The meeting of NATO unmanned aircraft with the "Shell-S1E" shook the air castles of the Pentagon. Surprise from Tula

As shown by a short monitoring of the Russian media space, information about the recent successful interception of reconnaissance and reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles MQ-9A "Predator-B" of the US Air Force and MQ-9 "Reaper" of the Italian Air Force via the Pantsir-S1E anti-aircraft missile system over Libya made a real sensation both in the domestic military-analytical blogosphere and in expert communities. There is nothing surprising here, because it was the “brainchild” of Academician Arkady Georgievich Shipunov and specialists from the Tula Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering JSC that once again made a significant contribution to preserving the prestige of Russian military-industrial enterprises specializing in the development and large-scale production of advanced self-propelled anti-aircraft defense systems .

The unstable work of the defendants of the state recognition system could play a cruel joke with the “Predator” and “Ripper”

Indeed, on the one hand, the export modification of the unique mobile Prakir-S1E mobile air defense system, which is in service with the Libyan National Army (LAA) Khalifa Haftar, once again demonstrated the highest potential to withstand modern unmanned aerial attacks of the NATO Joint Air Force, thereby increasing the level of competitiveness all types of anti-aircraft artillery and anti-aircraft missile systems developed by the Tula KBP.

On the other hand, based on more recent data published a day after the incident, on November 25, The Associated Press, citing a competent source in the LNA command, it can be concluded that the interception of the American and Italian strike and reconnaissance drones was carried out unintentionally; apparently due to the lack of a response from the defendants of the state identification system, which are part of the on-board radio-electronic equipment drones "Predator-M" and "Reaper". After all, it is well known that the Pantsir-M air defense missile systems are equipped with radar interrogators of the Guardian-type state identification system.

The impossibility of identifying drones using the Sentinel complex led to the fact that the Libyan operators of the Shell-S1E mistakenly mistook them for the Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drone reconnaissance drones, which have a similar airframe layout, silhouette and radar signature and operate on the Libyan theater of operations in order to provide information and fire support to the forces of the so-called Government of National Accord.

The conclusion is as follows: the beginning of the fire work of the Libyan "Shell-S1E" on the drones MQ-9A "Predator-B" and MQ-9A "Reaper" was a complete operational surprise for the operators of the latter. Moreover, in this case, neither the US Armed Forces command in Europe (maintains a neutral position regarding disagreements between the forces of Khalifa Haftar and the forces of the illegitimate Government of National Accord), nor even the Italian Air Force command (demonstrates commitment to the forces of Faiz Sarraj, providing the latter with military-technical support) did not plan to strike at Libyan national army units. Therefore, at the time of the unexpected interception of the MQ-9A “Predator-B” and the MQ-9 “Reaper”, they carried out an ordinary reconnaissance flight without “dangerous maneuvering” and the use of airborne electronic countermeasures, not to mention the use of missile and bomb equipment, which turned the data drones for excellent mid-high and low-speed targets for the Libyan "Shell-S1E."

Missile defense potential of “Shell-S1” meets new challenges

A logical question arises: what could “Shell-S1E” counterpose to the aforementioned shock reconnaissance drones in a duel situation, when the operators of the first would be tasked with incapacitating the Shell-S1E itself and then destroying the objects it covers? To answer this question, it is necessary to delve into the analysis of the technological parameters of radar and optoelectronic guidance systems of the Tula air defense missile system, and then compare them with the characteristics of avionics and ammunition "Traitors" and "Ripers".

First of all, it is worth noting that the airborne radars with AN / APY-8 Lynx II parabolic antenna arrays installed on the Predator-B and Reaper UAVs are capable of detecting and then identifying the Pantsir-S1E air defense missile system removal of 70 and 50 km, respectively, which is facilitated by the hardware-software implementation of the synthesized aperture (SAR) mode with a resolution of “radar image” of the order of 1-2 meters. Therefore, in a combat situation, the MQ-9 "Reaper" and the MQ-9A "Predator-B", even theoretically, cannot erroneously enter the 20-kilometer destruction zone of the 57E6 anti-aircraft guided missiles of the Shell-S1 complex. Meanwhile, approaching the Pantsir-S1E over a distance of more than 25-30 km will not allow drones to use AGM-114C / K / L Hellfire / Longbow anti-tank missiles, whose range barely reaches 8-9 km.

Nevertheless, the multi-purpose JAGM tactical missile, which has already reached the level of operational operational readiness, which is a deeply upgraded (“pumped”) version of the Hellfire missiles, will undergo software and hardware adaptation to the use of most types of manned and unmanned weapons in weapon control systems in the foreseeable future aviation The US Air Force and Navy (including Ripers and Traitors), after which its large-scale production will begin. With more solid and “longer-playing” solid propellant rockets (compared to ordinary Hellfaers), JAGM tactical missiles will theoretically allow the Ripers to launch an Panzer-S1E attack from a distance of 30 km (outside the range of the 57E6 anti-aircraft missiles).

Can one combat vehicle of the standard 96K6 Pantsir-S1 air defense system intercept, for example, 28 JAGM tactical missiles simultaneously launched from the suspension units of two UAVs of the Riper family during an attack on ground targets? Given the fact that the ammunition load of the 57E6 anti-aircraft missiles of one Pantsir-S1E complex is only 12 units, the successful interception of such a number of JAGMs is practically impossible, since the artillery module consists of two paired 30-mm automatic guns 2A38M with one effective target range shooting in 3500 m, will not do much weather in this situation, intercepting no more than two enemy missiles in the terminal section of the trajectory. Another thing is two combat vehicles ZNPK 96K6 "Shell-S1" with a total ammunition load from 24 SAM 576 and target channel in 8 simultaneously fired air targets.

Based on the fact that the average flight speed of American JAGM tactical missiles at the final section of the trajectory is about 400 m / s, and their direction-finding range using the 10ES1-E multispectral optical-electronic complex (one of the main elements of the Shell armor) of the order of 10 — 12 km when using TV / infrared channels, it is not difficult to conclude that in 30 seconds of flight time two “Shell-S1” can deal with more than 75% (21 unit) of JAGM attacking missiles with using only missiles 57E6. The rest of the 25% (8 units) intercepts will come from the 30-mm automatic guns. Two more important factors will facilitate the process of interception.

Firstly, this is the inability of JAGM missiles to carry out high-speed flight with anti-aircraft maneuvers, which will increase the probability of hitting one anti-aircraft missile up to 0,95. Secondly, this is the high average speed of the 57E6 anti-aircraft missiles, reaching up to 4500 km / h, which will make it possible to hit JAGM at a distance of up to 7 km from the position of the anti-aircraft missile system (far from its “dead zone”).

Comments

[Pessimist22]

The advertising was good, the most important thing is that they immediately overwhelmed a couple.

[Aaron Zawi]

Quote: Pessimist22

The advertising was good, the most important thing is that they immediately overwhelmed a couple.

In Syria, this system has already shot down dozens of UAVs, so there is nothing surprising in the message.

[Kirill Dou]

Yes, and bring down a subsonic UAV - such an achievement

[Kaw]

Yes, and bring down a subsonic UAV - such an achievement

These UAVs are made using stealth technology. Not every complex can just see them.

[Kirill Dou]

What kind of "stealth" is there, in some place?

[Alexey G]

Stealth is not stealth but a pair of these birds costs $ 33 million! And the price of the whole Shell, along with the missiles, is no more than $ 14 million, and of course the price of two missiles launched to bring down these precious gizmos cost a penny, EXCELLENT ACHIEVEMENT !!!

[Kirill Dou]

Any plane is more expensive than an anti-aircraft missile, even some propeller-driven Supe Tucano.

[Alexey G]

Yes, and the Reaper is not Tucano, he is not even Corrado, and therefore the Air Defense Shell worked 100 percent in the economic plan. It is generally sharpened for firing rockets no more, and here the target is 30 lyam! Luck! And the Arabs can collect them and give them to the Russians for research, so that another time they’re shot down not with two missiles! One rocket - two hits

[Kirill Dou]

Ah, well, if in the economic - yes) But this is not the achievement of this complex as a weapon)

[Alexey G]

Why not an achievement! Our weapons are cheaper and more effective! I do not understand. It’s generally imprisoned against shells, and then shot down a fat goose and a duck that could keep themselves at 70 km and couldn’t be substituted, but the Arabs tilted them like heifers on call and fried the very tomatoes!

[Solieri]

Quote: Aron Zaavi

In Syria, this system has already shot down dozens of UAVs, so there is nothing surprising in the message.

Aron Zaavi (Aron), the most important thing is that the image intensifier tubes of the downed UAVs are not much different from the image intensifier tubes F-35 judging by the shape and stealth coverage, which proves that the F-35 can be easily hit within the Pantsir-C1 range and not only, even with the use of electronic warfare aircraft F-35 ...

[Kirill Dou]

"Our weapons are cheaper and more effective!" - to make such a statement, it is necessary to compare our air defense systems with American air defense systems, and our drones with their drones, otherwise you are comparing 2 different classes of equipment. So their SAM missile will also be cheaper than our Orion or Hunter.

"The carapace is generally sharpened against missiles" - "Carapace" is sharpened under protection from any means of air attack within its radius of action, and not just from missiles.

"who could keep to themselves 70 km and not be substituted" - have you read the article? There it is written in black and white why these drones were "substituted".

[Alexey G]

Just why they framed in the article is not written! This is a big question!
With a range like that of a shell, it’s hard to count on the defeat of anything other than rockets! Even helicopters will try to shoot from behind cover out of sight.
And most importantly, that in a war it is necessary to compete with the enemy, you have to excuse some comparative homosexuality for expression! Patriot can not fight with the shell or C400. The carapace is fighting with the air targets of the enemy, and not with anti-aircraft guns! And if the carapace or other system is capable of striking them effectively, then this is the criterion of its effectiveness! The anti-aircraft gun is fighting a plane or a rocket or a bomb, here is her opponent. The goal of the goalkeeper is to deceive the attacker, and not another goalkeeper!
War is not a sport where one runner competes with another! If a tool successfully defeats another tool in a direct battle, then this is a criterion for its effectiveness! Otherwise, you can create anti-aircraft guns with exorbitant rates against aircraft that are not in nature! Just to break the record of anti-aircraft guns of the neighboring state! Return to the land of Cyril, you were carried away from health new meaning!

[Kirill Dou]

"A Patriot cannot fight with a shell or S400" - well, what are you making yourself small? The comparative effectiveness of air defense systems is determined by their actions against air targets, and not against each other. So I say, in order to say that our air defense systems are the most sighted in the world, we need to compare how the American air defense system fires at our Orions, and our air defense system - at the American Predators.

[Alexey G]

So our Cyril already shot back and hit! But they are not! So 1.0 in our favor !!

[Kirill Dou]

So our Cyril already shot back and hit! But they are not!

- cases when "Patriots" successfully fired back at various targets in real combat conditions - darkness, darkness.

[Alexey G]

Yes? But the recent launch of missiles, it seems by the Hussites, according to the positions of the Patriots of the Saudis, showed their weakness in comparison with our systems, which the Turks praise so much now. They read that they tested our C8 for about 400 hours with their F16 planes and helicopters and have not yet found a single slack in our system, despite all the tricks and anti-radar maneuvers ?!

[meandr51]

Firstly, all these darkness and darkness are in doubt, and secondly, the Patriot must be compared with the S-400. There are no analogues of the Shell in the USA at all.

[free_flier]

Well, yes, especially according to the latest information about the old conflict in Iraq, the latest - about Saudi Arabia and the Yemeni rebel missiles.

