Military Review

Disputes over the results of ZVO exercises: 9 from 11 - strongly or weakly?

269
Attention, the question. Nine out of eleven - is it good or bad, much or little? And it is precisely this question that worries all those who one way or another followed (and through the news agency issues, including) the progress and results of large-scale exercises of the East-Kazakhstan oblast troops that took place from 27 to 29 in Russia in May. By today's standards, the exercises were really more than large-scale (8700 military personnel, 185 airplanes and helicopters, around 240 armored vehicles), and we can confidently say that nothing like (in the sense of training maneuvers) in stories New Russia was not carried out.


Let's start with the results of military maneuvers. Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, reporting on the results to Supreme Commander Vladimir Putin, said that during the interception of eleven missiles fired by a conditional opponent in the region protected by air defense and EKR systems, nine were intercepted. At the same time, Shoigu stressed that a certain part of the calculations of the C-300 ground-to-ground missile system, which usually covers this area, was transferred to the Ashuluk training ground for training shots.



Putin answered this information as follows:

“In principle, the result is satisfactory. Look at all the questions and problems that arose during the exercise. "


So, 9 from 11 is the result of covering the protected area. Indeed, this is a result other than “basically satisfactory” is difficult to call, because if you consider that two missiles of a conditional enemy were able to pass through the shield, even if temporarily weakened, as Sergei Shoigu says, then neither “good”, nor even "Excellent" troops did not pull. But at the same time, it is difficult to understand those people who immediately after the announcement of the results of the conducted maneuvers began to practice in who would shout over anyone in the style of “everything was gone!”, “You should run away from here!”, “And what would happen if the real the war ?! ”and“ the end is ours! ”And judging by the numerous publications in the print press and in the electronic media, there are quite a few such people.

Yes, of course, the two goals could not hit - offensively, vexed ... But is this a reason for a mass psychosis about the unreadiness of the Russian aerospace forces and the Air Force (together with the air defense) to repel the blow? Is there really a complete (I mean, 100%) guarantee in this world of defeating everything that an adversary is capable of releasing on it (conditional or real)? The answer is simple and concise: no! Why not"? Yes, because there is such a science, which is called probability theory, and there are separate probabilities of hitting targets with systems of a certain type of defense. And if you turn to them, then 100% guarantee of defeat for all goals without exception is not achieved by definition. As they say, there will be a no less tricky target for any clever air defense system that can spoil any statistics. And the “trick” of the goal may depend not only on the parameters that the manufacturers put into it, but also on the whole system of additional factors, and the human factor plays not the last role in the development of computer and other monitoring systems that are available. .

No, no one takes responsibility off the servicemen who missed two “blanks”. Missed - to blame.
So you need to refine, put greater emphasis on efficiency. But isn’t teachings conducted for this? Or there are people who believe that the troops should have assembled in alarm, moved to the designated area or, remaining on agreed positions, worked like the heroes of Hollywood blockbusters, destroying any enemy with 100% probability, even if this enemy is a space asteroid. Well, well, the thrill of the capabilities of the heroes of Bruce Willis, in principle, is understandable, but we still have to be friends with reality ... But the reality so far is that any teachings of the Russian troops is a plus.

To realize this, you can make a mental journey years ago on 15 back. No exercises - no discussion of the effectiveness of the country's defense. How many Russian air defense systems of a conditional enemy’s missile could shoot down at that time? But who knows them ... And if no one knows, it means everything is in order - in order for those who had certain views on the continuation, forgive me, of razderbanivaniya Russia into specific principalities.

They tried to convince us that the Russian State had no enemies, and therefore all this waste of money for the modernization of the army was from the evil one. And many of us in fact willingly believed in it. And there are those who live on the same wave until now ...

What’s there 15 years ago ... You can take, say, a variant of 2-3 years ago, when most News from the Ministry of Defense were far from mating maneuvers, combat training and operation of weapons, but with which of the units of the main military department stolen more, and in which less, with those who managed to warm their hands on the introduction of a new military uniform, who sold military “non-core” property to whom. Now there is a reason to debate on the subject of objective combat readiness. Frankly: happy.

