Honored pilot of the Russian Federation commented on the situation with a strike on the Boeing from the air defense system "Tor"


The most acute topic of recent days in the international information environment remains the topic of striking at Boeing 737 of Ukraine International Airlines (UIA). We are talking about striking a passenger airliner using missiles of the anti-aircraft complex "Tor" of the air defense unit of the IRGC of Iran.


At least, Iran itself recognized the fact of the strike, noting that the plane was shot down unintentionally. Iranian officials, recall, said that the air defense system operator confused the plane with a cruise missile in anticipation of a possible missile strike by the Americans.

"Military Review" asked the honored pilot of the Russian Federation, a member of the council of senior officers of the All-Russian organization "Officers of Russia", Yuri Skrynnik, to comment on the situation.

"IN":

Yuri Mikhailovich, in your opinion, the opinion of an experienced pilot, could the Iranian calculation of an anti-aircraft missile system confuse a newly-launched civilian airliner with a cruise missile?

Yuri Skrynnik believes that such a situation is possible in the case of jamming.

Honored Pilot of the Russian Federation:

If interference was caused, and the Americans could do it, for example, as a response to the Iranian missile bombardment of their military bases, then the mark of the complex operator could not be displayed as a specific aircraft, but as an unidentified flying object. If the aircraft transponder is working, then all information is displayed, including data on altitude and speed, on the flight number. Today, such information is automatically transmitted to specialized sites, where virtually everyone can track it. The operator has a table with flight data. But if interference was made, then the operator of the complex stopped receiving reliable information. Let's not forget that all this happened at a time when the Iranian air defense systems were brought to the highest degree of readiness. And therefore, any unidentified flying object could be perceived as a target, like the same American rocket. Unfortunately, under such conditions no one is safe from making a mistake. At one time, Ukraine shot down a Russian airliner over the Black Sea. During the exercises, the Ukrainian troops themselves used the electronic jamming system, which led to an attack on a passenger plane.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

153 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. GKS 2111 14 January 2020 17: 56 New
    • 29
    • 4
    +25
    "Yuri Skrynnik believes that such a situation is possible in the event of interference."
    And who caused these interference, I wonder ..
    " And therefore, any unidentified flying object could be perceived as a target, like the same American rocket. Unfortunately, in such conditions no one is safe from making a mistake At one time, Ukraine shot down a Russian airliner over the Black Sea. During the exercises, Ukrainian troops themselves used a radio-electronic jamming system, which led to an attack on a passenger plane.".
    Yes, this is understandable. Iran, unlike Ukraine, almost immediately recognized its mistake ...
    1. Vlad.by 14 January 2020 18: 30 New
      • 29
      • 8
      +21
      If there was a planned provocation, and in my opinion, American ears stick out 200% there, anyone could broadcast the interference - from abandoned self-destructing transmitters to UAVs. By the way, there is a lot of evidence that there was an air object on the Tor-Boeing line.
      1. Sayan 14 January 2020 19: 19 New
        • 41
        • 2
        +39
        Quote: Vlad.by
        If there was a planned provocation, and in my opinion, American ears stick out 200% there, anyone could broadcast the interference - from abandoned self-destructing transmitters to UAVs. By the way, there is a lot of evidence that there was an air object on the Tor-Boeing line.

        And there was a dude who appeared to be at the right time and right place, who was filming this particular board and video, by the way, the first to unveil the Americans ....
        1. svp67 14 January 2020 20: 04 New
          • 16
          • 1
          +15
          Quote: Vlad.by
          By the way, there is a lot of evidence that there was an air object on the Tor-Boeing line.

          Which object? UAV? And where does the data come from?
          Quote: Sayan
          And there was a dude who appeared to be at the right time and right place, who was filming this particular board and video, by the way, the first to unveil the Americans ....

          But this is a really interesting fact. From which badun, in the dead of night does a person remove a SPECIFIC section of the sky where the tragedy begins to unfold?
          1. alexmach 14 January 2020 20: 44 New
            • 10
            • 1
            +9
            But this is a really interesting fact. From which badun, in the dead of night does a person remove a SPECIFIC section of the sky where the tragedy begins to unfold?

            And from what hangover appeared shooting starts KR from mobile phones? Really, what would it take to shoot the sky on such a night?
            1. Sayan 14 January 2020 21: 15 New
              • 6
              • 3
              +3
              Apparently he had a fight with his wife, climbed onto the roof (wanted to reset) ... and there the sky is !!! Stars !!!! ..... and even the plane is on fire .... "beauty" .... and changed his mind about rushing downstairs .... wassatstarted shooting.
          2. Valery Pinchuk 14 January 2020 21: 51 New
            • 9
            • 0
            +9
            by the way! it was no longer night, but a very 06.50h in the morning!
            but still, in a dark sky - waiting for this moment is very strange!
            1. alexmach 15 January 2020 00: 17 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Well, after a military night I did not sleep, I saw something flying, not figuring out what exactly I started to shoot. Or, as an option, I saw a burning plane flying and photographed the hit of a second rocket.
  2. Observer2014 14 January 2020 17: 58 New
    • 15
    • 6
    +9
    Well, everything is clear with the Ukrainians. They interfered with themselves and set amI'm talking about Tu 154 brought down by them. And how are these interference being detected? Or is it like interference in the capital of Iran ... And so on. And it was only specifically there that there were hindrances to a specific air defense system. For Iran, were there still recorded the use of electronic warfare from outside? Question to the Iranian side ..
    1. Azazelo 14 January 2020 18: 28 New
      • 16
      • 2
      +14
      a hindrance to that and a hindrance that clogs the ether in the necessary spectra. It is possible to determine the direction of a point source, but the distance is no longer there, and if the grouping acted. hi here ...
    2. Aleksandr21 14 January 2020 19: 22 New
      • 10
      • 5
      +5
      Quote: Observer2014
      In Iran have been recorded yet the use of electronic warfare from outside? Question to the Iranian side ..


      If Americans used electronic warfare, do Iranians think about this modest fact they were silent? When all the more there is an opportunity to somehow justify oneself. It’s in vain that the Iranian leadership does not go to VO, Vzglyad and our other patriotic resources, because there are so many versions, and most of them are in defense of the Iranians.
      1. artifact 14 January 2020 19: 57 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Aleksandr21
        , and most in defense of the Iranians.

        no matter how - a situational ally.
      2. JonnyT 14 January 2020 22: 52 New
        • 7
        • 2
        +5
        I think that everything is much simpler - the transponder was switched to the mode broadcast incorrect information, or there was a jammer on board
  3. vvvjak 14 January 2020 18: 03 New
    • 11
    • 7
    +4
    Well, why not. At least sounds more logical than the "blind and crooked" Iranian air defense operators.
  4. ender 14 January 2020 18: 06 New
    • 14
    • 8
    +6
    Flightradar saw the mark correctly, but Iranian air defense did not.
    1. pru-pavel 14 January 2020 18: 08 New
      • 6
      • 5
      +1
      The Americans did not send interference on Flightradar simply.
      1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 14 January 2020 18: 14 New
        • 7
        • 11
        -4
        Flightradar collects data from a network of amateur SDR receivers for $ 8 a piece.
    2. Crane 14 January 2020 18: 59 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      The air defense system (Air Defense) is starting to be a threat. This was announced on the air of the Moscow Talking radio station by Alexey Podberezkin, director of the Almaz-Antey air defense concern, where Buk anti-aircraft missile systems were developed.