[Doliva63]

Quote: Kirill Dou

"A Patriot cannot fight with a shell or S400" - well, what are you making yourself small? The comparative effectiveness of air defense systems is determined by their actions against air targets, and not against each other. So I say, in order to say that our air defense systems are the most sighted in the world, we need to compare how the American air defense system fires at our Orions, and our air defense system - at the American Predators.

You are difficult. To evaluate our air defense systems, we don’t need to know how their air defense systems fire, it is important for us whether our aircraft are hitting them, i.e., they are fulfilling the assigned tasks or not. And how and how it performs tasks from the air defense system is their problem (and of our air force, of course)).

[Kirill Dou]

Quote: Doliva63

To evaluate our air defense systems, we don’t need to know how their air defense systems fire,

My opponent said that "Our weapon cheape and acts more effective"- that is, he himself compared our air defense systems and their air defense systems. He did it, not me. That is, it’s not a matter of assessing the effectiveness of our air defense systems as such, the opponent talks about a comparative assessment of the effectiveness of our air defense systems and their air defense systems. And that's why I say , that for this you need to know, "whether their SAM is shooting."

So the difficult one is not me.

[Doliva63]

Quote: Kirill Dou

Quote: Doliva63

To evaluate our air defense systems, we don’t need to know how their air defense systems fire,

My opponent said that "Our weapon cheape and acts more effective"- that is, he himself compared our air defense systems and their air defense systems. He did it, not me. That is, it’s not a matter of assessing the effectiveness of our air defense systems as such, the opponent talks about a comparative assessment of the effectiveness of our air defense systems and their air defense systems. And that's why I say , that for this you need to know, "whether their SAM is shooting."

So the difficult one is not me.

And, this is some other level of assessment, I agree. I apologize for the carelessness

[Nick]

Quote: Kirill Dou

What kind of "stealth" is there, in some place?

In any case, the ESR of these UAVs is significantly lower than the same F-16 due to the smaller size of the glider.

[vfwfr]

Reflected radiation of radio waves (during direction finding) from a passenger plane or paratrooper paratrooper ... there is a difference, isn't it ... What kind of nonsense do you ask ..? ..How much threw on the plane and how much on the paratrooper .. Well, so .. in the UAV there is not so much metal, the hull and the wings can be plastic ... you see.

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

Yes, and bring down a subsonic UAV - such an achievement

This is an excellent achievement - a "penny" complex to fill up multimillion-dollar aircraft, and even by the hands of illiterate Arabs.
"Top class" for assessing such an event - you are simply not in the subject of what is in military systems, which is why your home-grown assessments only indicate a complete lack of understanding of the situation.

[Kirill Dou]

This is not an excellent achievement, but what this SAM was designed for. Not, well, of course, that he was able to shoot down low-speed drones not designed for active maneuvering. It would be generally shameful if I had not shot down. But there is no great achievement.

[anykin]

Quote: Kirill Dou

what this air defense system was designed for

If any technique does what is laid in it, then why did you raise the topic of achievement?))

[Kirill Dou]

This is not how I called the fact that the "Shell" landed two low-speed non-maneuverable drones "achievement". Read carefully.

[anykin]

You answered

Quote: Aron Zaavi

so there is nothing surprising in the message.

Probably confused?

[Kirill Dou]

No, I answered this:

Quote: ccsr

Quote: Kirill Dou

Yes, and bring down a subsonic UAV - such an achievement

This is an excellent achievement - a "penny" complex to fill up multimillion-dollar aircraft, and even by the hands of illiterate Arabs.
"Top class" for assessing such an event - you are simply not in the subject of what is in military systems, which is why your home-grown assessments only indicate a complete lack of understanding of the situation.

[anykin]

No, this ccsr answered you))

[Kirill Dou]

That's right, he replied with the phrase "This is an excellent achievement" to my phrase "to shoot down a subsonic UAV - Is to itself achievement. "In the sense that there is nothing special about it, to regard it as a great advertisement.

[Alexey G]

War is not a competition of systems! It is also mainly a business! And if someone loses a ton of money, then he loses the war!

[Kirill Dou]

Write nonsense. The Americans spent more on the Gulf War in 1991 than Iraq spent. Iraq won?

The USSR also spent more on the war with the Finns in 1939–40 than the Finns. Finland won?

[Alexey G]

But then they got much more than they invested! That you rave dear!
Do you want to argue that wars are not for money ?? Here is the true nonsense!
It’s just that Saddam had less money to play with Uncle Sam, like the Finns, and yes we spent more, but we got Karelia from the Finns, pushed the borders.
But now, if the Finns eventually forced us to lay out everything that we have and won, then we would spend everything we had and the Finns did not!
Napoleon at Waterloo put everything at stake, including the guards, all his reserves and remained a beggar, as he lost! Read the classics: K. Clausewitz "On War" ...
Hitler also tried to crush Stalin economically, but in the end he laid out everything that Germany had, and Stalin found the resources and killed all the German rates! And yes, we lost more during the war, but forced the Germans to lay everything out !!! And they themselves remained at their own and still won from victory! They introduced their troops to the territory, occupied half of Europe!

[Kirill Dou]

"Do you want to argue that wars are not fought for money?" - I never said that. I just refuted your statement that "if someone loses a lot of money, then he loses the war!" So the USSR lost more money than the Finns, but won the war. It's the same with the United States.

You attribute to me some insinuations of your own, moreover, you contradict yourself.

[Alexey G]

No Cyril is you contradict yourself! I continue to argue that the greater the amount of lost funds, the closer you are to defeat, and whoever runs out of resources will lose! There are no contradictions, there is a rigid logical connection, called implication. If side A loses during the war more than side B, then side A loses the war. But this rule only works if parties A and B initially have the same number of resources! And you do not take this into account in the event of a war with the Finns. In this case, it seems that the obvious rule does not work, but this is Cyril's sophism, and you stunt!

[Kirill Dou]

Quote: Alexey G

that the greater the amount of lost funds,

- The Americans spent on 1 war in the Gulf than the Iraqis did, but they won.

Quote: Alexey G

and who earlier runs out of resources that loses

- vooot, this is closer to the truth. But this is not the same as "spending more money means losing". America has spent more money on the war with Iraq than Iraq, but the US has much more resources than Iraq. And that is why the US won the war and Iraq lost. Although I spent less money.

But this rule only works if parties A and B initially have the same number of resources!

- whoo! Right now! Now your statement will make sense. But you didn’t say that from the beginning, right?) That’s why I gave you an example of the USA with Iraq and the USSR with Finland.

[Alexey G]

If I did not say this, then this does not mean at all that this is not so in reality Cyril. In Logic and Mathematics, equal values ​​are always taken in the proof of theorems, by default. Therefore, Adults skip some statements in conversations, as they consider them obvious and taken for granted! Such inferences in Logic are called abbreviated syllogisms! you thought an adult and understand that! But this does not contradict my thesis Cyril. Whoever spends more on war loses! 300 Spartans also fought well, but the number of Persians was too large initially for them, although the Persians spent more! However, the lesson of the Battle of Thermopylae was to frighten the king of the Persians, because if these 300 managed to beat the Persians in this way, what would happen if there were a thousand or ten thousand of them! However, they did not understand this and were smashed to smithereens at the Marathon!
So whoever spends the most loses. America spends a lot and loses. So far, her resources are enough to spend a lot, but they are not endless! Trump is already trying to save. This is sunset! Efficiency requires getting more for less! Here is an axiom. Our shells are cool near-range air defense systems! With them you can free half the world against American pressure, but of course not only with them!

[Kirill Dou]

In Logic and Mathematics in the proof of the theorems equal values ​​are always taken, by default

- that's just not mathematics and not a proof of a theorem. We have a discussion. I don't have to guess what you mean there or not. When explaining your position to your opponent in a dispute, you must fully justify it, clearly identify all aspects of your position. What if you came up with the principle of comparability of resources only in the process, and did not have it in mind initially? I was excellent with logic and theory of argumentation at the university, so it's not for you to teach me.

So whoever spends the most loses

- No, again not like that. This statement in the correct form should read like this:

the one whose costs of the war are incommensurable with its resources - he loses.

- Then this statement will make sense. In this form, it is justly applicable to any military conflict in history, including the ones I cited as an example. But your statement at least does not correspond to my examples.

[Alexey G]

the one whose costs of the war are incommensurable with its resources - he loses.

I do not agree! This statement is too a priori! It does not take into account the ability to defend the other side. There are many examples where a state with fewer resources, through its skillful actions, overcame the richer side of the resources! Such a statement does not take into account the process of war itself, which may not be so predictable. Only those who spend during the war lose more. Losing does not mean losing at all. Loses while he has resources. After all, the enemy also loses, but less or more. Your thesis does not take into account that war is a confrontation of two parties, and not a struggle of one with itself! This is not dear ananism!
You heard that expression of Pyrrhic victory! This is a victory with great costs essentially equal to defeat.

[Kirill Dou]

Quote: Alexey G

It does not take into account the ability to defend the other side.

- okay, then I’ll adjust:

in the war, the party loses whose costs for the war are less commensurate with its resources

- This wording takes into account both sides.

Only those who spend during the war lose more.

- no. Once again: this formulation does not take into account the resources of both parties. A side can spend more on war, but if its resources are more than that of the enemy, it wins. What matters is not the amount of spending on the war, but the ratio of these spending to resources (for each side. ”Your original wording did not take this into account.

[Alexey G]

Cyril you just do not understand the meaning of the word lose! The expression to lose the war does not mean the final result, but means the process of losing. In this sense, every defeat is a step towards losing, but so far not losing as the final result!
However, the number of defeats associated with losses can turn into a new quality in defeat in the war as a whole! But this defeat is the result of losing many battles that entailed this expenditure of forces and means. Therefore, a loss in a war is the result of many defeats, because a war is not one battle, but a series.
Every sunken ship, every lost tank, a downed plane is a step towards victory, winning a war. If a tanker knocks out a tank, then this is beneficial to the side on which the birds, if an anti-aircraft missile hits an expensive drone, then this is beneficial to the side that has an air defense system! Everything is obvious here! War is a process. Moreover, he can change his focus. But the one who spends more than the enemy loses! This thesis is absolute. Try to say the opposite? Everything is obvious here. And this is not what I came up with. This is Karl Clausewitz! A classic of military thought.

[Kirill Dou]

"Therefore, a loss in a war is the result of many defeats, because a war is not one battle, but a series" - right)) Iraq in the first war in the Gulf had this very many defeats, which led to a loss in the war)) About what I said)

"But the one who spends more than the enemy loses!" - again twenty-five. No - he loses in the war. who does not achieve their goals in this war.

[Alexey G]

Cyril explain again! Losing is the process, not the final result!
Let me show you an example of a chess game. At the beginning of the game, you can lose a pawn to your opponent. If its loss is not supported by a serious improvement in the position, then we can say that in the opening you started to lose. But the debut is not the end of the game, you have many figures and you can continue to lose.
In the middle of the game you lose your horse. This is a new defeat, which already seriously puts you on the brink of a final defeat. You lose, but still have not lost completely. After all, the checkmate has not yet been put, but from the point of view of material advantage, you still lose the game.
In the endgame, your opponent yawns the queen! The queen in chess is valued more than a knight and a pawn. You recouped and even stepped forward, despite the fact that you lost. You win, that is, lead the game, but your joy was not very long, your opponent gave you the queen for a reason, he sacrificed it intentionally, you are given a checkmate and this is the final loss, because the king in chess is valued above all figures, he is the target of the war !
So you can lose the war, recoup it, and again lose and lose completely. The fact that we lost the war to the finals in terms of the number of losses is a fact! But the fact that we put the finals mate taking the Manerheim line is also a fact. The Mannerheim line for the Finns was like a king in chess - the most valuable piece, its loss was higher than the losses of our soldiers in the forests and snows when taking pillboxes and bunkers!