By the way, let’s not forget that the course of the exercises is not only an episode with nine shot down and two undeveloped ... During the maneuvers, the military practiced the skills of establishing a radar field, the conclusion aviation from the zone of a potential enemy strike with dispersal over several aerodromes involved for operational deployment. In addition, according to the scenario of exercises in the areas of their conduct, a massive air attack was carried out using real (it must be emphasized - real) cruise missiles launched by the "strategist" Tu-95. To intercept cruise missiles, the MiG-31 fighter link was used, which successfully coped with its responsibilities. The May exercises of the East Kazakhstan region and the Air Force are also a successful series of bombing at various training ranges, the use of long-range aircraft. In the end, this is a normal, rather than paper, combat training of personnel, which in the vast majority of cases didn’t stay at headquarters and barracks through no fault of their own.

However, it is the theme “2 from 11 still flew by” is exaggerated with a certain, if one can put it that way, and with little understandable severity. But, friends, and what, it would be easier for all of us, if the same Shoigu during Putin’s report would have taken and said: “Vladimir Vladimirovich, everyone worked with a bang, all goals were hit, the enemy was defeated, the victory was ours After all, to neutralize a potential adversary, as they say, all means are good - and disinformational ones as well. So we do not seem to be the DPRK ... And the situation is not the same to sing the praises of the combat readiness of the Russian army. Too much time is lost, and too much work still needs to be done in order to rely on 99 from 100 next time ... And it is gratifying that such work is being done, without smoothing and with a clear eye to the future. If someone is annoyed, then you need to focus on soothing breathing exercises.
Author:
269 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Yarbay
    Yarbay 3 June 2013 07: 52 New
    62
    *** Too much time is lost, and too much work still needs to be done in order to count on 99 out of 100 next time ... ** - The right conclusion!
    1. Hammer
      Hammer 3 June 2013 08: 12 New
      51
      The road will be overpowered by the walking ... the author is right, the main thing in this is that exercises began to be held regularly. Without study, all of our S-300 / 400s are just iron ...
      1. kartalovkolya
        kartalovkolya 3 June 2013 08: 54 New
        16
        I agree with you for all 100, they are teachings in order to learn to go to war. Pozdno drinking Borjomi, when the kidneys have fallen off. The main thing is that the right conclusions are being made. This is not for you the protection of the "stool" with his shlander!
        1. KILLAvolt
          KILLAvolt 3 June 2013 09: 23 New
          15
          Conducted exercises, identified weaknesses and mistakes, identified areas in which you need to work to correct mistakes. It is perfectly!
          The only thing that confused me was that the results were so openly announced ... So this is secret information ...
          1. Gemar
            Gemar 3 June 2013 11: 42 New
            12
            Quote: KILLAvolt
            the results were so openly announced ... So this is secret information ...

            I think the secret is which targets were hit and which weren't. Maybe they tried to shoot down low-speed non-maneuvering high-altitude radio contrast targets. Then ... "Chef, it's all gone!" And if the goals were extremely difficult ...
            1. Apologet.Ru
              Apologet.Ru 3 June 2013 18: 38 New
              +5
              And if the goals were extremely difficult ... [/ quote] And the guys from Syria sat at the consoles ...
              1. Gemar
                Gemar 4 June 2013 03: 52 New
                +2
                Quote: Apologet.Ru
                And the guys from Syria were sitting at the consoles ...

                smile + + +
                Well then, there is confidence in the attitude of the delivered S-300s to Syria!
                1. crazyrom
                  crazyrom 7 June 2013 06: 19 New
                  0
                  9 of 11 I think is not enough. But what if the enemy’s nuclear missiles? We lost 2 cities ... It would be interesting to know which systems worked, if only C-300, then hope for C-400, maybe these will intercept 100%. And if it was 400 blundered, then C-500 would not be soon, but that would be bad ...
            2. Inzhengr
              Inzhengr 6 June 2013 08: 41 New
              +1
              Whatever the goals, the result means that the covered object is hit (even if 1 enemy missile breaks through, it can be with a nuclear warhead). The result of such exercises in binary code is affected or not affected. The results directly reflect the state of aerospace defense (air defense).
          2. Nick
            Nick 4 June 2013 10: 29 New
            +5
            Quote: KILLAvolt
            The only thing that confused me was that the results were so openly announced ... So this is secret information ...