      According to him, on the radar it is difficult to distinguish one plane from another, as well as a civilian side from a rocket. Podberezkin believes that more experienced people should be air defense operators, because much depends on the human factor.
      1. asv363 14 January 2020 19: 55 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Could you specify what middle name Alexey Podberezkin has? I’ll explain the question - is there Alexei Podberezkin, a military expert, who made speeches at a conference of Almaz-Antey JSC, but he is not the General Director of the concern.
        1. Avior 15 January 2020 00: 26 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          in the press they represent him as
          Alexey Podberezkin, Head of the Center for Military-Political Studies of MGIMO and the Almaz-Antey Air Defense Concern

          taking into account the fact that there is JSC Concern EKO Almaz-Antey, and OJSC Concern PVO Almaz-Antey, it was called until 2015, the question arises: what kind of center is it that for five years did not notice that it was renamed?
          1. asv363 15 January 2020 01: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            At MGIMO. Here is his report:
            http://eurasian-defence.ru/?q=node/39610

            Boltology is beyond reason.
      2. asv363 14 January 2020 21: 17 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Changed the wording to "Advisor to the Director General." Advisor Biography:
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Подберёзкин,_Алексей_Иванович

        It is related to air defense, as I am to ballet. Those. does not have.
        1. Avior 15 January 2020 00: 40 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          in fact, the honored pilot of the Russian Federation is the honorary title of a civil aviation pilot and it is not entirely clear how the expert in the article relates to air defense
          1. asv363 15 January 2020 01: 55 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            I believe that the editorial board of VO has every right to publish and whom to invite as an expert.
            1. Avior 15 January 2020 08: 35 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              You are absolutely right. And I, as a reader, can ask myself why this particular expert?
      3. Valery Pinchuk 14 January 2020 22: 15 New
        • 9
        • 2
        +7
        to distinguish a rocket from an airplane, even when exposed to interference - is it difficult?
        do not tell my slippers!
        these are tales for "deviators" (who did not serve in the Army) and losers (who did not study physics)!
        1. EPR missiles - 0,1 sq.m, Boeing-737 - 100 sq.m! Do not see the difference hundreds of times?
        2. takeoff aircraft speed: 350 .... 500km / h, cruise missile speed-700-800km / h 2 times difference!
        3. The plane flew with climb! the rocket flies either parallel to the ground or even dive!
        The operator, already by these signs, could and should have selected it.
      4. Mimoprohodil 14 January 2020 22: 30 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        And commentators here wrote that the false targets of the ADM-160A MALD are nonsense.
    3. BABAY22 14 January 2020 19: 13 New
      • 14
      • 2
      +12
      Quote: ender
      Flightradar saw the mark correctly, but Iranian air defense - not

      Well, why not. Flightradar operates at a frequency of 1090 MHz. Tor works at frequencies above 3 GHz. It is possible that there was something hanging out in the airport area and still interfered with the microwave. While the whole world on the fly radar saw everything that was allowed to it, Iranian air defense tried to land what was invisible to ordinary inhabitants.
      1. ender 14 January 2020 19: 35 New
        • 2
        • 11
        -9
        Well, why only for the simple. there are also the most-most S-300 were

        it turns out there will no longer giggle over the concept of Stealth ..
      2. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 14 January 2020 19: 50 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Quote: BABAY22
        Well, why not. Flightradar operates at a frequency of 1090 MHz. Tor works at frequencies above 3 GHz.
        Not a flyradar operates at a frequency of 1090 MHz, but a civil transponder operates at a frequency of 1090 MHz. If Thor reads civilian transponders (to recheck this statement, by the way. It seems to me that not everything is so simple with him), then he does it at the same frequencies as the others, including the flyradar.
        1. BABAY22 14 January 2020 21: 40 New
          • 6
          • 1
          +5
          Let's dig into the words?
          Good. To score interference with a fly radar, it is necessary and sufficient to score a frequency of 1,09 GHz. So okay?
          You think the Iranian airborne fighting vehicle TOP is an ATC interrogator. It seems to me that such issues are solved by a couple of levels above. It should be dull like a traffic jam “your - not your own”. It’s not known what kind of “ours” is there at the SSS of Iran, but it’s clearly not NATO and does not understand the civilian air traffic responder mod3 mode.
  5. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 14 January 2020 18: 08 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    The operator has a table with flight data.
    That is, it is assumed that when a target is detected, the operator looks at its flight number and (in case of successful reading) starts to check from the table whether the flight with this number should be in this area?
    1. Grigory b 14 January 2020 19: 38 New
      • 8
      • 3
      +5
      Do not forget that there was a flight delay, and quite possibly deliberate. And the drone could very well substitute the Ukrainian side for a missile like Israel our side in Syria. One wonders why Iran so quickly admitted its guilt before the investigation ended?
      1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 14 January 2020 19: 42 New
        • 5
        • 5
        0
        The version that the Ukrainian Boeing itself intentionally interfered with to be shot down by Iranian air defense is still more beautiful.
      2. RoTTor 14 January 2020 19: 58 New
        • 3
        • 6
        -3
        Iran officially stated: the flight was delayed due to baggage overload.
        More interestingly, two passengers, Ukrainian citizens who checked in and checked in their luggage, did not fly.

        Maybe there was an explosive in their baggage?
        1. Avior 15 January 2020 00: 55 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          one of them, a Canadian, was simply not allowed on the flight - something is wrong with the issuance of tickets
          his wife flew without him. Wife died sad
          Mohsen Ahmadipour and his wife Roja Azadian
          Canadians, by last name, are of Iranian descent, like most Canadians on board
          via Kiev it was convenient to fly to Canada

          https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/tehran-crash-last-minute-mixup-leaves-ottawa-man-in-terminal-while-his-wife-gets-aboard-doomed-flight
          both who did not get on board were not citizens of Ukraine
    2. Nyrobsky 14 January 2020 20: 22 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
      The operator has a table with flight data.
      That is, it is assumed that when a target is detected, the operator looks at its flight number and (in case of successful reading) starts to check from the table whether the flight with this number should be in this area?

      In the case of the Ukrainian flight, there was also an hour delay of departure ...
    3. Avior 15 January 2020 00: 43 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      I don't think so simple
      flight delay is a common occurrence in aviation, if you shot down every time, then you won’t get any planes
  6. Shahno 14 January 2020 18: 09 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Yes, such things happen precisely because of
    // Yuri Skrynnik believes that such a situation is possible in the case of jamming.//
    I agree. But one must understand that these are not teachings ... crying
  7. gurzuf 14 January 2020 18: 09 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    I am more and more inclined to the version about the air defense operator recruited by enemies. As a confirmation of this version, shooting by an unidentified operator can also hit missiles in an airplane in the night sky. Why should I shoot an empty sky on video at night? By the way - from my hand this tragic moment seems to me not removed.
    1. antiaircrafter 14 January 2020 20: 14 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: gurzuf
      I am more and more inclined to the version about the air defense operator recruited by enemies.

      Well then, just the calculation.
  8. knn54 14 January 2020 18: 10 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    Did the transponder work?
    1. Aleksandr21 14 January 2020 19: 27 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: knn54
      Did the transponder work?


      He worked until the rocket hit the cockpit. Monitoring tools (for example, the same Flightradar) recorded the signal, and the pilots had communication with the controllers, and after the hit, of course, everything turned off.
  9. Losharik 14 January 2020 18: 11 New
    • 7
    • 4
    +3
    Shock, clean water, and most importantly, notice how strange the US behaved .. They didn’t even respond to Iran’s rocket fire and most importantly, the US Congress forbade Donald to do anything against Iran without their knowledge ..
    And who in the US Congress basically, I think everyone knows ..
  10. Cheerock 14 January 2020 18: 13 New
    • 10
    • 1
    +9
    Quote: ender
    Flightradar saw the mark correctly, but Iranian air defense did not.

    Flight radar is not a radar, it is a site where track records are sent.
    1. ender 14 January 2020 18: 19 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      it's not recordings, but real-time data from ADS-B receivers
      1. gregoryivanov 14 January 2020 19: 58 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        And where is the data from the missing Boeing in the Indian Ocean?
        1. Avior 15 January 2020 00: 59 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          perhaps for some time flew out of range of receivers.
          real-time data from receivers
  11. Mik13 14 January 2020 18: 15 New
    • 27
    • 6
    +21
    Or maybe it's still worth asking about the work of air defense, not the pilots, but the appropriate specialists? Well, it turns out funny ...
    If interference was caused, and the Americans could do it, for example, as a response to the Iranian missile bombardment of their military bases, then the mark of the complex operator could not be displayed as a specific aircraft, but as an unidentified flying object.