[Alexey G]

I was excellent with logic and theory of argumentation at the university, so it's not for you to teach me.

Maybe I would teach, because I still teach it! The obvious does not need to be guessed, since it is obvious.

[Kirill Dou]

The obvious does not need to be guessed, since it is obvious.

- the problem is that the premise about equality of resources is not obvious. Therefore, you had to designate it initially with the phrase "the side that incurs more costs of the war loses, with an equal amount of resources on both sides." That would be correct.

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

The Americans spent more on the Gulf War in 1991 than Iraq spent. Iraq won?

But he didn’t lose - the territory remained the same, the regime did not change, Israel bombarded the SCAD, Saddam himself ruled for many years, Kuwaiti wells burned for almost two years, the price of oil did not fall. So by and large, it was the Americans who did not achieve their results, but only forced the troops of Iraq to leave Kuwait. So what did Iraq lose in the first war, besides the loss of some civilian objects and some weapons?

[Kirill Dou]

And he did not lose - the territory remained the same, the regime did not change

- The purpose of Iraq in that war was to control Kuwaiti oil fields. To do this, he invaded Kuwait. The purpose of the Americans was not the overthrow of Saddam in that war, but the knocking out of Iraq from Kuwait.

Saddam left Kuwait and lost control of local oil. America has achieved its goals, Iraq has not. Therefore, he lost the war. But he spent less money on the war than the United States.

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

Iraq's goal in that war was to control Kuwaiti oil fields. To do this, he invaded Kuwait.

The goal was, but failed to achieve, as for example the Americans in Somalia, where their landing was destroyed:

Operation in Mogadishu: the complete failure of the American special forces

https://topwar.ru/153142-operacija-v-mogadisho-polnyj-proval-amerikanskogo-specnaza.html

Quote: Kirill Dou

The purpose of the Americans was not the overthrow of Saddam in that war, but the knocking out of Iraq from Kuwait.

This is a lie - Saddam prevented them primarily with his politics, otherwise there would have been no second war after many years.

Quote: Kirill Dou

Saddam left Kuwait and lost control of local oil.

Saddam has not lost a single oil field.

Quote: Kirill Dou

America has achieved its goals, Iraq has not.

Judging by how many years the Americans have not been able to achieve success in the Middle East, and the total costs, as they claim, are more than $ 1,5 trillion, which is clearly underestimated, it turns out that Saddam, with his bony hand from the grave, is firmly holding the US economy for a causal place ... Therefore, only those who do not take into account all the consequences of the overthrow of Saddam even for the United States, not to mention the rest of the world, can speak of a "victory" over Iraq.

[Karen]

Quote: ccsr

... Therefore, only those who do not take into account all the consequences of the overthrow of Saddam even for the United States can talk about a "victory" over Iraq,

I think that the main goal of the Yankees was originally the same - the eternal war in the BV ...

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

. Not, well, of course, that he was able to shoot down low-speed drones not designed for active maneuvering.

In fact, many of them can carry nuclear charges in terms of carrying capacity or be shock with missiles on board, so at least in this regard you don’t need to spit on them.

Quote: Kirill Dou

It would be generally shameful if I had not shot down.

It’s immediately obvious that you can’t imagine what contingent the calculation consisted of, otherwise you would not have looked at all this. And who told you that serious drones do not have their own electronic warfare equipment?

[Kirill Dou]

In fact, many of them can carry nuclear charges in terms of carrying capacity or be shock with missiles on board, so at least in this regard you don’t need to spit on them.

- and I don’t spit on American drones. Great cars for their own purposes. But they are not capable of active anti-aircraft maneuvers.

Quote: ccsr

And who told you that serious drones do not have their own electronic warfare equipment?

- the article says why these drones did not use these electronic warfare.

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

the article says why these drones did not use these electronic warfare.

They did not use them in the hope of covertly making a flight, and when they were discovered, they simply did not have time to quickly use their electronic warfare, which once again proves how quickly the systems of our "Pantsir" work from the moment of detection to defeat. So there is a reason for pride - if the Libyans of NATO operators of the UAV were raped, then I can only admire our weapons.

[Kirill Dou]

Quote: ccsr

They didn’t use in the hope of covertly flying,

Did they tell you that?

"then I can only admire our weapons" - so I'm not saying that the technology is bad. I say that the landing of "Pantsyr-MS" of two low-speed, non-maneuverable UAVs is not a super advertisement for this complex.

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

Did they tell you that?

You said this, saying, referring to the article, that the EW funds were not included according to the owners of the drones.

Quote: Kirill Dou

I say that the landing of "Pantsyr-MS" of two low-speed, non-maneuverable UAVs is not a super advertisement for this complex.

On the contrary, it is because it’s not artisanal home-made products, but high-tech drones even with their own electronic warfare equipment, which once again proves the high level of this technology.

[Kirill Dou]

This you said, stating, referring to the article

- neither in the article nor in my words does it say anywhere that the Americans tried covertly spend a flight.

with your own electronic warfare

- which the Americans did not even try to use.

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

neither in the article nor in my words does it say anywhere that the Americans tried to covertly fly.

Reconnaissance flights are always secretly carried out - this is the ABC of any reconnaissance, and the Americans are no exception.

Quote: Kirill Dou

which the Americans didn’t even try to use.

They did not assume that our Armor would appear where they were not expected, as well as the fact that the Libyans would need very little time from detection to the defeat of these targets. That's why their electronic warfare turned out to be helpless against the armor radar.

[Nick]

Quote: Kirill Dou

e, well, of course, that he was able to shoot down low-speed drones not designed for active maneuvering. It would be generally shameful if I had not shot down. But there is no great achievement.

Against the background of the same Saudi Patriots, who are also made to shoot down, but do not shoot down, this is a good achievement.

[Kirill Dou]

Against the background of the same Saudi Patriots, who are also made to shoot down, but do not shoot down,

Why do not they bring down? Shot down.
In June 2015, Patriot missiles was successfully intercepted R-17 ballistic missile fired on the territory of Saudi Arabia by Hussite rebels.

August 26: another rocket aimed at the territory of Saudi Arabia, was intercepted by a doubles the launch of the Patriots.

November 4, 2017: the launch by the Hussites of a ballistic missile at the international airport of Riad, was intercepted using missile defense MIM-104 Patriot.

And they’ll shoot down, mind you, ballistic missiles that are much more difficult to intercept, rather than slow-moving UAVs, which were sent on a regular reconnaissance flight, and not on a combat mission.

In the famous incident with the Saudi Patriots, they missed cruise missiles and small - actively maneuvering targets. This fact itself does not paint "Patriots", of course, however, it does not make the discussed success of "Shell" against its background something outstanding. The same "Pantsir" in 2018 was unable to repel a drone attack on the Khmeimim airbase - this despite the fact that "Pantsir" specializes in small targets.

[Alex Fox]

Quote: Kirill Dou

ballistic missile R-17

which was released in 1962? That being said, the epic feil .... Why are these ballistic missiles more complex targets? The whole essence of the article, if for those who are taut, can be easily translated (in particular for you), how did the Shell see them at all? detection rates are close to stealth ....
But here you scratch and arrange a tantrum .... already filled the harem pants?

[Kirill Dou]

Quote: Alex Fox

which was released in 1962?

- So what? Does it explode somehow differently?

Quote: Alex Fox

Why are these ballistic missiles more complex targets?

- the fact that missiles fly much faster and are much smaller than drones.

"If you translate for those who are tight in simple language (in particular for you)" - you will declare this to your offspring, he is even more worthy, all in a folder.

"their detection rates are close to stealth ...." - have you ever seen these drones? Where are they "close to stealth"?

"Have you filled your trousers already?" - do you still wear harem pants?

[For the truth]

Quote: Kirill Dou

And they’ll shoot down, mind you, ballistic missiles that are much more difficult to intercept, rather than slow-moving UAVs, which were sent on a regular reconnaissance flight, and not on a combat mission.

You have complete ignorance of the question! It’s very difficult to bring down UAVs, due to the small image intensifier tubes and low altitude.
The Patriot air defense missile system has a minimum target hitting height of 60 m, and UAVs fly lower and he does not "see" them ... That's the whole answer to the questions about missing targets!

[Pessimist22]

That's when the C 300 your F 35 will land, it will be news, it is invisible.

[Kirill Dou]

Something is not yet landing.

[Pessimist22]

Everything has its time....

[Kirill Dou]

Yes Yes Yes. Here once - wow, as they show!

- be sure to bang! and more than once! the whole world in ruin! but then ... (c)

[bulvas]

Quote: Kirill Dou

Yes Yes Yes. Here once - wow, as they show!

- be sure to bang! and more than once! the whole world in ruin! but then ... (c)

the coat is not grown, and the world will be too big for you

[Kirill Dou]

If you did not notice, then it was sarcasm. Read the whole thread, please, before commenting.

[Woland]

Keyword-bye

[Kirill Dou]

The keyword "bye" very often turns into the word "never".

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: Kirill Dou

The keyword "bye" very often turns into the word "never".

And you can't wait to get to heaven ("and they just die")?

[Kirill Dou]

To be honest, I don't really care how Russian air defense systems will show themselves in Syria. It's just funny to see how the local "hurray" from time to time promise that "next time the Jewish military" will definitely not be good. And it's not that the S-300 air defense system is bad - no, it's an excellent weapon. It's a matter of idle boasting.

[Alex Fox]

Quote: Kirill Dou

Something is not yet landing.

Dear light-headed military light, there will be an order to land. Believe me, you can’t even imagine from a distance what the Air Defense Forces are, stealths are visible, they get off. In the article about the shell, and you decided to argue here on the C300, for the C300 F35 is a very simple goal. BUT let's compare the training battles of Israel where their Letak (Airplane) training Mig21-2000 (yes the very modernized Soviet moment 21 which Israel rearm everyone in a row.) Against the Israeli F35. You will be very surprised, but the score is 8-2 in favor of Miga.

[Aaron Zawi]

Quote: Pessimist22

That's when the C 300 your F 35 will land, it will be news, it is invisible.

He is "inconspicuous".

[Solieri]

Quote: Aron Zaavi

He is "inconspicuous".

Therefore, the F-35 and land ...

[Kirill Dou]

When will it land?

[Ivan7527]

So there has already been an incident. In Syria, our crew with the help of the "Syrian" S-300 shot down an Israeli F35.

[Kirill Dou]

the number of the downed Laitning 2, can you name the pilot?) Can you show the wreckage?)

[aiden]

So we landed. Israeli friends will deny, but they fried it well. Wounded animal barely crawled to the base. In Israel, they wrote that the bird got into the engine. The plane is decommissioned. And with the s-200 rocket hell

[Kirill Dou]

The same question - where are the wreckage of the "downed" Lightning?)

[Alex Fox]

Quote: Kirill Dou

The same question - where are the wreckage of the "downed" Lightning?)

The plane was damaged, but flew to the base, they kind of wrote to you in plain language, then the press said that the bird got in, damage to the birds led to the cancellation of the plane ...

[Kirill Dou]

The plane was damaged, but flew to the base, you kind of wrote in plain language

- Commentators from VO wrote this to me, pulling on experts except on sofas.

"damage to birds led to the decommissioning of the aircraft ..." - it may well be. So that you, especially gifted, do not seem to be something inexplicable, I will give an example with the Russian MiG-29 fighter:

June 8, 1989 during the demonstration flight of the MiG-29 fighter at the air show in Le Bourget a bird fell into the air intake of the right engine. The pilot ejected from a height of 90 m, but remained alive.

Count it, the bird didn’t just make the MiG-29 write off, but slammed it in front of the visitors of the air show.