            The information may be secret, but for our potential "friends" it means that they will not be able to deliver an instant disarming strike on Russia ... The result of 2 to 11 is actually very good, the effectiveness of the air defense was 82%, and this is with a weakened grouping ... Somewhere I came across infa that NATO estimates the effectiveness of Russia's air defense at 75-80% and that such air defense efficiency is considered one of the best in the world.
        2. Gari
          Gari 3 June 2013 10: 39 New
          +8
          Too much time has been lost, and too much work still needs to be done in order to count on 99 out of 100 next time ... And it is gratifying that such work is being carried out, moreover, without smoothing and with a clear view to the future.
          All right, time was lost, but you have to catch up

          If this annoys someone, you need to focus on soothing breathing exercises-inhale- exhale, or they may not breathe at all, we will get more oxygen
      2. Airman
        Airman 3 June 2013 10: 04 New
        18
        Quote: Hammer
        The road will be overpowered by the walking ... the author is right, the main thing in this is that exercises began to be held regularly. Without study, all of our S-300 / 400s are just iron ...


        We lost the air defense system. The S-300 and the armor are long-range and short-range systems, and we also need medium-range systems, such as a beech. Moscow Region and industry have something to work on.
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 3 June 2013 10: 09 New
          0
          We have lost the air defense system. S-300 and the shell are long-range and short-range systems, and we also need medium-range systems, such as a beech.

          TO still hints at Google Morpheus and Vityaz and there is nothing to do with the shell in the air defense of the country.
          1. Mairos
            Mairos 3 June 2013 11: 27 New
            +7
            the shell, IMHO, should cover the S-300 and S-400 complexes themselves from HARMs and other nasty things that are applicable against them. And he can "comb" the lionfish at his distances very well.
            1. leon-iv
              leon-iv 3 June 2013 11: 37 New
              18
              no carapace is IMHO military air defense but not object in any way. Here it is roughly planned called morpheus. It is MUCH better imprisoned for catching all kinds of KR and other Jidamism.
        2. Hammer
          Hammer 4 June 2013 02: 48 New
          +2
          Quote: Povshnik

          We lost the air defense system. The S-300 and the armor are long-range and short-range systems, and we also need medium-range systems like the BUK. And then the air defense system will be layered. You need to restore the air defense system, you cannot create the S-300/400 system alone. Moscow region and industry have work to do


          But who is sports ... of course, it is precisely the systematic nature of building the country's air defense / missile defense, the systematic nature of the education and training of personnel that gives the desired effectiveness of the entire (!) System as a whole.
          And he wrote about S-300/400, implying by them all the air defense equipment. In the context of the fact that no matter how cutting-edge the equipment is, if you do not properly prepare personnel for its operation and maintenance, then there will be no sense from it anyway ...
        3. stalkerwalker
          stalkerwalker 5 June 2013 17: 17 New
          +3
          Quote: Povshnik
          and we also need medium-range systems, such as a BUK. And then the air defense system will become layered. You need to restore the SYSTEM

          ... There is something to work on, where and in which direction to develop ...
    2. SPACE
      SPACE 3 June 2013 08: 52 New
      +3
      Quote: Yarbay
      The right conclusion!

