Such an unpatriotic "Dagger"
It's probably worth starting with the "Dagger". How many keyboards have been smashed in the brutal Internet battles, figuring out who wins: "Patriot" "Dagger" or "Dagger" "Patriot"? Indeed, it somehow turned out chaotically. Either the “Patriots” knocked out all the “Daggers”, or the “Dagger” knocked out the “Patriot”, but they didn’t knock out quite to death, and so on.
Of course, it was interesting for all three parties to show and prove that this is it, the very best weapon, capable of protecting (in the case of Ukraine and the United States) from any misfortune, or vice versa, a weapon capable of blowing to dust (Russia) the most advanced defensive weapons. Because spears (keys) broke hundreds.
It can be said that a military draw was recorded: the parties remained unconvinced, because the evidence was somehow not very good for both. Ours did not show the destroyed Patriot installation (expectedly), the Ukrainians did not show the (unexpectedly) damaged "Dagger".
In their place, I would show, at least in order to be seen, here is a slightly damaged launcher, and not the five you seem to have destroyed.
It’s not worth figuring out where the truth is, if the “Dagger” (and this is still an “Iskander”, a very accurate thing, unlike others) flew “at the call” of the “Patriot”, then there will be nothing to repair there. But talking about the destruction of five at once (given that only four launchers are included in the battery) is too much. But DIMK cannot afford such a thing.
Dear readers, have you, of course, noticed how the most natural arms race is taking place before our eyes? We started with the supply of old Soviet T-72s of the first models, ended with Leopards and Challengers of not the oldest modifications. Further? Further "Abrams", apparently.
We are simply silent about artillery, from the old "Carnations" and "Acacias" they came to the PzH 2000 and so on. And in our case, speaking of air defense, they brought "Stingers", finished with "Patriots". What's next?
And this is a question, as it is, from the heart.
And at this moment I (as usual already) drag everyone to historical excursion. Let's just take a quick look at the evolution of American air defense systems in particular and air defense systems in general.
Even during the Second World War, the Americans worked very hard in terms of developing air defense systems and succeeded in this. Especially in matters of saturation with the trunks of their ships. It's a matter of a different category, but the Soviet cruisers could envy the American destroyers, which surpassed them in the number and quality of air defense guns just effortlessly. In general, in the ability to cram the maximum number of anti-aircraft guns into a limited number of square meters of a ship, the Americans did not know their equals. The Japanese taught them very well at the beginning of the war.
And at the same time, having removed the planes from the catapults of the same cruisers, the Americans placed them literally on everything that had sufficient length for takeoff and landing.
And then they caught the zen: an aircraft carrier is an airfield that can be placed on the enemy’s route, no matter sea or air, and give the adversary a very warm welcome at a safe distance from their important objects.
And, since it worked as it should, the role of an aircraft capable of solving all problems was elevated to an absolute in the States. And this absolute was implemented both on offshore platforms of the "aircraft carrier" type as a distant line of defense, and on land airfields as a near line.
What about air defense? And so - almost nothing, according to the residual principle! In fact, we look at the map and understand that we should not expect air threats from Canada, this is nothing more than another state of America, from the south, Mexico and the Central American region are also not particularly scary in this regard.
Because air defense seems to have even developed, but really so that it was just in case. Every case, of course, began with the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles in the USSR, which aircraft clearly could not cope with, which led to the emergence of the NORAD system, which still operates in a reduced form.
Naturally, NORAD, that conventional air defense, which in the United States was included in the Ground Forces, consisted of anti-aircraft systems. We will not consider those marvels of engineering that were invented for NORAD here, since they were very exotic and did not last long, but let's go through the usual complexes.
MIM-3 Nike-Ajax. 1953-1958 years.
This is the first American air defense system (and the first mass air defense system in the world), which was produced simply in frightening quantities: more than 200 batteries covered the United States, and the total number of launchers exceeded one thousand.
The complex was good, but not without flaws. Two radars supplied data to the computer, which processed them and issued commands to the rocket over the air. The counting device calculated the meeting point where it sent the rocket and at this point it undermined the rocket warhead. Homing, of course, did not exist in those days. For a successful attack, the missile usually rose above the target, and then began to descend to the calculated interception point.
A unique feature of the MIM-3 Nike-Ajax was the presence of three high-explosive fragmentation warheads. The first, weighing 5,44 kg, was located in the bow section, the second, 81,2 kg, in the middle section, and the third, 55,3 kg, in the tail section.
The idea was implemented, according to which the stepwise detonation of three warheads would create a huge cloud of fragments, which would be almost impossible to overcome. How effective this solution was, there is no data, but in the future, American designers preferred to abandon such a scheme.