    - we look carefully at the map, measure the distance from Tehran to the nearest point on the border, from where the Americans could interfere - and we forget this nuclear nonsense forever.

    ... the label of the operator of the complex could not be displayed as a specific aircraft, but as an unidentified flying object. If the aircraft transponder is working, then all information is displayed, including data on altitude and flight speed, flight number ...

    - this is the TOP. There is nothing of the kind there. Such functionality is available at air defense command posts with which the installation did not have a connection.

    If the aircraft transponder is working, then all information is displayed, including data on altitude and speed, on the flight number. Today, such information is automatically transmitted to specialized sites, where virtually everyone can track it.

    - Does the character suggest that the operator put a laptop on the workplace and open the Flytradar website with a premium subscription on it? However...

    By the way, the presence of a transponder does not guarantee that the target is a civilian aircraft. Civil transponders work with transponders. Which transmit respectively. information to the military.
    But the military deals only with its state system of state recognition.
    1. Pete mitchell 14 January 2020 19: 12 New
      • 12
      • 1
      +11
      Quote: Mik13
      Or maybe it's still worth asking about the work of air defense, not the pilots, but the appropriate specialists? Well, it turns out funny ...

      I am 100% subscribing to your opinion: with all the respect, there are a lot of titles, but how does he know about interference, is this something taught from civilians?
      It is better to wait for air defense officers and signalmen, although there seems to be a problem in organizing the process of combat control, well, amers 'thank' say
      Quote: Mik13
      the presence of a transponder does not guarantee that the target is a civilian aircraft. Civil transponders work with transponders. But the military deals only with its state system of state recognition.

      A transponder is not a state recognition system at all, from a word at all.

      There is somewhere a problem in coordinating actions and transmitting civil information to the military
      1. vfwfr 14 January 2020 21: 50 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        The transponder is needed by the tower controllers and, basically, the zonal centers (they are responsible so that the planes do not collide in the air).
        The transponder is needed so that on an ordinary radar you can see at what direction it flies, who flies (board number, type of board), where and where ... They do not have encryption, it's just all the available warning device ..
    2. artifact 14 January 2020 20: 13 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Mik13
      the nearest point on the border, from where the Americans could interfere - and forget this nuclear nonsense forever.

      But is it possible to put the interference “manually”, so to speak, no matter how small a portable device or device installed on a car (say, with a range of one kilometer or a half)?
      1. antiaircrafter 14 January 2020 20: 18 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Is it possible to put the interference "manually"

        Possible.
        There are even disposable throw-away jammers.
        With normal counteraction, they must be detected and destroyed.
        1. artifact 14 January 2020 20: 21 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          add a "random witness" and something is already looming
      2. Avior 15 January 2020 01: 03 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        it is unlikely that such a device would be discovered very quickly, especially since it should be close so that there is direct radio visibility between Thor standing on the ground and the device itself
  12. rocket757 14 January 2020 18: 20 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    Let the investigation understand. There, the most complete information is collected from everywhere.
    Nothing to guess ...
  13. Shahno 14 January 2020 18: 21 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Mik13
    Or maybe it's still worth asking about the work of air defense, not the pilots, but the appropriate specialists? Well, it turns out funny ...
    If interference was caused, and the Americans could do it, for example, as a response to the Iranian missile bombardment of their military bases, then the mark of the complex operator could not be displayed as a specific aircraft, but as an unidentified flying object.

    - we look carefully at the map, measure the distance from Tehran to the nearest point on the border, from where the Americans could interfere - and we forget this nuclear nonsense forever.

    ... the label of the operator of the complex could not be displayed as a specific aircraft, but as an unidentified flying object. If the aircraft transponder is working, then all information is displayed, including data on altitude and flight speed, flight number ...

    - this is the TOP. There is nothing of the kind there. Such functionality is available at air defense command posts with which the installation did not have a connection.

    If the aircraft transponder is working, then all information is displayed, including data on altitude and speed, on the flight number. Today, such information is automatically transmitted to specialized sites, where virtually everyone can track it.

    - Does the character suggest that the operator put a laptop on the workplace and open the Flytradar website with a premium subscription on it? However...

    By the way, the presence of a transponder does not guarantee that the target is a civilian aircraft. Civil transponders work with transponders. Which transmit respectively. information to the military.
    But the military deals only with its state system of state recognition.

    Actually, the point is that an operator (one’s not someone else’s) can make such a mistake only in the case of jamming. How to do it technically is another matter.
    1. ender 14 January 2020 18: 24 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      and the interference, presumably, was point. They did not affect the operation of airport services, but only the operator of one air defense system.
      1. sledak 14 January 2020 18: 43 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: ender
        and the interference, presumably, was point. They did not affect the operation of airport services, but only the operator of one air defense system.


        I agree, if you interfere with the Iranian border closest to the airport, then the labels of all the transponders that were in the air at that moment will disappear. It is most likely that interference is in place in the immediate vicinity of the ASEZ. Then it’s clear why they were able to capture the moment when the plane crashed so well — they knew where the target was flying from and where the rocket was flying from. There are enough agents of many intelligence services in Iran, but I think for some reason that it was not without Isailites.
        1. gregoryivanov 14 January 2020 20: 10 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          "They are not there .." And then Choi then - the Israelis? Just a little - the Israelis at once. You slander them, my friend. Do they need it? Iran is not half-beaten Assad, which you can bomb almost with impunity, emerging at an extremely low altitude from behind the Golan. Iran, in the event of hostile actions, may respond in such a way that Tel Aviv will not be greeted. Does Nitanyahu need it?
          1. sledak 14 January 2020 20: 19 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: gregoryivanov
            "They are not there .." And then Choi then - the Israelis? Iran is not a half-beaten Assad, which you can bomb almost with impunity, emerging at an extremely low altitude from behind the Golan.


            So they emerge there for some reason? Pralno, in order to bomb the Iranian SSO forces operating in the SAR. And although everyone knows that they are not there - the Israelites find them there again and again and ruthlessly suppress, but here such an incident turned up to compromise Iran and curry favor with the Americans.

            Eh ... you can feel the outrageous Jewish lawyer daring in you!
            Or IDF cadet? lol (joke)
            1. gregoryivanov 14 January 2020 20: 29 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Offend. Mossad, however! laughing
              1. sledak 14 January 2020 20: 39 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: gregoryivanov
                Offend. Mossad, however! laughing


                I apologize, my respect. hi
                Just thought Mossad does not advertise its existence wink
                1. gregoryivanov 20 January 2020 11: 35 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  What an exception you will not make for a good person ... hi wassat
    2. Pete mitchell 14 January 2020 19: 15 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Quote: Shahno
      the point is that an operator (one’s not someone else’s) can make such a mistake only in the case of jamming. How to do it technically is another matter.

      It is more likely that the particular operator did not have information about civil traffic at all. Generally ... these are problems of management and communication
      1. asv363 14 January 2020 20: 40 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        At a press conference, Amir Ali Hajizadeh said that the air defense crew that shot down the plane was deployed to strengthen the air defense ring around Tehran, along with equipment from another area.
        1. Pete mitchell 14 January 2020 21: 43 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          Quote: asv363
          the air defense calculation that shot down the aircraft was deployed to strengthen the air defense ring around Tehran along with equipment from another area.