So you can fantasize as much as you like about the "hit Lightning", but apart from articles in the media and the opinions of local "experts" you have nothing to prove.

[littoral]

Quote: Aaron Zawi

In Syria, this system has already shot down dozens of UAVs, so there is nothing surprising in the message.

Can be more?

[kupitman]

constant raids on the Khmeimim base by drones are reflected by the Shell

[Alex Fox]

Quote: littoral

Quote: Aaron Zawi

In Syria, this system has already shot down dozens of UAVs, so there is nothing surprising in the message.

Can be more?

There is Google, there you can restore the dates when raids on the Russian base took place .....

[littoral]

Quote: Pessimist22

The advertising was good, the most important thing is that they immediately overwhelmed a couple.

On the Italian drone I did not see traces of defeat ZRAK. None at all. He looked as if he had fallen.
Will show?

[Pessimist22]

Boom! So he fell.

[littoral]

Quote: Pessimist22

Boom! So he fell.

Thanks to the experts!

[VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK]

You were there, touched with your hands. The rest is not accepted, nonsense.

[Prisoner]

Our peasants are simple people, they don't take their word for it. So you have to prove it. And the evidence is top notch! Not like the "zhentelmen" who take their word for it. And who have such performance characteristics in advertising brochures that only the declared prices save potential customers from drowning in their own saliva. True, the products in business are not very good, but the goods cannot be returned or exchanged.

[Above_name]

Will one combat vehicle of the standard ZRPK 96K6 "Shell-C1" be able to intercept, to For example, 28 JAGM tactical missiles simultaneously launched from the suspension units of two UAVs of the Riper family during an attack on ground targets?

And what will S-300, S-400 and other Bukahs with Torahs do ?? !! Why the hell are needed ??

[Thrifty]

Well, shot down, and well done! Nefig fly in alien airspace. And the calculation of the Shell knows the technique well, and knows how to use it! Therefore, the results are as follows.

[bessmertniy]

Next time they’ll think about whether to send a drone to stay without it. It must be assumed that Haftar is still finishing the coalition in its den.

[WILL]

More Shells and TORs, Good and Necessary! It’s like insurance - that democracy will not fly to you, star-striped!
Great advertisement - Russian weapons!

[Solieri]

I wanted to note - these excellent results have been achieved by the export version "Pantsir-S1E", and that the most modern and reliable versions of this anti-aircraft missile system will be and will be in service with the Russian army ...

[Kirill Dou]

Syria somehow this insurance does not work

[Okolotochny]

Syria somehow this insurance does not work

Why? Percentage of Assad-controlled territory in 2014 and now compare. Coalition aviation flights then and now compare.

[Kirill Dou]

It is enough to see how the S-300 "effectively" protect Syria from Israeli attacks

[Okolotochny]

Yes Yes. That Benya often shares in Sochi and in Moscow. More often than the White House. The label takes to reign, to the blows.

[Kirill Dou]

Favorite excuse "hurray" when the Russian air defense systems, about which the Russian military leadership said that it would "close the Syrian sky" and "create a no-fly zone", something does not cope with this task))

[Okolotochny]

Favorite excuse "hurray"

What is the excuse? When does your prime half-bent arrive? Travel statistics look. For the arrival of the Israelites on the IL-20 recall? When they simply were not accepted by the first persons. Benya rushed after. And your country is bombing from other countries. Once again - Benya approves the good and objects in Sochi and in Moscow. Again

[Kirill Dou]

When does your prime half-bent arrive?

- Firstly, Benjamin Netanyahu is not "my prime minister" for the simple reason that I am a citizen of Russia, not Israel)) This is how you build your statements - on the basis of your fantasies and conjectures.

Quote: Okolotochny

For the arrival of the Israelites on the IL-20 recall?

- Well, remind me)) Of course they didn’t accept it, because the Israelis came with direct evidence of not being involved in the IL-20 disaster, and our leadership was not accustomed to turning a blind eye to the facts or simply disowning them.

"And your country is bombing from the territory of other countries" - once again: My country is Russia. As for Israel, it is bombing both from the territory of Lebanon and entering the borders of the SAR. By the way, the S-300, in terms of its performance characteristics, is quite capable of reaching Israeli aircraft in the skies of Lebanon. But, along the way, the missiles accurately reach the border and fall

Benya, perhaps, is coordinating the attacks with Moscow - in fact, this is his work as the prime minister of his country. But what does Moscow have to do with it, if we are talking about the S-300s that were handed over to Syria itself?) Does Syria, it turns out, coordinate with Moscow too so as not to touch Israeli planes?)

You are completely confused. Understand already.

[VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK]

Syria does not work. Before you write, you need to think.

[Kirill Dou]

So think before you write.

[Fedorov]

, after all, it is the “brainchild” of Academician Arkady Georgievich Shipunov and specialists of the Tula JSC Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering

Gryazev Vasily, the author forgot to mention, they also worked in tandem.

[certero]

Such a duel situation is already a loss for ground defense.

[sen]

JAGM tactical missiles theoretically allow the Ripers to launch an attack on the Shell-S1E from a distance of 30 km

For the modern modification of "Armor SM", the range of destruction has increased to 40 km.
https://zen.yandex.ru/media/armsblog/zrpk-pancir-preimuscestvo-i-nedostatki-ego-raketnogo-voorujeniia-5c517b8e9f20ac00ac19048f

[huntsman650]

Detection or tracking range of 40 km. Damage cannot be this)))

[Nikolay Balashov]

yes, a defeat of 40 km. Detection has always been 90 km.

[huntsman650]

This is more than the TOP

[Kirill Dou]

Shoot down a subsonic scout who is not capable of active anti-ballistic maneuvers - is this a direct indicator of the super-efficiency of air defense systems?

staggered the air castles of the Pentagon.

“Does the Pentagon know about this?”

[lev1759]

and does the Pentagon know about this?

Recognized in Saudi Arabia and Syria

[Kirill Dou]

What did he specifically learn there?

[Air force]

The carapace complex is certainly excellent, but what the title "shook the locks," etc., is it common for "Carapace" to shoot down drones. To raise this news to the rank of the highest achievement is to downgrade the effectiveness of the "Shell". Much better for self-promotion in this particular case, this is the laziness of the narrative, almost yawning to inform, "The carapace in Libya has filled up a couple of drones," so that it would be taken for granted, that "Carapace" is in the role of a fly swatter, and flies in this case and Reapery, you will not, like "Brave Tailors", admire that seven flies in one blow have filled up.

[Monster_Fat]

There is an opinion that this is not the work of "Pantsir" but of electronic warfare systems. Well, yes, to shoot down a drone that practically does not change and is flying in a single copy is not a great merit. By the way, about the "stealth" - low-visibility of shot down drones - not so much, they are "inconspicuous" and the "Pantsir" has an optical-electronic aiming channel. I'm interested in how the "Shell" will behave when attacking the "swarm" .....

[Air force]

In this case, I have not heard about the work of electronic warfare, but about the "swarm" "Pantsir" must be supposed to show itself worthy, missile-gun armament allows, as it seems to me. But in a compartment with electronic warfare and if not a single "Armor", then on the example of multiple drone attacks by "barmaley" Russian bases in Syria, I think it will fight back, of course, depending on what "swarm". PS If you honestly did not understand why the cons "got stuck" to you, I like the "Shell", but I also think that shooting down such drones is a common situation and should be treated more simply, as I wrote above.

[l7yzo]

As for the swarm, firstly, the rockets are limited, even if on planes. Secondly - he is a swarm for that, and not a crowd of drones - there are combat formation and maneuvering, as well as cover and attack links (everything is like in aviation). Israel has already shown in Syria that air defense is quite easy to swarm through. And the prime cost of a bla is a penny, but air defense is a completely different price tag. That's why they are trying to develop lasers so much, they are quite a good solution against the swarm (unless, of course, we take force fields and magnetic "stuns")

[Chaldon48]

Any weapon has certain limitations in the ability to hit the enemy and defend themselves from attack.

[Alexey G]

So the shells are designed to work on cruise missiles, air-to-air missiles, earth, and more! This is melee defense! What do you want from him ?? So that he f16 plummeted? So the latter will not fly up to him for 20 km, he will launch rockets much further and now Shell will work on rockets!
This is a complex guard for the C400. His task is not to bring down large trophies.
The fact that he shot down a drone, and even 2 pieces and so expensive as for example the Reaper is a super result.
You just don’t understand why he is. The mattresses lounged, they missed the Shell and slipped into the distance of the Shell's attack. Read the article carefully! They write about it there ...

[Cruorvult]

I don’t quite understand how the author is going to suspend 28 JAGM-3 on 2 Rippers.

It has six suspension points:

2 internal 680 kg each
2 in the middle of the wing, 230-270 kg
2 cantilevers for 68–91 kg
Can carry:

Up to 4 air-to-ground missiles AGM-114 Hellfire
Or 4 Hellfire missiles and two Mark 82 laser-guided bombs (GBU-12)
Or Mark 82 GPS Guided Bombs (JDAM)
AIM-92 Stinger air-to-air missiles are being tested.

7 hardpoints
Up to 1,500 lb (680 kg) on ​​the two inboard weapons stations [184]
Up to 750 lb (340 kg) on ​​the two middle stations [184]
Up to 150 lb (68 kg) on ​​the outboard stations [184]
Center station not used
Up to 4 AGM-114 Hellfire air to ground missiles can be carried or four Hellfire missiles and two 500 lb (230 kg) GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bombs. The 500 lb (230 kg) GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) can also be carried. Testing is underway [needs update] to support the operation of the AIM-92 Stinger air-to-air missile. In March 2014, MBDA successfully test fired a dual mode Brimstone missile from a Reaper aircraft on behalf of the UK Ministry of Defense and Royal Air Force. [185]

[l7yzo]

The MQ-9 Reaper UAV was originally designed for the US military. The first flight took place on February 2, 2001. Subsequently, it underwent several upgrades. The latest models reach speeds of up to 400 km / h and cover distances of up to 6000 km. The service ceiling is 15 km. Carrying capacity - 1,7 tons. The weapons are air-to-ground missiles and guided aerial bombs. "

I say swarm - this is a cover carrier group and a distracting group - these are all different types of blah.

[Alexey G]

So Damantsev is always a little beyond measure
Just in case, he added that our experts at the Paciri put 28 missiles, which in itself is not bad, but Kamaz needs to be changed to T72 base or Armata ...

[The leader of the Redskins]

Well, if so:
As shown by a short monitoring of the Russian media space
In Russia, EVERYTHING and EVERYWHERE is wonderful, beautiful, wonderful and magnificent.
And if purely according to the article, then it seems to me that this analysis is not perfect. Before that, there were cases of destruction of "shells" and the readers were looking for an excuse for these defeats. But then, finally, what happened, for which the ZRPK was created, and the man in the street triumphantly raised his bent hand "eu! We made them!"
Let's wait for despondency in the ranks of the enemy, when the striped and God's chosen will officially recommend to their Air Force not to fly in the space that is covered by "shells". Like in Vietnam fifty years ago.

[Cruorvult]

One gets the feeling that you could not master the article except for the hype headline.

"Let's wait for despondency in the ranks of the enemy, when the striped and God's chosen will officially recommend to their Air Force not to fly in the space that is covered with" shells. " - the message is initially false, since the "Shell" by no means can close the sky, it was not created for this.

[The leader of the Redskins]

Personally, I do not know an air defense system that can "close the sky" alone. But, in my opinion, any means of this type of weapons should make it difficult to fly an aircraft at any available ranges / altitudes. And according to your logic, the "shell" has nothing to do with it?