The range of the complex was about 48 kilometers. The missile could hit a target at an altitude of up to 21 meters, while moving at a speed of Mach 300.
The technical disadvantage of the complex was the presence of only one missile control channel. That is, the launch of four missiles at once was simply impossible, and since there was no communication between the batteries, there was no system for canceling escort, which is why several launchers could easily shoot at one target. But this is 1954, what could be demanded from the technology of that time?
Although I note that the Soviet S-25 Berkut looked like a masterpiece against the background of the MIM-3 Nike-Ajax, having both multi-channel control and a radar fuse. In fact, the S-25 air defense system can be called the next generation complex, and only the complexity and huge cost were its minuses. And the Nike-Ajax was very cheap, which is why it was built in such a series that one can envy.
But even the Americans themselves understood that Ajax was not a cake, and therefore they immediately began working on a replacement.
MIM-14 Nike-Hercules. 1958-1989 years
It should be the development of Ajax, work on the bugs, but they have worked out a new complex. The rocket engine became solid-propellant, the next generation radars were more accurate, the Target Ranging Radar (TRR) was added to the TTR (Target Tracking Radar) and MTR (Missile Tracking Radar) target tracking radars, which constantly determined the distance to the target and issued additional corrections for calculating device.
Three charges in the warhead were replaced by one, and Hercules began to carry a W61 atomic warhead with a capacity of 2 to 40 kilotons.
The idea to bang on the way of flying missiles and aircraft with an atomic or nuclear charge, arranging Hiroshima in the air was impressive, but in those days the use of nuclear weapons was generally treated much more simply, and in 1960 Hercules successfully intercepted an operational-tactical missile during exercises with a nuclear warhead MGM-5 Corporal.
By the way, the nuclear warhead "Hercules" could well work on ground targets.
At that time, the Nike-Hercules MIM-14 air defense system was for quite a long time considered the most advanced and effective complex of stationary air defense systems in existence. Only the appearance of the Soviet S-200 "Angara" deprived him of the status of the best. But until that time, Hercules was really the best in the world due to its large range and ability to intercept almost the entire range of flying targets. Well, the presence of a nuclear warhead also played an important role.
There was only one drawback, and, in fact, quite a big one: from the Ajax, the Hercules inherited the extremely low mobility characteristic of the air defense system of the object. That is, for Hercules, a special equipped position was needed, from which the complex simply could not withdraw on its own, which means it was a good target for a preventive strike.
But in terms of its performance characteristics, the Hercules was significantly superior to the Soviet S-75, which provided it with a fairly long life in the United States (until 1976 in service), and in Europe even longer - until 1989.
"Nike-Hercules" became the second and last complex of the unified US air defense system.
MIM-23 Hawk. 1960 - present
"Hawk" is already a really new step, at least in terms of mobility, certain actions were taken and the complex became semi-stationary. The launchers were placed on trailers, so that the air defense system could be used both as an object air defense complex to protect important targets, and as a military air defense unit to protect manpower and equipment.
The means of destruction of the complex remained a single-stage solid-propellant missile with a semi-active radar homing head.
Naturally, over 60 years of service, the complex has been modernized more than once, but with the potential in this regard (and to be honest - with low demands) there was complete order. And it was on the "Hawk" that American anti-aircraft gunners laid down a clear image of the air defense system. The main unit was the battery, which consisted of two platoons / sections of 3 launchers. That is, the battery is 6 launchers. In the 70s, an image was drawn of a reinforced battery of three platoons, that is, 9 launchers. Batteries can be grouped into divisions of three or four batteries.
Considering that in the composition of the battery all components are networked using cables, managing so many launchers did not cause problems.
The "Hawk" fought very well in the last century, knocking down everything in a row, since many countries, including those who fought against each other, were armed with the complex. As part of the US troops, the complex did not fight, but it was widely used by the countries that bought it. Iran succeeded in this, which, perhaps, became the main user of the Hawk.
Iran purchased at one time 39 batteries of the Hawk. The Iranian military used Yastreb missiles very actively in the Iran-Iraq war, shooting down up to 40 Iraqi aircraft and several of their own.
The Israeli "Hawks" in the wars against the Arab states are guilty in total of the death of about 20 Arab planes and helicopters.
The French "Hawk" in 1987 shot down a Libyan Tu-22 over the capital of Chad, N'Djamena. Kuwaiti air defense systems in August 1990 shot down two Iraqi aircraft, a MiG-23BN and a Su-22.
In general, the MIM-23 Hawk has become the most significant American air defense system in terms of combat success. The funny thing is that there is not a single victory on the account of the American army, everything belongs to the buyers of this air defense system.