          In truth, I assumed that they were in a constant position there, like a research center there. But when I read about the transfer - it explains a lot - the calculation was transferred, but they did not manage to equip the position
          1. asv363 14 January 2020 23: 49 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            It was necessary to strengthen the security of the center near Tehran - that’s what they threw. Simultaneously with the center (it is west of Tehran), an additional cover of the city was obtained from the expected retaliatory attacks of the United States.
            1. Pete mitchell 15 January 2020 00: 46 New
              • 7
              • 1
              +6
              The logic of the Iranians is fully understood. Sluggishness in position equipment and general wrap situations and led to such sad consequences. And as a colleague says
              Quote: antiaircrafter
              lack of combat control and target designation.
              What I completely agree with him.
              It's rubbish and I can imagine how many people went through exit schemes that day and now they have to put candles ..
    3. antiaircrafter 14 January 2020 20: 21 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Actually, the point is that an operator (one’s not someone else’s) can make such a mistake only in the case of jamming.

      And also in the absence of combat control and target designation.
      1. Pete mitchell 14 January 2020 21: 40 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        Quote: antiaircrafter
        in the absence of combat control and target designation.

        Well, it seems to me that this is the main reason for the tragedy, well, if you don’t remember about the arousing of the situation by amers.
        Nick you are very evil recourse
    4. Avior 15 January 2020 01: 04 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      interference to what? if the radar of the TOP, then he would simply not see the target, if the communications, then the interference should have affected the communications in the entire district
  14. syndicalist 14 January 2020 18: 25 New
    • 11
    • 2
    +9
    Understood nothing. The expert claims that the Ukrainian Boeing could intentionally interfere with Iran’s air defense knocking it down?
    1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 14 January 2020 18: 31 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      So far, this is the most beautiful of all the advanced versions. Lois.
    2. Avior 15 January 2020 01: 05 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      here questions arise already on the word "expert".
      he is a civilian pilot in the past
  15. Vladimir M 14 January 2020 18: 27 New
    • 14
    • 0
    +14
    Why, the pilot, and not the anti-aircraft gunner, comments on this situation? And to compare this situation with the situation over the Black Sea is not correct. There, the C200 rocket redirected toward a larger target
    1. O. Bender 14 January 2020 19: 09 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      hi With the tongue removed, you
  16. Shahno 14 January 2020 18: 30 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: ender
    and the interference, presumably, was point. They did not affect the operation of airport services, but only the operator of one air defense system.

    Well, who did this? No?
    It could be someone on board the liner. Or someone .. Suicide bomber?
  17. tlauicol 14 January 2020 18: 38 New
    • 9
    • 7
    +2
    But the director Almaz-Antey says that at our complexes horseradish you can distinguish a plane from a rocket, and no interference is necessary. It all depends on the curvature of the operator.
    But nobody is interested in his interview request
    1. gregoryivanov 14 January 2020 20: 20 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Nonsense is complete. Yes, the mark on the radar screen is the same point on the screen as from a Boeing, from a rocket, no figures of an airplane or a rocket are drawn there. But ... The signature from the huge Boeing and from the much smaller cruise missile is not comparable - the effective dispersion surface differs like an elephant from a fly. But, if the operator expects an attack at any second, then due to a great nervous strain, he can forget about it and make a tragic mistake.
    2. huntsman650 14 January 2020 20: 39 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      The director is not an authority, he is a protege, manager) must be able to sign in the specified place on the documents. Still, "a monkey with a grenade"
      Radar development engineer Andrei Gorbachevsky: the incredible mistake of Iranian missiles can only be explained by fear of a US attack

      EXPERT CARD


      Radar engineer, engineer Andrei Gorbachevsky
      Andrey Gorbachevsky, engineer, radar developer. After graduating from Fiztekh (1973) he worked all his life in the defense industry. He developed radars for anti-aircraft missile systems, began with shipborne systems, and then moved to the Research Institute of Aviation Systems (now GosNIIAS). Head of the Strategic Aviation Defense Sector

      - Andrei Alekseevich, Iran actually blamed “American adventurism” for the downed plane: they say, they were preparing to repulse the blow. What is the connection between the expectation of a strike and an attack on a civilian plane in Ukraine?

      - This is a purely political statement: Iran wants to hide the degree of collapse of its air defense. Because I will not remember a more serious mistake in the history of air defense.

      The flight of Ukrainian Airlines from Tehran was regular. All scheduled flights in the country's air defense system are recorded. Air defense crew commander compares the received mark of the target with marks that should go on schedule. At a certain time, the plane takes off from the airport - and the commander of the SAM system knows: this is such a flight.

      - The Ukrainian plane took off with a delay of about an hour.

      “It doesn’t matter, the message to the commander should have been received anyway.” But the point is not even in the schedule. The plane took off from a civilian airfield and went along a standard highway. A passenger plane cannot fly anyhow, it goes along a dedicated corridor. The commander of the air defense system’s crew must see that the target is in the corridor allocated for passenger aircraft. This alone should show him: before him is not some American drone, but a civilian airliner.

      Next - the plane took off. At a certain height, he gains a certain speed. The crew commander immediately correlates: if the target goes at such a height and at such a speed, then it is most likely civilian.

      - In addition, transponders are on passenger planes.

      - Mandatory. And on the air defense system is a state recognition system - such a "requestor" of data from this transponder. And she had to recognize the plane as a civilian. But Iran may have its own state recognition system, different from the standard NATO one. That is, Iran could create for itself a special system that does not coincide in frequency with NATO.

      - What for?

      - So that the enemy could not interfere with their system with interference.

      - Just one of the versions is that they did not recognize the passenger plane due to interference. It turns out that there could be no interference?

      - I can’t say exactly what state recognition system is in Iran. But, for example, in Russia such a system for military aircraft differs from NATO. Therefore, in addition to our own system, we put a second one, which reads the data of civilian aircraft. So it was accepted back in the Soviet Union, when we did everything differently than in NATO. And what was there with the state recognition system when we delivered Tor air defense systems to Iran? The Iranians could well put some of their own.

      - But you have already mentioned other degrees of protection, in addition to the state recognition system.

      - That's right. Therefore, I can only repeat that the mistake is gross. Incredible.

      A terrible mistake or a “monkey with a grenade”? Radar development engineer - about why the attack could not be the reason for the fall of the Boeing near Tehran
      - And yet, since they still haven’t fired on each aircraft, the Iranians have some kind of system. Why didn’t she block the launch of the rocket?

      - This may indicate some kind of malfunction. This means that the Iranians do not have service personnel who would monitor the status of all air defense systems.

      - But there are probably Russian instructors there too?

      - How do Russian instructors work - you saw it when the Syrians shot down the IL-20. It was also a gross mistake, although still less gross than in this case.

      - Iran claims that the passenger Boeing was mistaken for a US cruise missile. Can they be mixed up at all?

      - No one could confuse a passenger plane with a cruise missile under any circumstances. Unless it was just a monkey with a grenade, but a drunk monkey with a grenade.

      This means that Iran no longer knows what to lie.

      At the Tor air defense system, as I told you last time, there are two locators. One is a panoramic one that rotates continuously and captures everything that flies around. When the plane took off from the airfield, the survey locator saw it in twenty seconds. And then all the while the plane flew, all six minutes, on the screen of the surveillance radar was the track. That is, from the very beginning of the flight it was clear where the target flew from.

      “Did they see the cruise missile launched from a civilian airfield?”

      - Of course. While only the survey locator was working, one would still think that something military was flying next to a civilian plane. But then the missile guidance locator turns on. The missile is aimed at the target by a very narrow beam, of the order of one degree wide. He distinguishes everything so well that there can already be no mistake. The probability that not only a civilian aircraft, but also something else military will fall into this beam is zero.

      The crew commander also evaluates the signal strength from the target by the magnitude of the mark: a large target or a small one. The indicators show a bright mark or dim. Simply put, the commander should have seen something big fly. From a large passenger plane, the mark will be ten times brighter than from a military target. And the size of a cruise missile is from a small airplane. And she has a very low reflected power. The brightness of this point is no longer ten, but a hundred times less than that of an airplane. And a rocket flies so that it is not noticed, at a very low altitude, these are tens of meters. And the Iranians shot down a huge plane flying at an altitude of 2400 meters. How can this be confused? The difference is where to direct the beam: up to the sky or down along the earth.

