fish and how much," etc. all the planes, except one, managed to get to the hint goals (the benefit was not very far to get). In addition, until they crashed into these goals, it was hard for everyone to guess how it would all end. So even if there were air defense systems in Hyde Park in New York or next to the Pentagon, they would hardly be able to help in this situation. The version is not ruled out that the United States did the 2 Pearl Harbor significantly to find enough reasons to revive its warring defense industry and the small “victorious wars” in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
    Now about C300. I don’t want to heel myself in the chest, but I, like a number of my colleagues in the Agat NGO (Minsk), had to participate in the development of the air defense control system of the Ground Forces. In the course of this work, I have repeatedly visited the Almaz NPO, which was then led by V.P. Efremov, in Moscow, and decided with its employees the issues of interaction between the S300B air defense system and the Polyana D4 anti-aircraft missile command developed by our NGO.
    He was also a witness to the attempts of his "successor" I.R. Ashurbeyli turned NPO Almaz into a commercial structure, in which the development and production of the C300 air defense system and its modifications were considered as a seemingly necessary, but annoying misunderstanding.
    Fortunately, the Russian authorities realized how this could all end and drove Mr. Ashurbeyli with the NGO Almaz. Otherwise, neither C400, nor other modifications of C300, we would hardly have seen, and if we had done it in miserable quantities.
    On the sale of C300PMU to "partners". There was such a thing at the beginning of 90x, only the sale was not carried out by Belarus but by Russia. In that case, Belarus simply acted as a transport link (it was not possible to send air defense systems to the USA directly from Russia because the Russian Parliament stood on its hind legs and forbade this deal. I already wrote about this story in VO). It is difficult to say whether the USA helped this deal in the development of the Patriot air defense system (and then the Americans just developed a modification of this Patriot PAC3 air defense system). To do this, you need to be aware of this development and know a lot of details which are unknown to me.
    But there is no doubt that the United States and its allies were able to study the strengths and weaknesses of the S300 air defense system. Moreover, given that the main subsystems of the C300 air defense system (except for SAM) did not undergo drastic changes during the creation of the C400, it can be assumed that the C400 is not a secret to them with seven seals and that the US Air Force and its allies were able to develop a number of methods and means of counteraction SAM data and overcoming air defense systems based on the use of these systems.
    About the regimental radar. I don’t know what the author meant by the term “regimental radar,” but I remember that the radar complex of each C300 air defense system consisted of three types of radars (Survey radar, “Ginger” sector radar (both radars with passive phased antenna arrays) ) and target illumination radars.Then other types of C300 air defense systems began to be given by other types of radars, for example, Sky NE, Caste, etc., thereby adding standard centimeter-range radars to “freelance” meter and decimeter radars in order to ensure low-altitude air defense systems goals.
    1. PavelT
      12 September 2019 01: 44 New
      0
      The 9 / 11 attacks are generally far-fetched.

      Alas, the main thing you did not understand.
      We live in a changing world: what was the main threat yesterday can be replaced by another, new threat, an ally can become an enemy, and vice versa. The strategy must change accordingly.
      The Americans did not really succeed it after 9 / 11 - three air defense systems were placed around the capital, thereby recognizing that the air defense system in this place is more useful than fighters. Then the enemy, who turned 9 / 11, was not destroyed by them due to the conspiracy of the elite, which means that their punctures on that day can be repeated again. This is a lesson for us, too, but our air defense strategy is more stable, better suited to this type of threat. And if it’s not adapted, then it’s necessary to refine it, and not to write that it’s not an air defense task, even SAMs are not needed - “they would hardly be able to help in this situation.” If you do not be ready, then nothing will help.

      It was also said that the air defense strategy affects the air defense systems being developed, their technical characteristics, their release, their application, and the overall result of the competition between air defense systems of different countries. After all, in Germany they decided to create their own / joint European air defense system MEADS, which, by the method of application, is closer to the C-300 / 400 family, to the line strategy and round-the-clock duty. I think the 9 / 11 lesson also influenced this decision of Germany.

      Quote: gregor6549
      The version is not ruled out that the United States did the 2 Pearl Harbor significantly to find enough reasons to revive its warring defense industry and the small “victorious wars” in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

      The USA can carry out small and victorious wars without such complicated conspiracies with a bunch of corpses. Who can the United States ban? For Libya, no pretexts were required at all. For the Vietnam war, a fictional torpedo attack of three torpedo boats on their destroyer was enough. For some people who needed war with Iran, recently 4 tankers were blown up, but it’s so jewelry and humane that it’s enviable! Obviously did not want to spoil them greatly!
      This version of 9 / 11, like a bunch of other conspiracy theories (of varying degrees of reality and stupidity), distracts from a simple and unpleasant truth: the attacks were carried out by the Saudis (the entire top or part, maybe in conjunction with someone from the US elite), and Bush and Ko were forced to cover them retroactively. And subsequent presidents too. And all US intelligence agencies from 2001 to the present day are working not to punish the aggressor, but to hide who the aggressor is. Judging by the awareness (or rather, complete ignorance) of people (even here you can see it in the comments) about the facts, Saudi traces and personalities who prepared 9 / 11 (Saudi agents protected during the investigation), the distraction worked perfectly ... It's more interesting to discuss holograms supposedly disappeared planes, huge drones, charges in skyscrapers and other garbage. Alas, it works. And ask such a conspiracy theorist: "How much did insurance companies pay for skyscrapers and to whom? Why exactly so much?" and the conspiracy theorist cannot really answer anything. This is finance and insurance, it’s not so interesting ...