      From the article there is nothing, it’s not clear, there is no specifics of what was shot down, what was shot down, under what conditions, what is the consumption of anti-aircraft missiles, speed, time, intensity, etc.
      1. Yarbay
        Yarbay 3 June 2013 08: 58 New
        +2
        Quote: SPACE
        From the article there is nothing, it’s not clear, there is no specifics of what was shot down, what was shot down, under what conditions, what is the consumption of anti-aircraft missiles, speed, time, intensity, etc.

        I meant that the author’s conclusion that it was better to have better results, you still have to work a lot and taking into account how the army was bullied before this is correct !!
        And the questions you posed are unlikely to be answered!
        1. SPACE
          SPACE 3 June 2013 09: 48 New
          +3
          Quote: Yarbay
          I meant that the author’s conclusion that the results were better it is still necessary to work a lot and considering

          Yes, I understand that, only this conclusion was made back in 41, there is no limit to perfection.
          Quote: Yarbay
          then how to abuse the army before that, right !!

          In a world of smoke pulled ... woke up.
          Quote: Yarbay
          And the questions you posed are unlikely to be answered!

          I do not insist, but I hope they know what they are doing.
        2. Mairos
          Mairos 3 June 2013 11: 29 New
          +3
          Tovarisch just dreams of the 90s, when all "DSP" and "Secret" easily fell into the hands of the media. )) Who will publish SUCH.)))
          1. SPACE
            SPACE 3 June 2013 12: 56 New
            0
            Quote: Mairos
            Tovarisch just dreams of the 90s, when all "DSP" and "Secret" easily fell into the hands of the media. ))

            What a clever master, everyone knows, even what others dream of ... laughing
            Quote: Mairos
            Who will begin to publish such.)))

            "11-9 = 2" And what conclusions can you draw from such an extensive arithmetic analysis? laughing
            1. avt
              avt 3 June 2013 13: 33 New
              +7
              Quote: SPACE
              "11-9 = 2" And what conclusions can you draw from such an extensive arithmetic analysis?

              This analysis allows us to conclude that, taking into account the work carried out, the troops received an assessment of "satisfactory", I fully admit that someone received and "bad." And it is necessary to continue daily work. And these are not general phrases, but a specific and only way to victory. The readiness check has been carried out, now it is time to eliminate the shortcomings.
              1. SPACE
                SPACE 3 June 2013 14: 29 New
                +2
                Quote: avt
                This analysis allows us to conclude that, taking into account the work done, the troops received an assessment of "satisfactory"

                You perfectly understand what I mean. 9 targets can be hit during the entire exercise, or it is possible in 10 minutes, will you say that the scores in this case will be the same? And there are many more nuances, and not all secret ones, that affect the result. Maybe the three hundred hit 10 targets of the BB OTRK Tochka-U type in 9 minutes, this could explain the "friends" hysteria about the delivery and the assessment is not good. can become ex.
        3. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 3 June 2013 16: 27 New
          +1
          Out of 11-2
          from 1000-200 simple arithmetic. Half air defense kapets
          Moreover, at best, native electronic warfare equipment, of which all are known
          dear Yarbay, have you become a Turkish citizen? Congratulations)))
      2. KILLAvolt
        KILLAvolt 3 June 2013 09: 24 New
        +7
        For us they left "9 out of 11" The rest of the statistics We do not need to know with you! wink
        1. Airman
          Airman 3 June 2013 10: 17 New
          23
          Quote: KILLAvolt
          For us they left "9 out of 11" The rest of the statistics We do not need to know with you! wink

          I participated in a demonstration defense exercise for the Minister of Defense in the 70s. About 80 targets were launched. Since all targets were fired at by various complexes as they entered the affected area, ALL TARGETS were shot down.
          1. Airman
            Airman 3 June 2013 10: 25 New
            +2
            Quote: Povshnik
            wink[/ quote ->
            Quote: wink[/ quote

            I participated in a demonstration defense exercise for the Minister of Defense in the 70s. About 80 targets were launched. Since all targets were fired at by various complexes as they entered the affected area, ALL TARGETS were shot down.