      - You have listed so many degrees of protection against a fool that I will repeat the question that you answered the last time. Maybe the plane was shot down all the same intentionally?

      - It's impossible. It is too likely that it will be installed very quickly. In addition to satellite data and other things, there are also wreckage of the aircraft. And according to them, the “handwriting” will be set to 100 percent: each rocket has its own damaging elements. Notches are made on the bomb so that it explodes into pieces during an explosion. And because of these notches, all the pieces are the same.


      A delegation of Ukrainian experts was allowed by Iran to the scene of the tragedy, and after Iran officially recognized the destruction of the Boeing, footage was published with characteristic damage to the liner’s body by the striking elements of the rocket. Photo: Office of the President of Ukraine
      - In the story with MH17, this is how the Buk was identified.

      “And here, in exactly the same way, the Thor would be identified by the wreckage.”

      - Maybe Iran was counting on not letting anyone into the wreckage?

      - At first, they had such tactics. Moreover: they announced that the "black boxes" themselves will decrypt.

      But the matter is not only in the wreckage. They launched two rockets. As far as I know, this is done only when it is necessary to guaranteedly hit a military target.

      Nobody will launch two missiles on a civilian plane; one would destroy it. Because a military aircraft is smaller, besides it maneuvers, it can evade, it is easier to miss on it. A civilian flies like an iron, you can’t miss it. And two missiles - it means more likely that someone will detect a launch.

      And then, how do you explain that it was the Ukrainian plane that was shot down? Ukraine has nothing to do with it. She could even be said to have been helping Iran in some way by selling old Soviet weapons. And almost all the passengers on this plane were Iranians. Even the citizens of Canada - these were Iranian students with Canadian citizenship. No, the Iranians were just so scared of a possible American raid that they did not see anything, but simply took and hit.
    3. asv363 14 January 2020 22: 40 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      There was no interview with director Almaz-Antey. Now they write that the interview was given by his adviser. The adviser’s biography does not indicate the presence of professional knowledge of air defense from the word:
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Подберёзкин,_Алексей_Иванович
  18. Cheerock 14 January 2020 18: 42 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: ender
    it's not recordings, but real-time data from ADS-B receivers
    ... which are collected by amateurs and broadcast in the form of a dynamic map with recording of tracks.
    And where is the radar?
    1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 14 January 2020 19: 03 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Formally, receiving signals from transponders is a semi-active secondary radar.
      1. Cheerock 14 January 2020 23: 22 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Well, we understand that these are generally different things and there are no radars there, there is only passive reception of packets with information in which the data of the self-location on the ZhPS are already recorded.
    2. Avior 15 January 2020 01: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      as a dynamic map with recording tracks

      tracks are formed already on the resource flyar radar
      receivers through volunteer computers simply transmit information in real time
  19. Shahno 14 January 2020 18: 48 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: sledak
    Quote: ender
    and the interference, presumably, was point. They did not affect the operation of airport services, but only the operator of one air defense system.


    I agree, if you interfere with the Iranian border closest to the airport, then the labels of all the transponders that were in the air at that moment will disappear. It is most likely that interference is in place in the immediate vicinity of the ASEZ. Then it’s clear why they were able to capture the moment when the plane crashed so well — they knew where the target was flying from and where the rocket was flying from. There are enough agents of many intelligence services in Iran, but I think for some reason that it was not without Isailites.

    So the Saudis have a clear interest.
  20. Old26 14 January 2020 18: 52 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Mik13
    - we look carefully at the map, measure the distance from Tehran to the nearest point on the border, from where the Americans could interfere - and we forget this nuclear nonsense forever.

    The nearest point is approximately 460 km. And it is possible to interfere at such a distance, and so narrowly targeted. And what, nothing else in this zone was affected by interference?
    1. Mik13 14 January 2020 19: 07 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      The nearest point is approximately 460 km. And it is possible to interfere at such a distance, and so narrowly targeted.

      I’m somehow in difficulty ... If you are an expert in the field of electronic warfare, maybe you can google it yourself by the word "radio horizon"?
      But at the same time, it is possible to calculate what power is needed so that interference delivered from a distance of 400 km makes it impossible to receive a signal from an aircraft transponder from a distance of approx. 10 km
  21. Shahno 14 January 2020 18: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: sledak
    Quote: ender
    and the interference, presumably, was point. They did not affect the operation of airport services, but only the operator of one air defense system.


    I agree, if you interfere with the Iranian border closest to the airport, then the labels of all the transponders that were in the air at that moment will disappear. It is most likely that interference is in place in the immediate vicinity of the ASEZ. Then it’s clear why they were able to capture the moment when the plane crashed so well — they knew where the target was flying from and where the rocket was flying from. There are enough agents of many intelligence services in Iran, but I think for some reason that it was not without Isailites.

    Not done ...
    Explored.
    Technique and people, well, unlikely.
  22. yfast 14 January 2020 18: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I wonder how America distinguishes civilian aircraft from cruise missiles. They send an iron man for a visual inspection?
    1. The comment was deleted.
  23. Shahno 14 January 2020 19: 06 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Crane
    The air defense system (Air Defense) is starting to be a threat. This was announced on the air of the Moscow Talking radio station by Alexey Podberezkin, director of the Almaz-Antey air defense concern, where Buk anti-aircraft missile systems were developed.

    According to him, on the radar it is difficult to distinguish one plane from another, as well as a civilian side from a rocket. Podberezkin believes that more experienced people should be air defense operators, because much depends on the human factor.

    Charming .This is a sensation. Of course, the operator must have a high level of training.
  24. O. Bender 14 January 2020 19: 07 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    I personally haven’t seen such a thing in my life, it turns out that interference can significantly reduce the ESR of a lithak to mislead the air defense system operators. New not only in radar but also in fundamental physics. we do, the enemy relaxes and then he has it! steam locomotive
    1. Kerensky 14 January 2020 20: 45 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      it turns out that interference can significantly reduce the ESR of a lithak in order to mislead the air defense system operators. New not only in radar but also in fundamental physics.

      Hm! And if vice versa? Can we increase the EPR of a rocket to a lithac and screw a transpoder to it? After all, there was a delay with a departure ...
      Well, just imagine ... So someone took the transponder signal for a specific flight, then called and said that the board was mined .... The aircraft stays on the ground, and in its time a missile with an increased EPR is sawing and signaling the desired signal ...
      1. Avior 15 January 2020 01: 15 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        his course, it means she had to fly out of Tehran airport
        1. Kerensky 15 January 2020 10: 03 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          his course, it means she had to fly out of Tehran airport

          Sergey.
          Well, this is not specifics, but fantasies.
          That is, technically it is possible to replace the board with a rocket? Then she can fly at the airport. And the air defense misses it.
          1. Avior 15 January 2020 10: 17 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Technically possible, of course
            Artificially increasing the ESR of a rocket is much easier than decreasing it, that is, it is impossible to get a rocket from a Boeing on the radar screen, but on the contrary it is not difficult to launch it along the international route instead of a scheduled airplane, having previously provided it with a relay option to respond to the dispatcher, otherwise it’s here he’ll make a noise to the crew, if the board doesn’t answer (note, the Boeing did shoot an isolated autonomous air defense of a specific object, and there’s another one that Tehran covers, it’s the dispatchers who report there if there is any doubt) they are led along the tracks , and ensure the execution of dispatcher commands. If necessary, he can also delay landing if the lanes are busy, for example, then you need to go into the waiting area, fly in circles, wait in line.
            So it is theoretically possible, but practically unrealistic, unless in a real Flight airplane explosives instead of baggage and a suicide bomber at the helm.
            1. Kerensky 15 January 2020 11: 29 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              theoretically possible, but practically unrealistic,