      He was also a witness to the attempts of his "successor" I.R. Ashurbeyli to turn NGO Almaz into a commercial structure,

      Do you remember the period at the beginning of the 2000s when, one after another, deputy directors of this structure were killed by killers? Here is a really tough redistribution of the “golden fleece” of the Soviet defense ...

      I don’t know what the author meant by the term “regimental radar”,

      Now this is the Obzor radar, of course. And in our C-300PT the radar under a different code was: Radar detection station (RLO) 5Н64.
    2. turbris
      turbris 28 September 2019 20: 13 New
      0
      As a great specialist on Matius Rust, I want to remind you that according to the orders of the Moscow Region acting at that time, it was strictly forbidden to open fire on civilian aircraft on duty by air defense forces, and it was prescribed to force landing, which was impossible to do on an airplane flying at a speed of 120 km / h, due to the high speed of the fighters and the lack of duty helicopters.
  • Anton Yu
    Anton Yu 11 September 2019 16: 55 New
    +1
    After the 1991 war in the Persian Gulf, Congress conducted its own investigation, which the American press wrote about. According to an investigation by the US and its allies, no more than 10% of Iraqi missiles were shot down.
  • O. Bender
    O. Bender 11 September 2019 18: 13 New
    0
    The author is clearly close to air defense, it is close and in no other way. Well, all right, I really wanted to say something else, that's about it. At the beginning, 90x had the pleasure of studying in Kosterevo, who understands the topic, they told me, to be more precise, to us two hundredths, among other things, a film about an air defense system with 300В1M. A self-propelled gusli complex developed for the NE of the Russian Federation. It was very impressive, especially mobility. Unfortunately, in the future I never heard about this as a more successful version of the 300. Are there specialists on the site who really worked on it? Share available info oh and impressions!
  • gray
    gray 11 September 2019 23: 22 New
    +1
    Quote: Mestny
    Not lost a single war - so right.
    And yes, which has no analogues in the world.
    You can beat your head on the pan by jumping in the square, but it is.

    The grief awaits that country which will be unable to defend itself from the air, ”-
    Marshal of the Soviet Union Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov also noted.
  • PavelT
    12 September 2019 02: 05 New
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    And further this ideology did not change: the division remained a tactical-fire subdivision, single and indivisible.

    So the division in the C-300PT remains single and indivisible.
    But one of several (up to 6) in the regiment (where there is its own CP and its long-range circular radar for observing / distributing targets).
  • PavelT
    12 September 2019 02: 11 New
    0
    Quote: Amateur
    Is there ever been a C-300 system

    There was no C-300 system in itself (as a ready-made set of products for a division or a regiment of several divisions).
    Those. this is not the name of a particular system, but the name of a system architecture, a family of systems.
    The first system released was C-300PT, then it went and went ... a bunch of systems in three branches.
    Look at the "family tree" in the Wikipedia article: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1-300#%D0%A1-300%D0%9F (Modifications to the C-300 system)
  • Sasha_rulevoy
    Sasha_rulevoy 12 September 2019 19: 00 New
    0
    destruction of ballistic missiles at a record height (up to 27 km)


    A record compared to what? The latest version of C-300 C-300PMU-2 when sold to China was tested on a ballistic target missile flying at a speed of three missiles 1000 m / s, interception at an altitude of 17,7 km, range 30 km. The Patriot of the very first version intercepted the Scud, flying at 7 speeds of 2200 m / s, at an altitude of 12 km, and at a range of 10 km. Comparable opportunities, given the more difficult target of the Americans.
  • PavelT
    13 September 2019 00: 41 New
    0
    Quote: Professor
    We require ALL compliance with contracts.

    Ha! Especially from myself and from the USA!
    It would be even fun to see how Israel from the United States would require to comply with ALL contracts.
  • PavelT
    13 September 2019 01: 00 New
    0
    Quote: 3vs
    If you see the engine of airplanes, which supposedly went in like oil
    entirely inside the shopping centers, then there will be more than two meters in diameter:


    As it reminds me of the story of the Boeing engines in the Pentagon. They also shouted that the engines / debris from them were not the same size. One expert even wrote an entire article: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml - it’s useless, conspiracy theorists can always say that all the photos are forged (especially since they weren’t immediately shown). Well, as with the landing on the moon.
  • PavelT
    13 September 2019 01: 01 New
    0
    Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
    A record compared to what?

    A record compared to the situation at the end of the 70 years.
    1. Sasha_rulevoy
      Sasha_rulevoy 13 September 2019 18: 20 New
      0
      Quote: PavelT
      with the situation at the end of the 70 years.