            The targets were real: RM (missile target), KRM (winged RM), radio-controlled LA-17, etc. The air defense forces of the SA SAVO fired. Supervised the exercises Zhdanovich Boris Konstantinovich.
            [/ comment-show]
          2. berimor
            berimor 3 June 2013 12: 23 New
            12
            Come on! I myself am an anti-aircraft gunner. When was it that 80 targets would be launched (even for MO)? During my 32-year service, I have never heard such a thing. You may be confusing targets with airplanes designating targets with identification codes turned off. So they are fired at with a so-called electronic shot with further confirmation of objective control materials. So this is not so much. On exercises with 19 d Air Defense in the city of Vasilkov, Kiev region), in just one strike, I somehow planned up to 140 aircraft at different altitudes and in a difficult jamming environment. Well, and 100% - defeat of such targets is very well known to us. Don't la-la. The control documents and barospidograms of the flight of target aircraft were often manipulated, especially when the reflecting side through different channels became aware of the scheme and intention of the "enemy aviation" raid. Then yes, the whole adversary was destroyed. There were a great many such tricks.
            However, I am very glad that at least something has moved off the ground. Article clearly +
            1. avt
              avt 3 June 2013 14: 06 New
              +2
              Quote: berimor
              Maybe you confuse targets with airplanes designating targets with recognition codes turned off. So they are fired at by the so-called electronic shot with further confirmation by objective control materials. So it’s not so much

              Present at a similar near Naro-Fominsk on the S-200
            2. Airman
              Airman 3 June 2013 15: 20 New
              +4
              Quote: berimor
              Come on! I myself am an anti-aircraft gunner. When was it that 80 targets would be launched (even for MO)? During my 32-year service, I have never heard such a thing. You may be confusing targets with airplanes designating targets with identification codes turned off. So they are fired at with a so-called electronic shot with further confirmation of objective control materials. So this is not so much. On exercises with 19 d Air Defense in the city of Vasilkov, Kiev region), in just one strike, I somehow planned up to 140 aircraft at different altitudes and in a difficult jamming environment. Well, and 100% - defeat of such targets is very well known to us. Don't la-la. The control documents and barospidograms of the flight of target aircraft were often manipulated, especially when the reflecting side through different channels became aware of the scheme and intention of the "enemy aviation" raid. Then yes, the whole adversary was destroyed. There were a great many such tricks.
              However, I am very glad that at least something has moved off the ground. Article clearly +


              Demonstration exercises were held for the Minister of Defense, there was not a single electronic target or electronic missile launches. ALL GOALS were real. Shooting was carried out by the air defense forces of SV SAVO (Central Asian Military District).
            3. mechanic driver
              mechanic driver 3 June 2013 17: 26 New
              +1
              There were floton drills in the Crimea in 1989. Our squadron launched two new bsr with television equipment and an old man with a photo, the ships knew the time, speed, altitude. We managed to beat a single drone in the body variant, and the old man, all darned darned, arrived and brought a photo . I saw it myself.
      3. klimpopov
        klimpopov 3 June 2013 09: 44 New
        22
        Let's just say: there were electronic targets and 11 "real" emitting cruise missiles. Everything is freely available. The conversation is about real ... There are also statistics on electronic launches ..
        Also keep in mind that the battalions fired with non-standard equipment. They were removed from the Triumph, brought to the Ashuluk training ground (while the S-300 training grounds were being prepared for exercises as early as the end of July), they were urgently prepared for launches, and in turn, each crew first shot down electronic targets and then fired at real cruise missile emitters.
        At this time, aviation was practicing evasion from under attack. All aerodrome equipment was loaded into transporters along with technicians, Su-34 under its own power, and distributed across temporary airfields. Further, with Tu - 95 there was a launch of a real rocket which the Mig - 31 interceptor successfully hit. By the way, the link of twinkles also first sat on an airdrome unknown to them before. Approximately such a scheme of exercises. The following exercises are likely to take place in the Far East, and by the fall it is worth waiting for large-scale exercises with the use of a large number of equipment in all HE ...
        1. alexng
          alexng 3 June 2013 12: 55 New
          +7
          Of course, there is a difference between Medzhu and those devisions who stand on alert duty and those who participated in the exercises, and moreover, a huge one. And if so, then for surprise in the traveling version it’s not at all bad to wash the bones in this case is not grateful. Once they began to conduct sudden exercises, the Russian army began to get up from its knees and it pleases.
        2. Black
          Black 3 June 2013 13: 17 New
          +1
          [/ quote
          Quote: klimpopov
          Everything is in the public domain.