              But why? It is quite possible to remove the signal from the transpoder when testing systems before departure.

              having previously provided him with the ability to relay in order to respond to the dispatcher,

              If you can stick a transcoder, then you can and the transmitter. Screw a cell phone to it and let the dispatcher communicate with the operator who is leading the rocket. Reorganization according to the course and the train he will be able to perform.
              Well, the start is due to the cordon and this rocket enters the zone already in the corridor.
              And the final section does not bother us at all - they will sort it out for three minutes. Where will she be in three minutes? winked
              And if it is aimed at the airport
              , then in the waiting area she does not need.
              So this option is quite possible. And then it will be complete .... ahedron.
              1. Avior 15 January 2020 12: 26 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Well, I can push- theoretically
                and in practice, the rocket is not very adapted to this
                where are you this transmitter - screw the additional receiver, and not simple, but so that it works like a repeater for 500 km without problems?
                And all the rest?
                and we are talking about a single rocket, the meaning of the city fence because of one single rocket ?.
                1. Kerensky 15 January 2020 12: 33 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  we are talking about a single rocket, the meaning of the city fence because of one single rocket ?.

                  This is the straw that breaks the back of a camel.
                  If even one missile passes this way, then you have to take action. A bunch of measures. Reconfigure the entire system. Imagine what will happen in Heathrow, Reykjavik, Delhi, Kennedy .... This is the civil segment. And the military will drop at the slightest doubt ....
                  1. Avior 15 January 2020 13: 08 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Rather, the inventor of such an idea will have big problems, to take up arms against him not only at Heathrow, but also at Sheremetyevo and others.
                    At one time, the pilots union categorically insisted on the extradition to the USSR of hijackers of planes, and this would affect everyone even more.
                    1. Kerensky 15 January 2020 18: 07 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Rather, the inventor of such an idea will have big problems,

                      More precisely, the operator - director, and then only.
                      And you can write many different scripts. winked
            2. KVIRTU 16 January 2020 12: 58 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              EPR then increase very simply. This has been implemented a long time ago, installed on the CR in addition to the Lunenberg warhead lens, a ball of 20-25 cm in diameter, gives an EPR of 10 squares in the range of the air defense radar. Such CDs are part of strategic weapons systems, used as tricks and imitators.
  25. Shahno 14 January 2020 19: 16 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Mik13
    Quote: Old26
    The nearest point is approximately 460 km. And it is possible to interfere at such a distance, and so narrowly targeted.

    I’m somehow in difficulty ... If you are an expert in the field of electronic warfare, maybe you can google it yourself by the word "radio horizon"?
    But at the same time, it is possible to calculate what power is needed so that interference delivered from a distance of 400 km makes it impossible to receive a signal from an aircraft transponder from a distance of approx. 10 km

    Oh by the way. What power is needed to disorient a torus-type radar? And at what distance should the intruder be, and whether he must be on the ground. From the target, from the radar. You see what I mean. Well, let's say we have data on the bands and frequencies. Well, they got it somehow ...
  26. Shahno 14 January 2020 19: 20 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Pete Mitchell
    Quote: Shahno
    the point is that an operator (one’s not someone else’s) can make such a mistake only in the case of jamming. How to do it technically is another matter.

    It is more likely that the particular operator did not have information about civil traffic at all. Generally ... these are problems of management and communication

    The strange concept of actually maximum combat readiness, do not find.
    And before this, airspace is not closed. sad
  27. Old26 14 January 2020 19: 35 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Mik13
    I’m somehow in difficulty ... If you are an expert in the field of electronic warfare, maybe you can google it yourself by the word "radio horizon"?
    But at the same time, it is possible to calculate what power is needed so that interference delivered from a distance of 400 km makes it impossible to receive a signal from an aircraft transponder from a distance of approx. 10 km

    I am not an expert in the field of electronic warfare. The flight altitude for an aircraft with an electronic warfare system that could give such an obstacle over a distance of 500 km should be about 14,6 km. In order for the radar to be in "direct line of sight".

    Quote: Mik13
    But at the same time, it is possible to calculate what power is needed so that interference delivered from a distance of 400 km makes it impossible to receive a signal from an aircraft transponder from a distance of approx. 10 km

    I can’t calculate this, I don’t know how, and the distance is probably better to take 500 km. But I think big ...

    Quote: O. Bender
    I personally haven’t seen such a thing in my life, it turns out that interference can significantly reduce the ESR of a lithak to mislead the air defense system operators. New not only in radar but also in fundamental physics. we do, the enemy relaxes and then he has it! steam locomotive

    laughing good

    Quote: Crane
    The air defense system (Air Defense) is starting to be a threat. This was announced on the air of the Moscow Talking radio station by Alexey Podberezkin, director of the Almaz-Antey air defense concern, where Buk anti-aircraft missile systems were developed.

    According to him, on the radar it is difficult to distinguish one plane from another, as well as a civilian side from a rocket. Podberezkin believes that more experienced people should be air defense operators, because much depends on the human factor.

    The director of the concern claims that it is difficult to distinguish, and the locators for some reason, contrary to his opinion, are distinguished. How many scans were in the network after the death of our IL in Syria, where the scans from the screen showed the difference between the mark from the fighter and the "comb" of the IL. Well, the difference in the EPR of a rocket differs from that of a Boeing by tens, if not hundreds of times.
    1. Viktor Sergeev 14 January 2020 19: 41 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Forgive the rams who do not understand anything in air defense. Interference can reduce the target detection range, induce false targets, but not reduce the reflected signal in any way.
    2. asv363 14 January 2020 23: 26 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      The director of the concern claims that it is difficult to distinguish, and the locators for some reason, contrary to his opinion, are distinguished.

      There was no interview with the Director General of East Kazakhstan Almaz-Antey JSC. The journalists changed their shoes and wrote that the adviser gave the interview. There is no word in the adviser's biography about MGIMO:
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Подберёзкин,_Алексей_Иванович
  28. Viktor Sergeev 14 January 2020 19: 39 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    To set up such an interference, a jammer must fly near Iran, and, as I understand it, there wasn’t any interference from the ground. If interference were to be made, then the airfield radars would be blinded. It is impossible to confuse the plane with the Kyrgyz Republic, especially on the Torah.
  29. Korg 14 January 2020 19: 56 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    It is high time for us to equip passenger liners with anti-aircraft radar sensors and an automatic heat trap firing machine. First of all, this must be done for aircraft with air routes over rogue countries, countries under sanctions, or countries sponsoring terrorism. And to cover such airlines with military aircraft - in order to immediately strike at the place of launching anti-aircraft missiles.
    1. gregoryivanov 14 January 2020 20: 41 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Do you need to equip all passenger seats with ejection devices and parachutes? Do not carry nonsense, my friend. It is just necessary for the dispatcher to timely "close the sky" in the combat zone, and not fly where they are fighting.
    2. Servisinzhener 14 January 2020 20: 44 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      At the Vesti FM radio station, a representative of the El Al company specializing in flight safety once spoke. Of course, I didn’t say anything about this, but I hinted that there is a similar system on their planes.
      In general, such situations are solved by the prohibition of flights over a dangerous territory. Because To hang such a system on every aircraft is too expensive a pleasure. And in 99,9999 .....% of cases, it flies off the entire life of the aircraft with dead weight.
    3. Avior 15 January 2020 01: 19 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      in this case, a heat trap would not help
      TOR radio command guidance, not IR
  30. xGibSoNx 14 January 2020 20: 00 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    In short, everything is clear. This was done by the Americans, they are to blame for everything .. In general, we disagree .. Nothing new.
    1. gregoryivanov 14 January 2020 20: 46 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Well, why only Americans? There are still Israelis trying to suck out a finger. They are trying to pull the chain of tragic events like a condom on a cactus, no more no less than on a worldwide conspiracy of Masons.
  31. antiaircrafter 14 January 2020 20: 09 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Honored Pilot commented .....
    Was there a noble air defense worker for comment?