      It sounds interesting, but for the first time they tried to shoot a ballistic target from the C-300 complex in the middle of the 90s and only because they realized such a need from the results of studying the experience of using the Patriots in the Persian Gulf. The Americans at that time had already switched to PAC-2 and started developing THAAD.
      1. Pavel57
        Pavel57 13 September 2019 20: 24 New
        0
        The issue of intercepting ballistic targets was considered in 80 with the presence of Pershing in the USA.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 13 September 2019 20: 22 New
    0
    An article is a batch of everything that came to hand. I liked it - the first modifications of the C-300 missile system: one with a nuclear warhead, the second with a radio command guidance system ....
  • PavelT
    14 September 2019 00: 29 New
    0
    Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
    but for the first time they tried to shoot a ballistic target from the C-300 complex in the middle of the 90s

    I can’t say when and where and for what ballistic purpose they tried for the first time.
    But we were already taught in 90 how to shoot at ballistic targets (and what type of missiles).
    And the RPN radar itself already had a ballistic review mode specifically for such purposes.
    So it was conceived clearly before the 90 years.
  • iouris
    iouris 16 September 2019 22: 27 New
    0
    Why US air defense? Does anyone threaten them? No. They are always preparing to deliver a crushing blow first. Only the USSR had air defense forces of the country and the Warsaw Treaty Organization. "Patriot" is designed to stop local threats from a significantly weaker enemy. Thus, there is no competition in the field of air defense systems. Nobody is able to compete with the USA in the field of strike aviation.
  • Dimonst
    Dimonst 19 September 2019 00: 31 New
    +1
    Article is good .. Comments are not very.
    Z.Y. Many people who did not really serve in the Air Force and Air Defense (in a new way), but express their thoughts as a priori ..
    1. PavelT
      23 September 2019 16: 35 New
      0
      Thank you, I emphasize once again: I tried to get away from technical details to an air defense strategy. For I consider the air defense strategy an important reason and factor in the development of air defense systems (especially expensive integrated air defense systems of long and medium range). Recent events in Saudi Arabia are well placed on the same topic: the air defense strategy is important and it must change depending on new challenges and new technical means of the enemy.
  • PavelT
    23 September 2019 16: 30 New
    0
    Quote: iouris
    Why US air defense? Does anyone threaten them? No.

    That's about the article: their strategy of global domination worked fine, precisely because there really weren’t such opponents. But this strategy of theirs broke off on September 11 of 2001 of the year. The Americans indirectly admitted that an air defense strategy based on air defense systems for such attacks is better by deploying three NASAMS air defense systems around Washington ...
    Well, after the story of Saudi Arabia, an oil refinery and drones ... they will have to think hard again!
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 29 September 2019 15: 29 New
      -1
      1. Sorry, but I will not answer your comment about Rust, because there are mountains of literature about this and I can’t afford to compete with the authors of this mountain. Who wants to, he will find on the network everything that interests him on this issue. I can only add that just on this and the following days I was on a business trip to GRAU and received comprehensive explanations about what happened to the Union’s air defense system as well as very accurate forecasts about what will happen to the air defense command.
      2. If you follow the actions of the United States in terms of creating air defense / missile defense systems, then the main focus of the Americans did not choose to deploy air defense systems on their territory near protected objects and territories, but to deploy air defense forces and equipment, including Patriot air defense systems, sea-based and ground-based IHIS systems, and so on. such things near the territories of potential opponents in order to destroy the IOS of these opponents that pose a threat to the United States and its allies, even on take-off or, if received, even before take-off. And now, in addition to such systems and for the same purpose (to take off), space-based air defense / missile defense systems are also being developed. Those. a deeply echeloned air defense / missile defense system is created with the deployment of elements of this system (sensors, automated control systems, air defense aircraft, air defense systems, etc.) so that these systems track and destroy air defense systems throughout their flight, including over the territory of the United States itself. The task of protecting the territories and objects of US allies in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and the Far East, if taken into account, is not at all a priority.
      The fact that the Patriot air defense missile systems failed to protect the Saudi refineries does not mean the weakness of these air defense systems. It is possible that the United States and its allies in the Middle East quite consciously allowed this weakness to have a serious reason for a war with Iran and to tear out an extra penny for; I am my military-industrial complex. After all, even Trump is forced to make key decisions in the field of foreign policy with an eye on Congress. And since he began to ignore this organization more and more often, he eventually ran into impeachment. Many in Congress have long had a grudge against Trump, and Ukraine has become just one reason for impeachment.
  • turbris
    turbris 28 September 2019 19: 59 New
    +1
    A good article on various approaches to the concept of air defense, but it is useful for all other non-specialists to know that no air defense is possible to cover all the borders of Russia - it is very expensive; no air defense can 100% prevent attacks on covered objects, and can only reduce their effectiveness - these are critics, especially those who believe that air defense can destroy everything from mines and rockets to ICBMs. The main task of air defense is to cause unacceptable damage to the air enemy, after which he will be forced to abandon subsequent actions. As modern history shows, all wars begin with air strikes, therefore they do not fight with states with strong air defense — this is the strategic role of air defense in peacetime.