Today, in some countries, the latest upgrade of the Hawk XXI, improved and more compact, is in service. The complex replaced the outdated PAR and CWAR airspace surveillance radars with the modern MPQ-64 Sentinel three-coordinate radar.
As part of the same modernization, the Norwegian company Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace adapted a mobile fire distribution point - FDC, which is used as part of the Norwegian NASAMS air defense system.
In general, today the MIM-23L / M is not a “young old man”, but a very strong middle peasant in the world of air defense systems. Able to work both on aircraft and helicopters, and on tactical and cruise missiles.
MIM-72 Chaparral. 1968 - 1998 years.
And this is also work on the mistakes in the work on the mistakes. When in the sixties the US Army realized that stationary air defense systems were not a panacea for all problems from the air, they first tried to create a more mobile MIM-46 Mauler battlefield air defense system. The troops needed a complex that was more mobile than the Hawk, which could work in the front line.
Nothing happened with the Mauler, and work began on another project, which turned out to be more successful. The secret of success, perhaps, was hidden in simplicity: the guys from Philco Aeronutronics did not bother much (unlike the Convair-Raytheon twins that created the Mauler) and adapted four MIM-72 missiles to the caterpillar chassis and put eight more in an armored box.
The salt was that under the abbreviation MIM-72, the AIM-9D Sidewinder missiles, which had already proven themselves at that time, were hidden. The only difference was that the stabilizing rollerons were mounted on only two tail stabilizers, the other two were fixed. This was done to reduce the launch weight of a ground-launched rocket. Otherwise it was a Sidewinder.
The MIM-72A missile was aimed in the same way at the infrared radiation of the target's engines. This made it impossible to shoot on a collision course, and made it possible to attack enemy aircraft only in the tail, which, however, was not something critical for a complex operating in the frontline zone.
The operator guided the missiles to the target manually, using data from the AN / MPQ-49 Forward Area Alerting Radar surveillance radar. It was possible to use an automatic guidance system, fortunately, the mechanism was simple: having received data from the radar, the operator simply aimed the sight at the target, and, holding the enemy in sight, activated the seeker of the missiles. After the missile “saw” the target, the operator simply had to launch the missile. It turned out that the electronics thought for too long, and therefore the operator turned out to be a more profitable solution.
In general, the Chaparral was developed during the years of the Vietnamese crisis and, in general, the air defense system was made according to the principle “I blinded him from what was.” But this is a completely different story, the main thing is that the US Army received a mobile air defense system.
The career of this air defense system turned out to be more than calm. The Chaparral air defense system accompanied the US Army almost everywhere; they never had to repel air attacks. USAF fighters and fleet reliably protected the sky, leaving no work for the air defense system.
The only case of combat use of the Chaparral eventually took place in 1973 on the Golan Heights and ended with the downing of a Syrian MiG-17. This is the only victory in the asset of the air defense system in 30 years of service. After being decommissioned in the US Army, the Chaparral was quietly sold to countries such as Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco, where the complex is quietly serving even today.
However, about 500 Chaparrals are in storage in the United States.
M1097 Avenger. 1989 - present
This “bad example is contagious”, this air defense system appeared in much the same way as the Chaparral: they took the chassis of an SUV and stuffed four launch containers with Stingers and a short-range radar into it. This craft is controlled using a remote control (otherwise hello to organisms from the radar).
The detection system, in addition to the radar, is also equipped with a thermal imager.
In general, the "Stinger" was well registered on self-running platforms of various sizes. The Stryker armored car carries a package of four Stingers along with the Hellfires, the Marine Corps has the LAV-AD SAM wonder machine, which already carries eight Stingers on the chassis of the Canadian LAV-25 armored personnel carrier. There is also the M6 Linebacker air defense system, also eight Stingers, but on the Bradley BMP chassis.
But these are short-range "crutches". And the basis of the air defense of the US Army today is another complex, much more powerful than all these portable iterations of the Stinger.
MIM-104 Patriot. 1982 - present
They began to invent it back in the seventies of the last century, but the air defense system was born very slowly. On the one hand, the Americans had absolutely nowhere to rush, on the other hand, the result turned out to be somewhat better than previous experiments.
The basis of the ground air defense of the United States is the battalion of "Patriots". This is a command post and 2-5 batteries, 6-8 launchers and one universal radar type AN / MPQ-53 or AN / MPQ-65 in each. Each launcher has four MIM-104 missiles. Configuring the number of batteries depends on the complexity of the covered object and the size of the covered area.
"Patriot" is an advanced complex in which guidance is carried out using a synthesis of radio command and semi-active radar guidance. The original version of the PAC1 guided missiles is no longer in use, the PAC2 and PAC3 variants are in service, and the latter are placed in the amount of not 4, but 16 missiles per launcher.