    If the aircraft transponder is working, then all information is displayed, including data on altitude and speed, on the flight number. Today, such information is automatically transmitted to specialized sites, where virtually everyone can track it.


    From which transponder is the data transmitted to the air defense complex of the divisional level? The maximum that he has is a friend or foe recognition system.
    Which air defense complex operator has access to "special sites"? And where does he have time to collect information from them and analyze it?
    And of course, you should try to mix up civilian bast shoes with a cruise missile. Even in the face of interference.
  32. K-36 14 January 2020 20: 27 New
    • 13
    • 1
    +12
    How many did not look for in the lists of Honored Pilots of Russia a name Skrynnik Yuri Miikhailovich, and did not find. But found Sytnik Yu.M. Which is still a civilian pilot. And his knowledge of the army, and even more so about air defense air defense, is clearly literary and artistic. For any air defense officer knows that only a complex can shoot a missile inside the country’s territory by special order from above.
    I, as a person who served in the air defense system, can assert this at any level. I am honored to assume that such an order from the IRGC command was. And it was called as a response to Trump's statement about the launch of missile strikes at 52 targets in Iran. The command of the IRGC understood that the objects controlled by the IRGC took the very first places in this list. Therefore, the order could be this: “To shoot down all aircraft approaching a distance of NN km to the guarded object”. In this case, the command of the IRGC was obliged to go to the leadership of the country with the argument of the ban on flights over the country. I believe that such an action on the part of the IRGC was done, but did not receive support from the Supreme Government of the country.
    Now the main question. Why did the ZR complex fire? I have only two sound assumptions.
    1. The “friend or foe” interrogator provided the complex, so they did not see the transponder’s response ..
    2. We saw the response of the transponder, but requested a firing order from the higher command. And ran into tricks ... the answer was made in the style of Rust's Gorbachev arrival: "Act according to the previously received order!"
    They executed the order.
    My Summary: Iran’s air defense, as a country as a whole, needs serious revision. However, this is hindered by the Supreme Government’s distrust of the IRGC forces. I don’t know how to fix this. But with a high degree of certainty I can assume a repeat of the incident in a similar situation for Iran.
    Yours faithfully, hi
    1. antiaircrafter 14 January 2020 20: 50 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      1. The “friend or foe” interrogator provided the complex, so they did not see the transponder’s response ..

      No transponders see the friend or foe system.
      The ground-based radar interrogator of the air defense system only sees the response of the defendant of the aircraft. There is no such defendant on any foreign aircraft and cannot be.
      The head of the calculation of a specific air defense system can independently fire at a target only if it is in the sector of its responsibility, while it is low-flying or suddenly appeared. Or if there is a team to blame everything that flew into the sector of responsibility, then he finally can not care and transponders and identification systems.
      Any other target is fired only at the command of a higher headquarters. Of course, with a connection. Theoretically, the lack of communication may also be an occasion to make an independent decision to fire.
      1. K-36 14 January 2020 21: 14 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Thanks for the answer. However, the question still hangs: “Why didn’t this block up anyone a day or two before?” So on the day of the downing, the order was still there?!?
        And yes, I’m ready to admit my complete ignorance of the relationship between the air defense missile defense system and the transponder, for I finished my service on the S-125 in 1980, when no one could imagine the word TRANSPENDER throughout the USSR . To this I add that I am extremely interested in clarifying for myself two questions:
        1. SAM is absolutely "deaf and blind" to the transponder?!? So where can he get info about the civilian sides in his sector of responsibility ??
        2. A foreign civilian plane flies out of the country (in this case, Ukrainian from Iran). It is clear to Kose that there is no (and cannot be !!!) defendant on the country from which he flies. So - to "bring it down"?
        1. antiaircrafter 14 January 2020 21: 26 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: K-36
          Why didn’t this complex overwhelm anyone a day or two before?

          The options from the sea from - it was not at all in position at that time before - no one flew into the sector of responsibility.
          Although, in my opinion, the airport area should have been in the forbidden shooting sector.
          Quote: K-36
          SAM is absolutely "deaf and blind" to the transponder?!? So where can he get info about the civilian sides in his sector of responsibility ??

          Yes, absolutely "deaf and blind to the transponder."
          Nowhere. Under normal conditions, civilian sides should not be in the zone of its operation. All information - data of own radar and target designation from a superior.
          Quote: K-36
          So - to "bring it down"?

          If there is an order, yes.
          1. K-36 14 January 2020 21: 59 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Nowhere. Under normal conditions, civilian sides should not be in the zone of its operation. All information - data of own radar and target designation from a superior.

            Sorry, Alxander, but you have alerted me very much. Over my head in the period 1978-1980 flew a bunch of civilian aircraft landing at the Odessa airport. And I could look at them from the “U” cabin as I please (using the “Karat visual card”). And attached to the complex SRC P-12, all of their appearances in the field of view / up to landing and disappearing from the station’s screens / were timed and brought into a special pen. magazine. Information from which was transmitted "up". That is, I note that civilian flights into my sector of responsibility were "I can’t do it at all," and you seem to exclude it. Okay, wait (s).

            If there is an order, yes. Here, as it were, closer, and there is something to talk about. You are probably the only one of the commentators on this Theme who really understands that an air defense system cannot fire without an order (I mean peacetime!).
            . Well, I’ll ask you a question: Do you agree that the Iranian air defense system shot down a Boeing according to an order received, or is it a “Makhnovshin” through any gate?
            1. antiaircrafter 14 January 2020 22: 11 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              S-125 and TOR are very different systems. And their range is very different.
              Thor is intended to cover troops and operates in their battle formations. This is his normal working conditions. There can’t be citizens there.
              The second use case is the protection of important state and economic facilities. For them, as a rule, zones forbidden for flights are determined. Again, citizens under normal conditions cannot appear there.
              Well, the appointment of 125 you yourself know how and where it is located, too.
              Quote: K-36
              Do you agree that Iran’s air defense missile systems shot down a Boeing according to an order, or is it a “makhnovshin” at any gate?

              I have no idea about the control system and combat work of Iran’s air defense, therefore I can’t give a definite answer to this question.
              In my opinion, the airport area for a particular complex should be in the restricted shooting sector. Under no circumstances can one shoot there without a separate command.
              1. K-36 14 January 2020 22: 54 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                He wrote you down in his notebook as an adequate interlocutor. Although there is still something to talk about, I am pleased to state your knowledge base in the country's missile defense system. In a word drinks
                For sim with respect, hi
                1. K-36 14 January 2020 22: 57 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Eh, what's up? Previously, the post could be edited. And now, a bummer. Of course, air defense, not missile defense
                2. KVIRTU 15 January 2020 12: 39 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  "word transformer" refers to the airborne transponder of the GA GA, RBS and S modes, responds to requests from the secondary air traffic control radar of the GA (domestic "Aurora" as an example), request 1030, response 1090 MHz.
                  According to the information about its passage: traditionally, interaction with the air traffic control center is provided by the control group on duty of the KP RTBr, RTG, flight plans, etc.
      2. huntsman650 14 January 2020 23: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The SOC of the TOR is two-coordinate, does not measure the height to the target? As I understand the height draws ssst.
        1. K-36 15 January 2020 00: 18 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          SW huntsman 650. I (from the heights of today) also have questions of applied geometry (for air defense). Having a range (essentially a bisector of a right-angled triangle) and a specific angle (referred to in air defense as the elevation angle), is it really difficult to calculate the other two legs, one of which will be just the height of the target?
          A lot of water has flowed since 1980, but if sclerosis does not change, a special station P-15 was used in air defense as a radio altimeter (however, I could be wrong how many years have passed).
          hi
    2. borberd 14 January 2020 21: 40 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      You evaluate the actions of the Iranians by European patterns, but they are not Europeans. I think that the Iranians specially shot down a Boeing. There was no mistake, there was a deliberate action to end the American attack, by sacrificing the Boeing and subsequent proceedings, who is to blame. If the Americans attacked, then they could well be blamed for "they were covering themselves with Boeing," interfered during the attack, or even accidentally shot him down. After all the news channels reported that the civilian Boeing had fallen, no attack on Iran would have been discussed in principle. Everyone would talk only about the disaster and look for the guilty .., and of course they would be the Americans. The Boeing was shot down 4 hours after the attack on American bases in Iraq, it was at this time that the Americans took off aircraft, and the Iranians thought that the attack had begun. But this is what the Persians did not calculate - this is Trump. Any other president, after such a blow to his troops and prestige, would have bitten a bit and pulled into battle. But Trump is not a fighter, he is a businessman, this ignorance also failed the ayatol.
      Shiites have experience in setting up civilian objects under attack. During Operation Grapes of Wrath - 1996, Hezbollah turned her Lebanese refugees into retaliation. After that, the operation was minimized. The Iranians wanted to do something similar here.