[Essex62]

For real discouragement in the ranks of the enemy, it is necessary that the enemy be re-qualified as an enemy. Ie a political decision, then it will be like in Vietnam. Only this is unlikely to happen.

[VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK]

The Americans, like the Germans in WWII, will hide their losses. Ie lie.

[Alexey G]

I think Erdogan has already quietly told Macron and the boys in the ear that the C400 sees F35 and other ghosts, so they began to refuse to buy F35

[littoral]

I would like to say a few words to the author of this "analytical" article.
Analytics - assumes complete impartiality in the analysis of current events. Otherwise, propaganda turns out. Again, there is nothing wrong with propaganda itself (propaganda of a healthy lifestyle, for example) if it is objective, fact-based and is friendly with logic and common sense. Unfortunately, the author did not succeed here either. That there is one heading about the "castles in the air" of the Pentagon, which allegedly shook the "Shell". I'm afraid it's true that it will be difficult for Evgeny Damantsev to answer the question - what kind of castles are we talking about.
Next.

The export modification of the unique mobile Prakir-S1E air defense system, which is in service with the Libyan National Army (LNA) Khalifa Haftar, once again demonstrated the highest potential to withstand modern unmanned aerial attack vehicles of the NATO Joint Air Force,

1. Once again, what is it? How many and which UAVs did NATO shoot down before that "Pantsir"?
2. What "highest potential" are we talking about in relation to a low-speed aircraft flying directly over your head and not having in its arsenal of means of counteracting the attacking side? Personally, in my opinion, it is difficult to think of more "greenhouse" conditions for the operation of the air defense system.

On the other hand, starting from more recent data published a day after the incident, on November 25, the Associated Press, citing a competent source in the command of the LNA, we can conclude that the interception of American and Italian shock reconnaissance drones was carried out unintentionally; apparently, due to the lack of response from the respondents of the state recognition system, which are part of the on-board electronic equipment of the Predator-M and Reaper drones.

Why did you, Eugene, generally decide that the United States and Italy shared the "friend or foe" identification system with the same Haftar? Because Of course, you will not be able to provide any more or less reliable links to this, then I would just like to hear your opinion why did you come to this conclusion?

I will have a whole bunch of questions for you, but for now let’s dwell on these, so that the thought would not spread too much on the tree.
I have all the attention!

[Kirill Dou]

Yes, any nonsense article

[Alien From]

Damantsev ...., he is, Damantsev .............)))

[Alexey G]

For $ 33 million, he beat and paid for himself twice! Here you have a broken castle! They think that drones are a super weapon of the future, and here the Russian mini slingshot bang bang and Khishnik and the Reaper put down on a barrel with boobs! Do not cut through yet about the locks then?

[Kirill Dou]

They think there

- no it's you you think. that they think so. There (in the Pentagon) are not fools.

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

There (in the Pentagon) are not fools.

And they realized that their drones even against Russian air defense systems of the Ground Forces completely suck. And I don’t even speak about air defense systems of a higher level country in the form of S-300 - there they don’t have anything to shine at all. I think that the military of many countries have already correctly understood the information received, and it is possible that a long-term lineup of not the richest countries in the world will appear behind the Shell.

[Kirill Dou]

Quote: ccsr

that their drones even against the Russian air defense systems of the Ground Forces completely suck.

Pffff, the Americans never said that these drones were designed to counter air defense systems. UAV "Pridator" and are armed with 2 ATGM "Hellfire", and "Reapers" (modified "Predator") - "Helfires" and guided bombs. These are devices for pinpoint strikes against armored vehicles, vehicles and small fortifications in conditions of already suppressed air defense. You ascribe to the Americans some of your thoughts, build "castles in the air" yourself, and then try to debunk these thoughts. What for?

"Pantsir" is certainly a good military air defense system. But what is the achievement?)

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

You ascribe to the Americans some of your thoughts, build "castles in the air" yourself, and then try to debunk these thoughts. What for?

I don’t attribute anything to them at all, but I’m trying to explain to you that the "Pantsir" is a very effective air defense system of the Ground Forces, capable of striking aircraft even with nuclear weapons in the near zone - for example, maneuvering American Tomahawks. It is from this that we must proceed, assessing how easily the Libyans overwhelmed the UAVs, the level of training of which was told to me by a person who taught them in Soviet times. By the way, he did not have a very high opinion of their abilities in managing complex equipment.

Quote: Kirill Dou

"Pantsir" is certainly a good military air defense system. But what is the achievement?

In a combat situation, its operational capabilities against a real enemy are fully confirmed - this you will not achieve at any training ground. And this is the achievement of our designers - I think so.

[Kirill Dou]

Quote: ccsr

explain to you that the "Pantsir" is a very effective means of air defense of the Ground Forces

Why are you explaining this to me, if I already know this very well? The argument was about something else.

, evaluating how easily the Libyans overwhelmed UAVs,

- easily overwhelmed a low-speed, non-maneuverable UAV, not designed for combat operations in conditions of active air defense, from an air defense system, which is designed to defeat actively maneuvering aircraft. So I ask - what is the achievement in this particular case?

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

So I ask - what is the achievement in this particular case?

The fact that such drones already have the ability to counteract enemy air defense systems in the form of active electronic warfare systems, and which turned out to be "accidentally" inoperative. This in itself makes the professionals smile, who know perfectly well that NATO is well informed about all the Libyans' air defense systems, and no one can convince me that they were careless in this case - this does not happen.

[Alexey G]

They sweep millions into it and build new drones!

[Kirill Dou]

That's right, they are building. AND? What's in this "airlock"? And how does this show what Americans consider drones "superweapon"?

[Alexey G]

First, Americans believe that unmanned vehicles will become the main weapon in the future. This is their concept. Read the work of E. Toffler "War and Antiwar". There is a lot of interesting stuff, including about robots in future wars.
Secondly, for a long time, Americans were considered the only manufacturers of such weapons. Therefore, it turns out that they are the creators of the weapons of the future! As they hope of course, because in many ways at the moment, drones remain expensive toys, they are often intercepted with electronic warfare or shot down by old-generation weapons!
So it turns out an air lock. That is, it should be like a castle, but while it is airy!

[ccsr]

Quote: Alexey G

First of all, Americans believe that unmanned vehicles will become the main means of struggle in the future. That is their concept.

Just not against countries with nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear forces. So UAVs can be used in the war against weak countries, and even then, if they do not acquire modern air defense systems from Russia.

Quote: Alexey G

Therefore, it turns out that they are the creators of the weapons of the future!

According to its capabilities, it cannot be a weapon of the future for those who have strategic nuclear forces, because It has many shortcomings, including too slow in relation to operational application. So the Americans are simply spinning up a PR campaign, and dream of getting big dividends from the sale of UAVs.

Quote: Alexey G

So it turns out an air lock.

They themselves are well aware that these toys will not work against Russia, but as they say, nothing personal, only business. That is why this type of weapon is being promoted.

[Amateur]

Therefore, at the time of the unexpected interception, the MQ-9A “Predator-B” and MQ-9 “Reaper” carried out an ordinary reconnaissance flight without “dangerous maneuvering” and the use of airborne electronic countermeasures,

An attempt to cast a "shadow over the fence". Fact: They were shot down!

[rocket757]

The question is, who prevented them from "dangerous" maneuvering? Or did they go out for a walk?

[littoral]

Quote: rocket757

The question is, who prevented them from "dangerous" maneuvering? Or did they go out for a walk?

If only with one eye to see how Reapers with Predators "dangerously maneuver" and perform anti-missile maneuvers!

[rocket757]

Quote: littoral

If only with one eye to see how Reapers with Predators "dangerously maneuver" and perform anti-missile maneuvers!

This is true, they do not look like models for aerobatics! But anyway, if the doctor said to the garden, let's go all to the garden .... probably?

[Mestny]

Can’t they?
So then it's just outdated trash.

[Kirill Dou]

Is the Russian Orion also obsolete rubbish then?

[opus]

Quote: littoral

If only with one eye to see how Reapers with Predators "dangerously maneuver" and perform anti-missile maneuvers!

for a red word, everything can be written. Paper site (TopVar) she will endure

[Alexey G]

And now let them now think what for the priest the button accordion for 30 cartoons, if he is not maneuverable ???

[Kirill Dou]

Why the heck then Russia is developing Orion with exactly the same (that is, no) maneuverability?

[Alexey G]

I think that we do not bet on Orions. Perhaps we will produce a limited batch for narrow purposes, that's all! Type of fight against terrorism. Another thing is the Hunter, which is done on the basis of the principle of invisibility! Like the American Valkyrie. Invisibility speed is optional, the main thing is to secretly approach the target ...

[rocket757]

The meeting of NATO unmanned aircraft with the "Shell-S1E" shook the air castles of the Pentagon. Surprise from Tula

Whether there will still be oh, oh, oh!

[Zaurbek]

No one canceled the disguise and change of position and the work of the Shell from an external control unit .....

[rocket757]

Quote: Zaurbek

No one canceled the disguise and change of position and the work of the Shell from an external control unit .....

Everything is correct. For effective, safe operation, the presence of separate, external intelligence systems, target designation, straight, straight to the suit will be!

[Sotskiy]

From the last paragraphs of the article it follows that when attacking a pair of “Shell-C1” they will be able to fight off two Riper UAVs, but there’s no response in return, which will go unpunished for the latter, without additional support units in the form of air defense and electronic warfare . The conclusions are not very encouraging, which does not implore the merits and genius of Shipunov’s team, especially if you recall how the Shell was created in the complete absence of funding from the native state.

[jekasimf]

That is, the author, in fact, claims that these UAVs flew over the combat zone in complete relaxation. That’s why they overwhelmed them. Moreover, even when the first and second ones failed, they didn’t strain the rolls, but if it were with strained rolls, then this would not happen .And if there were 2 Traitors, yes with 28 JAGM tactical missiles !!! .... And what if there are 2 Shells? And what if there is an elephant against a whale?
As far as I know, the first version of the Shell was sold to the Saudis. Now there is already a version of the Shell-SM ... Range of 40 km.

[Pavel57]

At the end of the article, the duel scenario is too optimistic.

[Boris55]

If Medvedev, as the president of our country, had not stopped standing under the unloading of our ships with air defense systems in Libya, you would have looked and ISIS in Syria ...

[Nick Russ]

I just do not understand why the Americans did not expect that their drones could land? Either there is some kind of catch, or I will exclaim together with Zadornov: "Well, stupid!"

[opus]

Quote: Yevgeny Damantsev

that ZRPK "Shell-M" equipped with radar interrogators of the state recognition system type "Sentinel".

Yes? But men don’t know ...

