Methods of combating Tomahawks, taking into account the Serbian experience

To some extent, for our military, the role of a training ground for fighting American rockets Syria played a role. Countermeasures were directed not only at the Tomahawks already in production, but also at the platforms on which they were deployed.

Colonel General Anatoly Sitnov, former Chief of Armaments of the Russian Armed Forces, spoke about this in an interview with Andrei Uglanov, editor-in-chief of the publication "Arguments of the Week," which he posted on his own channel. Although the interview was recorded back in the spring of 2018, the expert's thoughts on Tomahawk cruise missiles have become particularly relevant today, given the possible transfer of this weapons Ukrainian army.

The general recalled the incident with the USS Donald Cook, which had Tomahawk cruise missiles on board and appeared in the Black Sea in April 2014. A Russian Su-24 bomber approached the ship and, using the system, EW Khibiny disabled all its electronics. Later, it appeared off the coast of Syria, and then our military was ready, if necessary, to meet it and the Tomahawks it had in its arsenal.

But the most significant work on countering these missiles was carried out in Serbia. A Russian Armed Forces general outlined methods for countering Tomahawks, taking into account Serbian experience.

Sitnov said that during NATO's aggression against this Balkan country, the US Armed Forces used a total of 272 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Of these, Serbian Defense destroyed 80 units.

We gave the Serbs a 3D map, and they carried out major landscape modification activities.

- the general explained Belgrade's success in repelling the attacks, explaining that the American missile moves along specific corridors with altitude differences of no more than 100-150 meters.

Serbian military personnel also installed Kevlar nets with 2,5-meter by 1-meter mesh over the facilities, which missiles hit without causing damage.

From this we can conclude that Russian air defense forces are familiar with methods of combating American Tomahawks.

Comments

[helilelik]

I wonder how long this nonsense about Cook will continue to circulate? The use of electronic warfare is tantamount to the use of weapons.

[Andrey_i_K]

especially on such a "competent" channel! )))

[Zoer]

Quote: helilelik

I wonder how long this nonsense about Cook will continue to circulate? The use of electronic warfare is tantamount to the use of weapons.

That's not even the point. The Khibiny electronic warfare system isn't designed for installation on the Su-24. The aircraft, with its power plant, can physically suppress the destroyer's systems. The power plant there is three orders of magnitude different.

[Cartalon]

Today is truly a day of amazing stories.

[Lemon]

Enough already with these "axes", the Red-haired chatterbox has probably already forgotten what he blurted out about them... Let them deal with their own problems, there are troops in American cities... They will shave Zelya and this time like under Biden.

[Andobor]

In fact, there was a massive Tomahawk raid on a Syrian airfield, which was covered by our Pantsirs.
Then, out of 60 missiles, one broke along the way, they hit all those that had enough missiles from 4 Pantsirs, that is 48, several more were hit with cannons, but debris was already falling on the object, few reached their intended targets.
But there was an early warning from the Americans themselves, the Pantsirs see them and begin to work only 40 km away.

[Alien ...]

There was. Two US destroyers were at work. They completely wrecked the airfield. We/our troops initially said something about "no losses, everything was shot down," but then Israel released satellite images. Take a look/have a smoke. "You will understand everything, you will see everything yourself." (C)

[Andobor]

Quote: Alien ...

there were no losses, everything was shot down," but then

So they shot down everything the Pantsirs had enough missiles for, and even took out a few with their cannons. Tomahawks are easily defeated, but Pantsirs are 100% effective. The main thing is to have enough Pantsirs, and we need early warning.

[Alien ...]

Smoke the material. Even here, of course, there was an article at one time...

[ism_ek]

As a target, the Tomahawk is simpler than the Scalp because it's larger. And we have a lot of experience fighting Scalps. The problem is that the Tomahawk is a standard nuclear weapons carrier, and deploying them in Ukraine won't lead to anything good.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: ism_ek

As a target, the Tomahawk is simpler than the Scalp because it's larger. And we have a lot of experience fighting Scalps. The problem is that the Tomahawk is a standard nuclear weapons carrier, and deploying them in Ukraine won't lead to anything good.

Do you really know what you're talking about?
Tomahawk is noticeably more compact in the air than Scalp.
There are dozens of types of standard nuclear warhead carriers, and there is no need to demonize the Tomahawk.
On this site, hundreds of pre-war turbo-Uryak-oriented commentators idolized the Iskander and guaranteed the availability of nuclear weapons for them.

The modern Tomahawk has nothing in common with the one from the early 80s, except for the diameter.
Everything is different there now. Both the components and the materials.

[l7yLLlKAPb]

Yes, yes, we are still watching the debris fall on the oil refinery, the air defense shot it all down)

[Alexey Lantukh]

Many years have passed since Iraq and Serbia. The axes have probably been modernized. And the Syrian airfield was likely filled with a mix of old and new equipment, designed to give us a better idea of ​​what our air defenses are capable of. So, we should expect more advanced axes.