      All Iranian tales about the fact that on a secret base of air defense lost contact and therefore the calculation decided to attack independently, do not withstand any criticism. They clearly received a direct and unequivocal order from the leadership to bring down the Boeing.
    3. Avior 15 January 2020 01: 24 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      it’s usually represented on the net
      Former flight director of Vnukovo Airlines, honored pilot of Russia Yuri Skrynnik

      Vnukovo Airlines went bankrupt for a very long time
  33. Servisinzhener 14 January 2020 20: 35 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    All the same, it is better to ask such questions not even to such respected people. And for those who have experience in military service in the air defense, it is desirable at this complex. Or to specialists from Almaz-Antey and Izhevsk Kupol plant. Which are not by hearsay and not in general terms familiar with this SAM.
  34. Old26 14 January 2020 20: 54 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Quote: Korg
    It is high time for us to equip passenger liners with anti-aircraft radar sensors and an automatic heat trap firing machine.
    .
    And knowing that the system of shooting thermal traps is a sign of military board - it means immediately substituting the passenger side for attack. And most importantly, what will these heat traps give if the missiles have a radio command or activated homing radar? Fireworks before death only to do?

    Quote: Korg
    First of all, this must be done for aircraft with air routes over rogue countries, countries under sanctions, or countries sponsoring terrorism.

    Or maybe then it’s better not to fly there at all?

    Quote: Korg
    And to cover such airlines with military aircraft - in order to immediately strike at the place of launching anti-aircraft missiles.

    Yeah, I see it. A Washington-Moscow plane flies, and is guarded by its steam or a link of fighters. Just in case, what if these treacherous Russians fired on board an anti-aircraft missile. Or the same option with Iran ... Or with North Korea ...
  35. 75 Sergey 14 January 2020 21: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There was or could not be interference on the civilian radars of the airport.
  36. otstoy 14 January 2020 22: 09 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    And this one otmazyvaet Iran. I don’t understand, all of our propagandists have relatives in Iran?
  37. Krasnodar 14 January 2020 22: 24 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Hindrance-shmamehi - a hot Persian young man was afraid of a near-flying mark on the radar, there was no time to consult with anyone, so he shot
    It happens
    1. K-36 14 January 2020 23: 06 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Can you name the position in the military unit, which has the right to press the "Start" button on the air defense system? (Just do not about the "OPERATORS" - for a completely journalistic crap!)
      1. Krasnodar 14 January 2020 23: 09 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        I think the commander of the KP / calculation of air defense systems. I did not serve in air defense, so without a clue))
        And what's the difference? Clicked the same
        1. K-36 14 January 2020 23: 19 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Interesting. You have no idea (who is allowed to the button), but hot persian youth baked in two seconds ... What can I say? That I don’t respect you, because you don’t want us to do this, are you?
          1. Krasnodar 14 January 2020 23: 53 New
            • 6
            • 1
            +5
            And the decision was not made by a Persian youth? laughing We don’t know about something? Who controls Iranian air defense? Luminati? Masons? Americans? Aliens? )))
      2. Avior 15 January 2020 01: 31 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Actually, the calculation of Tor M1 is three people - commander, operator, driver
        Significant changes were made to the equipment of the combat vehicle. The calculation of the car was reduced to three people (commander, operator, driver).
  38. huntsman650 14 January 2020 23: 30 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Some pretzel from Ukraine requires attracting a supplier of weapons, which brought down a Boeing))). Do not know who the supplier is))) Torah))))?
  39. Shahno 15 January 2020 00: 08 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: K-36
    Can you name the position in the military unit, which has the right to press the "Start" button on the air defense system? (Just do not about the "OPERATORS" - for a completely journalistic crap!)

    I don’t understand ... You want to say that the operators, senior operators, etc. are not listed in the calculations.
    I don’t know how in the RF Armed Forces now. And so, the head of the calculation of PU
  40. Radikal 15 January 2020 00: 19 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Honored pilot of the Russian Federation commented on the situation with a strike on the Boeing from the air defense system "Tor"
    Actually, probably this case should (with all due respect to Skrynnik) be commented by an air defense specialist, that is, a "hunter" and not a "game." This would be more reliable on the one hand, and correct on the other. sad
  41. Garris199 15 January 2020 03: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Mik13
    this is TOP. There’s nothing close there.

    Is it really difficult to fasten a computer that would analyze the parameters and behavior of the object and give a hint on the screen about the type of target? It will take a split second for the computer, and the operator would have double-checked and made a decision. God himself prescribed such functionality to the Arabs, because they are tight.
  42. Yuri Sivov 15 January 2020 03: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Given the close interaction between the special services of Ukraine and the United States, it was most likely an interference in the positioning of the aircraft in space, which briefly misled the anti-aircraft system operators. And since GPS is American, it is almost impossible to track this intervention.
  43. Valera Rusanov 15 January 2020 04: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Yes, for any state, it’s to blame, although they didn’t bring down, we were washed to such an extent that even when we have diarrhea, who is to blame - right .... comrade!
  44. saveall 15 January 2020 09: 16 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    If it is believed that, for example, a lot of tracking bugs and other rubbish are included in the Windows software, then why can't a Boeing do the same with its electronics? Most likely it does ... Then why can't they just turn off the aircraft’s transponder remotely at the right time? Indeed, in this case, Boeing Corporation does not risk its reputation at all. Who will now be able to tell that the electronics behaved somehow wrong before the plane was shot down? Maybe this by the way explains the slight deviation of the aircraft from the course in the last minutes. Yes, even if the Boeing had risked anything, if they ordered from the Pentagon, then where would you go ...
  45. carisma620 15 January 2020 10: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But what about the other flights departed?
  46. Seld 15 January 2020 13: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In other words, saying: is it time to close the airspace? ...
    By the way, it’s nasty ... So are they fighting there or not?
  47. EvilLion 15 January 2020 16: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    My family members darted either to Tunisia, or to Egypt, I don’t remember already, when the Il-20 was shot down. It took a long time to damn it, why the hell did it fly to where rockets periodically back and forth, someone permanently fights with someone. In 1988, the Americans shot down an Iranian liner, taking with the F-14.
  48. Diviz 15 January 2020 21: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It seems to me more that this Thor was put on purpose. Need to look for a rat in Iran.
  49. Andrey Andrey 16 January 2020 01: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I like it when an expert refutes himself in an expert opinion. He himself says that there is a table with flights and you can see everything on the site, and then he says that if there is interference on the radar, nothing is visible. What connection between the radar and the Internet is no longer necessary to explain, hamsters are happy.
  50. evgen1221 16 January 2020 12: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There could have been a bookmark with a jammer, the installer of the interference on this particular flight, the Ukrainians do not mind the owners, as well as the Iranians all the more.