1. writes about “Shell-S1E”

Quote: Yevgeny Damantsev

NATO drone meeting with "Shell-S1E" staggered

slides down to the Pantsir-M / Mace Complex, which does not exist yet, in fact.
2. System of state radar identification "Password" and its modernized version -
"Guard" .. I'm afraid to assume, but by the end of C1 deliveries to the UAE, the RF Armed Forces did not have the proper number of "Guard" ..

because:
In 1997, the Regulation on equipping civil aircraft with airborne transponders of the Password system came into force, approved by the Director of the Federal Aviation Service of Russia

GK from 26.08.2013 No. 629 / 3K / 2013DRGZ “Complex of measures to terminate the use (decommissioning) of ground and airborne vehicles using the operating mode of the Silicon-2 (2M) system, including the nomenclature of: ships, coastal posts of the Navy, Air Force Air Defense, East Kazakhstan Air Defense Forces, Air Defense Forces, Aviation and Air Defense of the Navy ”/ source: 2015 annual report of OJSC“ MCCO Air Defense “Granit”.
3. With a high probability: neither "Password" nor "Guard" was there (Complex 96K6 for the UAE) and could not be there
40D (emulates the Mk-XA (Mk XII) used by NATO countries and the ICAO ATC RBC international air traffic control system)
but most likely there:
Mark XA (Mk XA) / Mark XII (Mk XII), shopping mall UAE became the first country to deploy THAAD complexes after the USA
or nothing at all, maybe there is no ESGO in the UAE (and this is normal for many countries).
There are RBS (1030/1090 MHz) of course
4. "Predator-B" of the US Air Force and MQ-9 "Reaper" of the Italian Air Force, of course, flew in the sky of Libya with RBS (defendant mode A + C). And the equipment Shell C1E of course received these signals.
It happens, but the Mujahideen even more so. If we have

violations (errors) of crew members .... accident of MiG-31 aircraft - abnormal operation of the S-800 weapon control system (capture of the MiG-31 reserve fighter with the sign “alien target”“And putting him on the attack) did not alert the crew members, and they continued to carry out the task

UAVs “Predator-B” and “Reaper”, ZRPK “Pantsir-S1E” at a distance of 70 and 50 km, synthetic aperture mode (SAR) with a resolution of “radar image” of about 1-2 meters ... 57E6 missiles ... " Shell-S1E "at a distance ... AGM-114C / K / L" Hellfire / Longbow "..

where is the author’s button

[series]

Quote: opus

"Predator-B" US Air Force and MQ-9 "Reaper" Italian Air Force, of course, flew in the sky of Libya with RBS (defendant mode A + C)

Why so old? You still assign mode S to them. In general, I strongly doubt that the UAV has civil defendants. Why the hell, on a small airplane to carry extra junk, the antenna itself is the defendant? Yeah, let's get some more TCAS, etc. hang up to the full stuffing :))

Quote: opus

UAVs “Predator-B” and “Reaper”, ZRPK “Pantsir-S1E” at a distance of 70 and 50 km, synthetic aperture mode (SAR) with a resolution of “radar image” of about 1-2 meters

This is - yes, the author has already mixed up a bunch of horses, people ... He, hike, does not understand what the SA mode is and what it is eaten with :))

[opus]

Quote: S-400

UAVs have civil defendants. Why the hell, on a small airplane to carry extra junk, the antenna itself is the defendant?

In February 2013, the U.S. President signed into law the Federal Aviation Reform Act, which included the integration of drones into the airspace of the United States from September 2015.
And it’s not only about air defense, or what will collide with a passenger airliner, it’s about
Gormley D. unmanned air vehicles as terror weapons: real or imagined? /Dennis
Gormley // NTI: website. 2005. July 1
+

an important requirement for ANY modern UAV any purpose is compliant with the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
At the same time, a specific requirement for UAVs when using them in airspace is the mandatory accounting of two flight modes: remote control by operator’s commands from the ground and a fully autonomous flight mode.
In both cases, drones must carry on board a friend-or-foe identification system, on-board navigation lights that are activated when flying in public airspace, and an airborne collision avoidance system, which is designed to provide
equivalent level of security for all, without exception, airspace users

and they
ICAO 10019 Remote Manned Aviation Systems Manual (RPAS)
and with us
GOST R 56122-2014 Air transport. Unmanned aircraft systems. General requirements
/ Order of the Federal Agency for Technical Regulation and Metrology of September 18, 2014 N 1130-st /

Quote: S-400

Yeah, let’s go there again TCAS

and she is
Lynx Multi-mode Radar Block 20A in conjunction with Sky Warrior ® Alpha and Gray Eagle and provides TCAS mode

Quote: S-400

This is - yes, the author has already mixed horses in a bunch, people

what is there to grieve, for "Klim Chugunki", the title shows

[Maks1995]

If he so "swayed the pipe", then why then Syria is plowed regularly ...

[series]

Quote: Max1995

If he so "swayed the pipe", then why then Syria is plowed regularly ...

Yes, simply because, already infa skipped, ours dragged equipment into Syria, puffed out cheeks, but they are not even trying to use it against Israel. Even the Syrians have already run into, like, why don’t you work for the Israeli goals?
As I understand it, firstly, there are some agreements with Israel (in the same place, in whom you don’t spit from our elite and the oligarchs, then an Israeli passport, then a business woman, then an apartment, etc.), and, secondly, fresh in the memory of many domestic air defense personnel, a total defeat called "Medvedka-19", to-ry the Israelis perpetrated the Soviet air defense.

[My doctor]

that in 30 seconds of flying time two “Shell-C1” will be able to deal with more than 75% (21 units) of JAGM attacking missiles using only 57E6 SAMs.

I confess I do not quite understand the numbers. Let's say.
If the average probability of a missile interception is 0.97, then with a total probability of 0.4 that at least one 24 targets will not be shot down. Okay, let 21 targets be shot down.
As a result, one of the 2 cannonballs will have 4 targets in the interval of 30 seconds. Then what should be the probability of hitting a target with an automatic cannon for to shoot down the remaining missiles with a 98% guarantee?

[Gnefredov]

Yes, there are no guarantees. There are averaged calculations. No more. I’ll tell you so, once upon a time, on the n-side, we experienced something. For 120 kilometers from the landfill collapsed "maize" (AN-2 in ours). Cause? Zhelezyaka, the propeller blade interrupted. There are 4 blades, one flew off, then a vibration and ... a northern animal.
So, all calculations are hypothetical. I saw a lot of things; I will say this, mathematics works forty percent, the rest ... The rest is beyond our control.

[series]

Quote: Aaron Zawi

Quote: Pessimist22

The advertising was good, the most important thing is that they immediately overwhelmed a couple.

In Syria, this system has already shot down dozens of UAVs, so there is nothing surprising in the message.

So far, in Syria, it is reliably known about the destruction of one "Shell" about which the Israelis presented video evidence to the whole world. And in spite of the screeching of various mega-quilted jackets and mega-patriots, that "as always, the Syrians have no discipline" and "yes, he finally stood turned off" - a clear victory, however, as usual.
Even if Russian calculations were "behind the wheel", everything would be exactly the same. This is clearly evidenced by the total defeat of Soviet (yes, hell, exactly Soviet!) Air Defense Forces in Operation Medvedka-19.
"Carapace" is not a bad thing, but it is not a "wunderwaffle" at all and everything will depend (as usual) on the experience, skill and motivation of those sitting at the consoles.

[Nick Russ]

"Even if Russian calculations were driving, everything would be exactly the same."
Well, go ahead! At the Khmeinim airbase, Russian crews are sitting, which greatly interfere with Israel in creating unrest in Syria. Or do "brave" Jews only attack the weak?

I respect the strong
I offend the weak
But in the whole world
No stronger than me
You will not find!
I'm powerful, I'm harsh
Physically healthy
I'm a wolf, which means -
King of beasts!

Well done, well done,
Can be proud of him
All one
Not afraid!

[Kirill Dou]

"At the Khmeinim airbase there are Russian crews, which greatly interfere with Israel in instigating unrest in Syria" - how do they interfere? When did they interfere?

So in 1982, the Soviet air defense deployed in Syria really interfered with Israel. So he defeated them.

[anykin]

http://otvaga2004.ru/voyny/wars-mid-east/wars-arab/mir-galilee-4/
Syrian tanks interfered with Israel, but had to make peace.

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

So in 1982, the Soviet air defense deployed in Syria really interfered with Israel. So he defeated them.

But why Israel will not do the same with Gaza - tell us in more detail what kind of air defense they have in the sector ...

[series]

Quote: Nick Russ

At the Khmeinim airbase, Russian crews are sitting, which are very hindering Israel in causing unrest in Syria

Well, tell me how they interfere? Almost every week there are reports that the Israelis have broken up something in Syria. Where are your "red falcons"? Once they really interfered - and the Il-20 went to the waters of the Red Sea. Notice that the Israelites didn’t even do anything, they didn’t touch a finger!

And if Israel really took up our grouping, as it was in 67, 73 and the beginning of the 80s, then there would only be the wreckage of the newest "Sushki" and antenna arrays of S-300 and S-400 together!

I will tell you more: that the rank and file in Syria, that the top in the Kremlin repeats like a mantra: "God forbid to grapple with the Israelis"! Because the Israeli aviation, God forbid, this will happen, with the entire funny Russian group in Syria, it will take 30 minutes to recover :(

[Nick Russ]

I wonder how many missiles are needed to level Israel’s entire military infrastructure? Do not tell me?

[ccsr]

Quote: S-400

Where are your "red falcons"?

Yes, why do we need to use falcons if we have OTP figs before us, and the Israelis cannot even protect themselves from jet-propelled improvments from Gaza. Everything will be simpler if they pose such a task to the Russian army.

Quote: S-400

And if Israel really took up our grouping, as it was in 67, 73 and the beginning of the 80s, then there would only be the wreckage of the newest "Sushki" and antenna arrays of S-300 and S-400 together!

Dream, since it gives you pleasure. But do not forget that under such a scenario, Israel itself may not become - and where then the former citizens of the USSR will run, probably only Lieberman knows.

[lucul]

So far, in Syria, it is reliably known about the destruction of one "Shell" about which the Israelis presented video evidence to the whole world. And despite the screeching of various mega-quilted jackets and mega-patriots

Ahahaahah - MEGAhayfa drove up

[series]

Quote: lucul

Ahahaahah - MEGAhayfa drove up

I am translating your words into normal Russian: "in fact, there is nothing to object": laughing

[Nikolay Balashov]

And Nitsche, that he stood empty and calculation smoked on the sidelines? And when they noticed something with their eyes, one ran to the Shell, and then the rocket hit the shell of the shell. By the way, a few days later it was restored.

[Tamer]

Quote: Nikolai Balashov

By the way, a few days later it was restored.

link please

[series]

You inattentively read my message, I have already listed this reason ("stood empty and the calculation smoked on the sidelines") in the list of standard excuses. The losing side will always find something to justify, I assure you.
When in 1973. the Israelis shot down the newest MiG-21s in batches (there were Soviet pilots in the cockpits too and showed rez-you are not at all better than their Arab colleagues) and, having missed the first blow, after a short time found themselves almost in Cairo, our military advisers quickly composed a fairy tale about "lazy Arabs who do not know how to fight" and then they were replicated for a long time in all "Wings of the Motherland", yeah ... the same story.

[Gnefredov]

Yes. Sometimes, the stars converge so that the engineers do not dream.

Sumptuously. Gorgeous. A subtle note in the varieties of the night of Shehirezada :)

PS Guys, I'm satisfied :)

[Nikolai]

Fell up and good. NATO has 2 less.

[Gnefredov]

Yes sir :)

[Saxahorse]

Strange little article. Well, two UAVs were shot down in Libya .. And rightly shot down, because nefig. And Haftar, by the way, immediately apologized for this. And rightly so, they say, not from evil. Still knock and apologize again.

But then some kind of nonsense went on, with ridiculous calculations and far-reaching conclusions from nothing. Why should the Reaper shoot at the Shell with the anti-tank Helfire? The Reaper has planning bombs, GBU-35 \ GBU-38 with a range of 16-28 km. Yes, and old Maverick is not difficult to pick up, with its 30 km. But why again? To suppress anti-aircraft defense, other missiles use the AGM-88 HARM type with a range of 106 km and 630 m / s or even barrage ammunition of the IAI Harpy or IAI Harop type. The last two are worth a penny and a huge range of 400-1000 km., And it is difficult to detect them. Garm, too, in recent wars showed himself perfectly, no one fought off ..

By the way, it is not necessary to fly high, on the contrary, swarm and low, low, like crocodiles fly ..