[Lykases1]

I wonder if the landscape needs to be changed now? Or later?

[solar]

While the enemy draws offensive maps, we change the landscape, manually. When the time comes to attack, the enemy is lost in unfamiliar terrain and completely unprepared. That's the point, that's our strategy. (c) "DMB" movie.

The general was given a movie about the DMB to watch. But generals, it seems, can't distinguish between movies and reality; it's not their level; they should be able to sign their own names wherever they're told.

In the army, responsibilities are strictly distributed. Everyone up to and including the lieutenant must be able to work independently. The captain must be able to organize the work. The major should know where what is being done.
A lieutenant colonel must be able to report what's happening where. A colonel must be able to independently find the place in papers where he's supposed to sign. A general must be able to sign where he's told.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/83VqCvT-GhA?feature=share

[papas-57]

The more oaks in the army, the stronger our defense.

[Volkhov M3]

Is repeating other people's stupidities your everything or not? It's especially stupid when it comes to generals. Do you know the actor Galtsev? Try his face on for your own.

[Imhotep]

There are people who really like it.
Especially when everyone got scared and left.

[Serg koma]

Quote: Lykases1

I wonder if the landscape needs to be changed yet?

The ancient Ukrainians have already changed the landscape – changing the landscape doesn't protect against daggers and Iskanders...

[solar]

A Russian Su-24 bomber approached the ship and, using the Khibiny electronic warfare system, disabled all of its electronics.

Even the generals are spouting this nonsense. Who will take his stories seriously after this?

[AC130 Gunship]

Quote: Andobor

In fact, there was a massive Tomahawk raid on a Syrian airfield, which was covered by our Pantsirs.
Then, out of 60 missiles, one broke along the way, they hit all those that had enough missiles from 4 Pantsirs, that is 48, several more were hit with cannons, but debris was already falling on the object, few reached their intended targets.
But there was an early warning from the Americans themselves, the Pantsirs see them and begin to work only 40 km away.

There are no air defense systems with 100% protection. 80-90% is considered very good. This means that to shoot down 48 cruise missiles, you'd have to try really hard, and it would definitely take about 55-60 interceptors. That's assuming you're extremely lucky and have highly skilled and experienced air defense personnel.

[Zoer]

Quote: AC130 Ganship

There are no air defense systems with 100% protection. 80-90% is considered very good. This means that to shoot down 48 cruise missiles, you'd have to try really hard, and it would definitely take about 55-60 interceptors. That's assuming you're extremely lucky and have highly skilled and experienced air defense personnel.

HA!!! So we have a ton of flying combat ushankas! And one of those can take out a dozen KR at once, if you're unlucky. And if you're lucky, and the cap-thrower operators are experienced, then all 20 KR can be destroyed with just one cap!

[Zoer]

The general recalled the incident involving the USS Donald Cook, which was carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles and appeared in the Black Sea in April 2014. A Russian Su-24 bomber approached the ship and, using the Khibiny electronic warfare system, disabled all of its electronics.

I didn't bother reading the article beyond this nonsense. The technical/physical impossibility of jamming a destroyer's electronics has been rehashed a hundred times. The fact that the Khibiny electronic warfare system isn't designed for installation on the Su-24 has also been stated a million times. BUT, there are some exceptional individuals, some with the rank of general, who continue to spout this journalistic nonsense with maniacal idiocy.
With such quality of generals, it becomes clear why the SVO is already in its 4th year.

[former soldier]

It is not too late for Russia to fight Tomahawks using diplomatic methods, backed by the presence of nuclear weapons, rather than weaving Kevlar nets over the whole of Russia.

[Alexander]

Serbian troops also installed Kevlar nets over the facilities, with mesh sizes of 2,5 meters by 1 meter, which missiles could hit without causing damage. The mesh size is a bit large!

[Cympak]

Back in Soviet times, an antidote to Tomahawks was developed – the MiG-31. The main question is, why isn't the MiG-31 used against Ukrainian long-range UAVs? Why isn't there a 24/7 air patrol along the border with Ukraine? Or is the MiG-31 unable to detect slow-moving targets? But surely the filters on the BRLPK could have been tweaked in four years? Or are they saving resources, kerosene, and missiles?
And then they are surprised by the comparison with the "paper" tiger, it is not clear

[Volkhov M3]

It's better to fight in tanks if you have enough cells.

[SovAr238A]

А author articles, does he also believe the nonsense he wrote? In all of it. On all points?

[Nikolaevich I]

What kind of nonsense is this? Networks, "landscape change" versus "Tomahawks"... "Khibiny" versus "Cook"! Utter nonsense! The general should be thrown in a mental hospital! (If he really was spouting this nonsense.)

[Alexey Lantukh]

Serbian military personnel also installed Kevlar nets with 2,5-meter by 1-meter mesh over the facilities, which missiles hit without causing damage.

Where are the Kevlar nets now at the same oil refineries and other important facilities?