"Patriot" fought, but it is difficult to call his actions successful. The first iteration of the air defense system tried in 1991 to intercept Iraqi ballistic missiles launched on the territory of Israel and Saudi Arabia, but it turned out to be very average. During the second Iraq war in the spring of 2003, the first two downed aircraft appeared on the account of the Patriots, but both of them were ... their own! American anti-aircraft gunners shot down a British "Tornado" and F / A-18C naval aviation USA.
Let's just say, not the oldest aircraft, but ... it is definitely impossible to call the result successful. Of course, the question here is not in the air defense system, but in its operators, but no one seems to have canceled the “friend or foe” system, which should work in such cases.
But these two cases were the first and so far the only ones in terms of the combat use of their air defense systems by the Americans after the Second World War.
Other users, such as Israel, have been more successful. The Israelis shot down at least two Syrian aircraft, a Su-24 in 2014 and a Su-22 in 2018, plus a number of drones. However, firing Patriots at UAVs is a very unprofitable business, since the cost of one missile, depending on the model, ranges from 3-4 million dollars.
Whether this spring, with the help of the Patriot, either the Dagger or the Iskander (I don’t see much difference) was shot down, it’s hard to say, but I have already spoken out on the topic that no, they didn’t shoot down. What was shown did not in any way draw on the "Dagger", whatever one may say. And the rockets were fired from the heart, I guess, 30 million just flew into the sky.
And here we come to the most interesting part of our review. And just take, and ask the question: and then what? What next gentlemen from America will be able to give their Ukrainian friends?
Oh, sorry, nothing!
The United States initially, since the Second World War, did not pay due attention to its air defense systems due to its complete uselessness. Our excursion showed that, feeling themselves separated from the world by two oceans, the Americans looked very calmly at the prospect of getting something from aircraft or other carriers. Aviation will be able to intercept and destroy, and when it came to missiles, it all ended with the creation of the NORAD system.
Today, the main hopes of the United States are the THAAD anti-missile system. But something new in terms of air defense - alas, so far no one in the United States sees a need for this. Everything that the planes cannot handle, in theory, the Patriot will have enough opportunities. Well, or from the Iron Dome bought in Israel.
As for the rest of the world, sorry. But by “the rest of the world” we mean Ukraine, which simply cannot survive without supplies from NATO countries. Yes, and you also need to survive not in ruins, right?
Today, the "Patriot" is undergoing a real test of combat, and against it, well, not at all junk like Soviet R-17 missiles or Su-22 bombers. And quite modern weapons systems. And how the “Patriot” will show itself in the end is a question.
Some have already rushed to attribute the downed planes and helicopters in the Bryansk region to the Patriot - I can’t say anything on this subject, there are no facts at all. It is clear that they did not fall on their own, but evidence is needed.
But already based on the results of real battles, the United States can conclude that if we are talking about full-fledged air defense, then the Americans clearly have a hole here. "Stinger" and its carriers are good, but it's up to 3 km. "Patriot" with its 3-100 km is fine, but in a good way the complex works fine in the range of 20-80 km. That is, from 3 to 20 - questions.
If you look at our air defense, then everything is in order. Moreover, so much so that between the "Needle" / "Verba" and the S-400 there are several air defense systems of various ranges and opposites that overlap each other. Moreover, we have both air defense systems and air defense missile systems, which can sadden almost any drone.
Let me emphasize that this is not primarily about site-based air defense systems, but about mobile ones that can cover troops. We are still at war.
Therefore, we are now looking not at what the Americans will cover for themselves, but what they will supply to Kyiv. It seems to be more topical.
But alas, there is nothing of the kind in the American arsenals and is not even expected. Of course, the same Hawks and Chapparels can be removed from storage, you can buy and donate Norwegian NASAMS air defense systems, this is also an option, given that the American AIM-120A air-to-air missile flies out of it.
The absence of such intermediate air defense systems (such as our "Shell", "Tunguska" and "Torah") is the reason that the United States is almost unable to help Ukraine strengthen its air defense. Yes, actually, and not so much is given. Two batteries of "Patriot", a dozen "Avengers" (one of that already ...), several hundred "Stingers" - this is unpleasant, but not critical at all.
And it turns out that "Patriot" is good, but "Dagger" - he is so, unpatriotic. And therefore it will fly, most likely, to where the Patriot will not be. There are still many goals in Ukraine.
This is how it turns out when a country that did not have problems with air defense due to the absence of external threats begins to help others.
The story is pretty instructive. If the Americans, having begun their military expansion around the world, with the construction of bases and airfields, would simultaneously begin to develop air defense, then perhaps with their interference in Ukrainian affairs, the situation could become much more complicated. But history is such a thing...
Information