The most interesting news is of course the fact of the delivery of the modern air defense complex to Haftaru. After all, I remind you that he is not at all considered the legal representative of Libya. A reasonable question, if it’s possible for Haftaru, then why is it impossible to put Hezbollah TORs or Husites? Not to mention the DPR with the LPR .. As I understand it, there were restrictions on the supply of heavy weapons to all kinds of rebels. The war in Syria seems to have discounted this ban. First, ATGMs were just anyone, now here are modern air defense systems. Are we alone doing something self-limiting in this area?

[Kirill Dou]

Quote: ccsr

The goal was, but failed to achieve.

- That's right, Iraq failed to achieve its goal.

as for example the Americans in Somalia, where their landing was destroyed:

“What does Somalia have to do with Iraq?”

This is a lie - Saddam prevented them primarily with his politics, otherwise there would have been no second war after many years.

- may have interfered, but the goal of the Americans in the first Gulf War was not to overthrow him. Because if it were, they would have overthrown him exactly then, and not after 12 years. They had all the opportunities for this. Moreover, they also had a "moral justification" for this; they would not have had to "shake a test tube" at the UN, as in 2003. During the First Gulf War, even the USSR supported the USA.

"Saddam did not lose any of his oil fields" - it is true, but he lost all the Kuwaiti, which were the stumbling block in the First Gulf War.

"cannot succeed in the Middle East" - what success were they to achieve?

“And therefore, to talk about a“ victory ”over Iraq” - firstly, I was talking about the first, not the second Gulf War. Second, the victory of the Americans over Saddam's Iraq can be fully talked about, because Saddam's Iraq fell, the Iraqi army was defeated, and Saddam himself was executed. This was the goal of the Americans in the very 2nd war in Iraq. The fact that they failed to establish full control over post-Saddam Iraq no longer applies to the war with Saddam itself. In it, the Americans fully achieved their goals.

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

where does Somalia, if we are talking about Iraq?

Despite the fact that the Americans do not always achieve their goals.

Quote: Kirill Dou

it may have interfered, but the goal of the Americans in the first Gulf War was not to overthrow it.

It was. They just managed it, because attacks by cruise missiles and aircraft did not bring the desired result (not even a single SCAD installation was struck!), and they were simply frightened to use the land group after one tank battle, which was conducted by the Saddam army as a reconnaissance, and after which the Americans abandoned their panic positions on one of the front sectors.

Quote: Kirill Dou

Because if it were, they would have overthrown it then, and not after 12 years.

And why did they wait so long - if there was such a goal at that time? Do not make the audience laugh ...

Quote: Kirill Dou

During the First Gulf War, even the USSR supported.

Lies - the USSR did not support the Americans, but on the contrary continued to deliver to Iraq under previously concluded treaties.

Quote: Kirill Dou

“And therefore, to talk about a“ victory ”over Iraq” - firstly, I was talking about the first, not the second Gulf War.

And this proves that in the first war the Americans did not achieve their tasks at all, which is why they had to lie, waving a test tube to start the second war.

Quote: Kirill Dou

Secondly, the victory of Americans over Saddam Iraq can be fully discussed, because the Saddam Iraq fell, the Iraqi army was defeated, and Saddam himself was executed. This was precisely the goal of the Americans in the 2nd war in Iraq itself.

It’s you who you tell in your sandbox - the goal was oil, not Saddam, who simply didn’t want to let Americans in and relied on the USSR. And his idea of ​​redistributing petrodollars towards the USSR simply put him on a number of suicide bombers, which was subsequently implemented, and then with the help of traitors in his circle. He himself would never give up, which is why he was destroyed without an international court, as was the case with Milosevic.

[Kirill Dou]

Despite the fact that the Americans do not always achieve their goals.

- And I argued that they always achieve their goals? I did not consider all US military operations, only the First Gulf War.

And then you contradict yourself. First you say this:

It was. They just made it easy

- This is you to my remark that the goal of the Americans in the first Gulf War was not to overthrow Saddam, but to eliminate him from Kuwait.

And then you state this:
"the goal was oil, not Saddam, who simply did not want to let the Americans in and relied on the USSR"

You already decide whether they were going to overthrow Saddam or not.

Next.

after one tank battle that was conducted by Saddam's army as a reconnaissance

- Are you talking about the battle of Hudgee? Well, let's look at its consequences:
- coalition forces lost several dozen people killed: about 18 people lost the Saudi army, about 11 - the American, was destroyed 2 tanks and about 6 units of armored vehicles,
- Iraqi squad lost 32 killed (according to another estimate - more than 200 killed), 35 wounded, destroyed 30 units of armored vehicles, several hundred soldiers were captured.

Something is somehow not like that

after which the Americans in a panic abandoned their positions on one of the sectors of the front.

And here is the result ground operation "Saber of the Desert" conducted by the MNF forces against the Iraqi army: for four days ground operations troops MNF completely liberated Kuwait and occupied about 15% of the territory of Iraq. Directly on the battlefield during the offensive, the loss ratio of the MNF and Iraq amounted to about 1 killed MNF soldier per 1 Iraqi destroyed division. And the funny thing is that according to the results of this operation on February 26, Saddam Hussein congratulated the Iraqis in a radio statement with victory over coalition forcesand but admitted that Iraqi forces are forced to leave Kuwait

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

and I argued that they always achieve their goals?

Then why only claim to Saddam?

Quote: Kirill Dou

You already decide whether they were going to overthrow Saddam or not.

Of course they were going to overthrow Saddam - he prevented them from controlling oil flows, so they decided to remove him. So the oil was still at the heart of his elimination, and not the poor Kurds, who were allegedly destroyed by Saddam. I will not talk about the "golden dinar", as well as about where the owners of petrodollars were going to invest it, but I will note that this greatly frightened the Americans. So here everything is intertwined, which is why it was necessary to destroy Saddam even for the edification of others.

Quote: Kirill Dou

Well, let's look at its consequences:

The consequences - the complete demoralization of American troops, and the refusal of the command to conduct a ground operation, and this changed the entire course of the war.

Quote: Kirill Dou

in four days of ground operation, MNF troops completely liberated Kuwait

Saddam knew perfectly well that he could not hold onto these territories, which is why he withdrew his troops. What is so unusual about the flight of the Americans from Vietnam?

Quote: Kirill Dou

approximately 1 killed MNF soldier per 1 destroyed Iraqi division.

Stop lying, because amateurs believe in this lie, and professionals know that Saddam did not even use the best troops in capturing Kuwait. And the impossibility of destroying the SCAD in a desert area in general showed what amateurs organized intelligence in the United States during the war. And what do you call success?

[Kirill Dou]

Then why only claim to Saddam?

- do you remember how the conversation started at all? I just gave 1 Gulf War as an example of how the Americans, spending more money than Iraq, won the war. It was I who answered another opponent to his reply that "who spent more - he lost."

The consequences - the complete demoralization of American troops, and the refusal of the command to conduct a ground operation,

- Is that what the American troops told you?

The Battle of Khafji took place on January 29, 2019. The "Desert Saber" ground operation, which ended in the liberation of Kuwait and the seizure of another 15% of Iraqi territory, on February 24. Some strange demoralization of the Americans occurred if the battle following the "demoralizing" battle differed from it in greater efficiency and complete defeat of the Iraqi army, expelling it from Kuwait and capturing 15% of the territory of Iraq itself)) I thought that the demoralization of the troops leads to a drop in performance, but you have the opposite))

Saddam knew very well that he couldn’t hold these territories, that's why he took his troops away

- a, yes yes yes yes)) What else can you think of?)

What is so unusual about the flight of the Americans from Vietnam?

- That's all right. The Americans withdrew their troops from Vietnam and were defeated. And Iraq, having withdrawn its troops from Kuwait, was also defeated. You gave a wonderful analogy confirming my words, thank you)

, "and the professionals know that Saddam did not use even the best troops in the capture of Kuwait" - ah, well, yes) All 42 divisions lost by Iraq, more than 90 soldiers - that's right, they recruited from the street))

You are spinning like a pan already. You yourself are not funny?)

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

I just cited 1 war in the Gulf as an example of the fact that the Americans, spending more money than Iraq, won the war.

Yes, you can’t translate war only on money, because then only rich countries would win, and this does not happen in Vietnam and Afghanistan since the USSR, and the current Middle East proves this.

Quote: Kirill Dou

Is this what the American troops told you?

Do you think that at that time we could not control the events in the bay and assess the situation? You are mistaken - even in the GSVG they monitored all the movements of troops from Europe to the gulf and were aware of what was happening there.

Quote: Kirill Dou

and the complete defeat of the Iraqi army,

A complete defeat happened only in the second war, and then because of the betrayal of the bribed generals, and not because of the coolness of the American army.
By the way, they fought so-so, and even later they cried that they were not provided with everything necessary, from intelligence data to lack of drinking water. This is also an indicator for those in the subject.

Quote: Kirill Dou

The Americans withdrew their troops from Vietnam and were defeated. And Iraq, having withdrawn its troops from Kuwait, was also defeated. You gave a wonderful analogy confirming my words, thank you)

The analogy here is not in defeat, but in the fact that the most powerful country in the world was defeated, and against this backdrop, Saddam's loss of the second war in the Gulf does not look so unusual from a military point of view.

Quote: Kirill Dou

more than 90 soldiers - that's right, they scored from the street

I don’t know where you get such data from, but not everyone in VO believes it:

The Western media quoted numbers of up to 100 Iraqi military personnel killed in air and rocket attacks and ground operations. Some researchers cite lower numbers - about 20-25 thousand troops. In any case, the combat losses of the Iraqi army were many times greater than the losses of coalition forces.

https://topwar.ru/91422-burya-v-pustyne-chetvert-veka-nazad-voyska-saddama-huseyna-pokinuli-kuveyt.html

Quote: Kirill Dou

You are spinning like a pan already. You yourself are not funny?)

Your imagination is ridiculous to me, especially since you can immediately see where you draw your knowledge from.

[Kirill Dou]

Yes, you can’t only transfer money to war

- so it was not me who translated it, but my opponent, saying that "the one who spends more on it loses the war." I just refuted this statement.

Do you think that at that time we could not control the events in the bay and assess the situation?

- I do not care what they could control or could not. I asked you how an army demoralized in one battle can win the next battle, and even more efficiently? I do not need your thoughts about who controlled there. I need an explanation of the fact I have indicated.

Complete defeat happened only in the second war.

- in the first one, too, because Iraq left Kuwait previously captured and agreed to fulfill all the demands of the Ministry of Taxes and Duties that were presented to him.

Saddam’s loss of the second Gulf War doesn’t look so unusual

- firstly, I never said anything about the fact that the defeat of Saddam was unusual. Secondly, where does his defeat in the second war, if you apply the analogy with Vietnam to the first? You are already confusing your own replicas.

I don’t know where you get such data from, but not everyone in VO believes it:

- so provide other "trustworthy" data.

Having sent me a quote from the "topvar" article that "some researchers are smaller numbers", you somehow forgot to quote the same article further (but I will correct it):

US Army Captured more than 71 thousand Iraqi military personnel. Actually, 42 Iraqi Army divisions ceased to exist. Iraq suffered tremendous damage in the field of armaments and military equipment. Known to have been destroyed 319 aircraft, another 137 aircraft flew to Iran. Air and missile strikes were destroyed 19 ships of the Iraqi Navy. As for land military equipment, it was destroyed, disabled, and captured by the Allies from 1800 to 3700 Iraqi tanks.

But all these numbers (42 divisions already "- this is so, garbage, they typed from the street, I understand

And I draw knowledge from the same place where you come from - from the Web)

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

I asked you how an army demoralized in one battle can win the next battle, and even more efficiently?

But don’t you know that Iraq has been under sanctions for more than ten years, and we, unfortunately, also participated in this? If not for this, then FIG Americans could do anything in the second war with Saddam.

Quote: Kirill Dou

in the first, too, because Iraq left Kuwait previously captured and agreed to fulfill all the demands of the Ministry of Taxes and Duties that were presented to him.

This just means that Iraq was not defeated, because neither the regime nor the territory had changed.

Quote: Kirill Dou

But all these numbers (42 divisions already "- this is so, garbage, they typed from the street, I understand

The author of the article is most likely a non-military person, because he does not know that if 42 divisions "ceased to exist", this does not mean that all their personnel and all their weapons were destroyed. It was organizationally that they ceased to exist, and in their place the formation of new ones began, as was done during the Great Patriotic War by both warring parties. So be careful with your fantasies about 42 divisions - there were no battles of Stalingrad and Kursk in the war in the Gulf ...

[Kirill Dou]

If not for this, then FIG Americans could do anything in the second war with Saddam.

- Do you know the story about the bad dancer?)

that Iraq was not defeated because neither the regime nor the territory had changed

- He was defeated, as he was knocked out of Kuwait and agreed to all the demands of the international coalition. Victory over a country does not mean the mandatory overthrow of its ruling regime or territorial changes.

So be careful about 42 divisions.

- okay, 22-25 thousand dead and 70 thousand taken prisoner (only 92-95 thousand people) - will it be calmer for you?) Well, so that, not counting the number of divisions, 90 thousand Iraqi soldiers are garbage collected from the street?)

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

Do you know a story about a bad dancer?

So a good dancer, if his legs are tied, hell also spits.

Quote: Kirill Dou

okay, 22-25 thousand dead and 70 thousand captured (only 92-95 thousand people) - so will you be calmer?

The prisoners (and it could be ordinary deserters) who later returned to Iraq, so be careful with claims about 100 thousand losses. Many allies also returned from Hitler’s captivity - you don’t count them in the losses of the USA and Great Britain in the Second World War, i.e. a double approach is evident.

Quote: Kirill Dou

Well, so that with the recalculation of the number of divisions not to steam)

If you understood anything in military affairs, then you would have known that the Iraqi army was reminiscent of the Soviet army in its organizational structure, which means that having lost 42 divisions, as you said, Iraqis should have lost half a million dead or missing. Well, how do you now explain the loss of 42 divisions and exaggerated losses in people who do not at all interfere with your statements?

[Kirill Dou]

And why did they wait so long - if there was such a goal at that time? Do not make the audience laugh ...

- namely, that there was no such purpose (the overthrow of Saddam). Again: declared purpose of the Ministry of Taxes and Duties in the 1st Gulf War, there was the liberation of Kuwait. They achieved this goal. And your speculation that the goal of the Americans was precisely the capture of Iraq is simply your speculation.

which was subsequently carried out, and then with the help of traitors in his environment.

- So are the Americans to blame for the fact that Saddam rats wound up around? They had to knightly stop the war, let him deal with the rats, and only then continue?)

Once again: The purpose of the first Gulf War was to liberate Kuwait. The Americans and their allies dealt. The goal of the second war in the Gulf was already the overthrow of Saddam (whether it was oil or for other reasons - it doesn’t matter) - the Americans also coped with this. All the rest that you write is your attempts to pull an owl on the globe.

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

Once again: The purpose of the first Gulf War was to liberate Kuwait.

Lies - this was the reason, and the reason lies in the personality of Saddam, who simply mocked the Americans when he offered the oligarchs of the Middle East to create a single "golden dinar" and invest part of the profits from oil production in the USSR economy. After he made these statements in early 1990, his fate was sealed. By the way, Saddam received a blessing for the capture of Kuwait from the Americans, who promised not to interfere in his internal squabbles, but they simply threw him as soon as he brought in troops. That is why they hanged him so quickly without an international court. they were afraid that the whole truth about the war would come to light.

Quote: Kirill Dou

All the rest that you write is your attempts to pull an owl on the globe.

You simply know little of the history of that time, and believe in the American version, and it is false.

[Kirill Dou]

and the reason lies in the personality of Saddam,

- and again you contradict your own statement that:

the goal was oil, not Saddam

Once again - decide already

By the way, Saddam received a blessing to capture Kuwait from Americans who promised not to intervene in his internal showdown,

- The fact of the matter is that Kuwait was not the internal showdown of Saddam. This, for a second, is another country.

You simply know little of the history of that time, and believe in the American version, and it is false.

- And what is true?) Saddam?) Is truthful in the same spirit as his statement that the Iraqi army won, but is forced to leave Kuwait?))

By golly you're weird

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

the fact of the matter is that Kuwait was not Saddam's internal showdown. This, for a second, is another country.

Learn the history that you enlightened us, and then you will understand that before Saddam there was a problem of these territories after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire:

Therefore, Iraq has long claimed to be an emirate. But until 1961, the plans of Iraqi nationalists were restrained by the British military presence in Kuwait - the political elite of Iraq was well aware that the country could not oppose Great Britain. But as soon as Kuwait was declared an independent state, Iraq hastened to declare its claims to its territory. On June 25, 1961, less than a week after the declaration of independence of Kuwait, Iraqi Prime Minister General Kassem called Kuwait an integral part of the Iraqi state and is a district in the province of Basra. There were serious concerns that the Iraqi prime minister would go over to the matter and move the Iraqi army to Kuwait. Therefore, British troops of about 7 troops were reintroduced into Kuwait. They remained on the territory of the country until October 10, 1961, when they were replaced by units of the armed forces of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt (then it was called the United Arab Republic) and Sudan.

https://topwar.ru/91422-burya-v-pustyne-chetvert-veka-nazad-voyska-saddama-huseyna-pokinuli-kuveyt.html

Quote: Kirill Dou

and what is true?) Saddam?)

The most truthful is the Soviet one, it’s a pity that you don’t know it, so you are trying to speculate on Wikipedia.

[Kirill Dou]

"Therefore, Iraq has long claimed to include the emirate in its composition" - and what?) Well, did it)) Hitler in 41 also claimed the territory of the USSR - this means that you had to agree with him?)

Once again: Kuwait's independence was proclaimed in 1961. This country was recognized by the UN as a separate state. Therefore, the Iraqi attack on Kuwait was not "an internal Iraqi affair".

The most truthful is Soviet,

- Ah, well, exactly)) Just because it is Soviet?) We have noble historians, but "they" are mean liars?)

Oh ok)

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

Hitler also claimed to be in the USSR in 41 - does this mean that you had to agree with him?)

No, it was necessary to force him to agree to the Curzon line and no more.

Quote: Kirill Dou

Once again: Kuwait’s independence was proclaimed in 1961. This country has been recognized by the UN as a separate state.

In our country, Ichkeria also recently proclaimed itself an independent state, and what should we have agreed to, even if some UN members recognized this?
For example, Israel is still not recognized by about 34 countries of the world, and with what should we agree in this case with respect to the Palestinian lands?

Quote: Kirill Dou

Just because she is Soviet?

Then the professionals worked and if they spoke, then maybe not the whole truth, but what they said was true. Now almost all modern ideologists lie, and not only in our country, so alas, not everyone can learn the true truth. This requires some knowledge and BIG life experience - someday you will come to this idea and understand that the Soviet people were lucky in this regard, due to the fact that the CPSU leadership took care of the literacy of the entire population of the country.

[Kirill Dou]

In our country, Ichkeria also recently proclaimed itself an independent state, and what should we have agreed to, even if some UN members recognized this?

- Ichkeria did this in an illegal way, contrary to international law. Kuwait gained independence after the departure of the British colonial forces and became an independent state, also in accordance with international law.

For example, Israel is still not recognized by about 34 countries of the world.

- Israel gained independence in accordance with the decision of the UN. The fact that 34 especially stubborn Islamist countries still cannot agree with this is their problem.

"but what they said was true" - yeah, how. for example, the amusing "truth" about "28 Panfilov's men", which was included in Soviet history textbooks, and then was officially recognized as a literary fiction)

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

Kuwait gained independence after the departure of the British colonial troops

These areas were Iraq long before the British troops appeared there - so you should not speculate on this territorial issue, otherwise you can recall Texas and California, which the Americans chopped off from Mexico, and where they still consider them theirs.

Quote: Kirill Dou

Israel gained independence in accordance with a UN decision.

The same decision determined the territories of Palestine, some of which were captured by the Israelis and are still being held. What kind of legitimacy of Israel can be discussed in 34 countries that require Israel to comply with the UN decision in full, and not the way the Israelis want it.

Quote: Kirill Dou

"but what they said was true" - yeah, how. for example, the amusing "truth" about "28 Panfilov's men",

The fact that the battle itself could and was embellished for propaganda purposes, I will not deny, nor that it took place and the Germans really lost a large number of tanks in the battle against the infantry unit. You do not dispute this fact, and understanding people do not particularly cling to the number 28, because there are no separate platoons, so the company was at least there. The Germans had no less lies - the same Hartman, with his victories according to German calculations, would hardly have had them in Soviet aviation, where there were more stringent criteria for air victories. So your speculation about Panfilov’s doesn’t prove anything - in war propaganda always exists and often acts contrary to facts. Well, for example, the American victory in Syria at the present time - their president said that it was the Americans who defeated ISIS. Do you believe that too?

[Kirill Dou]

Quote: ccsr

and part of the profits from oil production to invest in the economy of the USSR.

- this is ridiculous in general)) Iraq, at the time of the First War in the Gulf, had a debt of 3 billion 796 million rubles to the USSR. Speaking in the USSR Supreme Soviet in September 1990, Minister of Foreign Affairs E. Shevardnadze admitted that "only this year we will receive less from Iraq and Kuwait currency and oil approximately 800 million dollars". What "investments" by Iraq in the USSR economy are you talking about? if he couldn't even pay the debt?

[ccsr]

Quote: Kirill Dou

Iraq at the time of the beginning of the First Gulf War had a debt of 3 billion 796 million rubles to the USSR.

The Iran-Iraq war and the fall in oil prices cost them dearly, but the potential for oil reserves was huge, so they paid the bills.

Quote: Kirill Dou

What "investments" by Iraq in the USSR economy are you talking about? if he couldn't even pay the debt?

Have you heard anything about the Arab League? Who played a decisive role in it at that time, and how many Arab leaders were hostile to the United States, and how did these countries discuss the economic future of their countries? If you are seriously interested, you will probably see the events of those years from a completely different perspective.

[Doliva63]

Quote: Alexey G

War is not a competition of systems! It is also mainly a business! And if someone loses a ton of money, then he loses the war!

The war among the capitalists is a continuation of the business involved in politics. Oil, gas, section of markets and areas of business influence. Previously, it was simply called robbery. Now we got into this shit. I definitely don’t need it. Give me back the USSR!

[bratchanin3]

Well, as always clearly clearly argued. Bravo! But more like a report or report to the General Staff.

[meandr51]

The conclusion from the article is as follows: The carapace is suitable only for sinking through separate JAGM and KR Tomahawk missiles. He must act on the catch from Bukov and S-400, which should intercept
air-to-ground missile carriers prior to missile launch. Then everything falls into place.

[ccsr]

Quote: meandr51

The carapace is suitable only for wandering through individual JAGM and KR Tomahawk missiles. He must act on the catch from Bukov and S-400, which should intercept

In fact, the main purpose of the Shell is to protect the ground forces from attack helicopters and attack aircraft, both on positions and on the march, because it was not intended for other tasks from the very beginning. S-400 and Buki are higher-level air defense systems, although their common work is laid down by developers at the design stage.

[John buka]

What's so bad about guns? It’s quite possible that 100500 rockets fired at the Shell can be shot down: the robot controls the cannons!