          It is not clear why this is freely available. 9 out of 11 - why should everyone know? What's the point?
          1. klimpopov
            klimpopov 3 June 2013 13: 43 New
            +4
            What's the point of hiding? Again, then all the same, it will come out into the network and begin to "hide" "everything is bad" and so on. And here everything is official - how they shot so they shot, the debriefing will be, do not you kindly doubt ...
          2. Yarbay
            Yarbay 3 June 2013 13: 44 New
            0
            Quote: Chen
            It is not clear why this is freely available. 9 out of 11 - why should everyone know? What's the point?

            By the way, I completely agree that this is more harm than good!
      4. Oberst_71
        Oberst_71 3 June 2013 10: 06 New
        0
        Well, lay it out to you. why reveal unnecessary.
    3. Atrix
      Atrix 3 June 2013 10: 42 New
      +5
      Well, to be honest, it can be called a failure. Let's figure it out. At first, the launches and directions of the air defense strike were known, this can be argued with a probability of 99%. Second, all the aerodynamic parameters of the target have long been known to our air defense personnel. And third, as the respected "vaf" already wrote, there was no electronic warfare from the attackers. So it's hard to call it real combat effectiveness. As for me, the first thing is to bring air defense in the field for 2-3 weeks, leave them and let them wait for a strike, use all electronic warfare means to suppress air defense. Imitation of Western counterparts of the attack is, of course, more difficult here. No.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 3 June 2013 11: 44 New
        +4
        And when I asked how he knew that there was no electronic warfare, he said that he participated in the exercises. But not TECH. So do not. And at the expense of direction, it is almost always known. Up to 12 points.
    4. Bronis
      Bronis 3 June 2013 12: 28 New
      +7
      The "polygon" probability of defeat for the S-300 is about 0,9. The result is generally in the range. Tenths are arithmetic. Statistics can be available only with a larger number of targets and powerful electronic warfare (and then the data can become lower, which is generally understandable and relevant for any systems). Now such a super-scale exercise is unrealistic. Expensive, and there is no such number of troops as in the USSR - it will not be possible to transfer a large mass of equipment without damage to the air defense of the Central industrial region. It would scare me more if they said that they shot down 11 of 11 and 3 missiles ...
    5. w.ebdo.g
      w.ebdo.g 3 June 2013 12: 50 New
      +9
      Do you know that portraits of Putin, Lukashenko, Assad, Chavez, Gaddafi are worn on the streets of Paris? Echo of Moscow will not say about this and quietly keep silent on Channel 1: this is a demonstration on February 2, 2013 against imperialism ...
      1. klimpopov
        klimpopov 3 June 2013 13: 47 New
        13
        So what? Figs with them. These are their problems. Let them walk with a portrait of Mao in a coffin. We have their pederasts coming in from behind - that's where you need to worry.
      2. dmitrich
        dmitrich 3 June 2013 15: 49 New
        +3
        about in France there are normal people.
      3. golikov
        golikov 3 June 2013 23: 26 New
        +3
        There used to be an axis of evil. Now "awl for ... evil"
      4. krot00f
        krot00f 5 June 2013 10: 45 New
        0
        Hooray! Soon pi .. owls will be wet. !!!
    6. Leo pard
      Leo pard 3 June 2013 15: 24 New
      -13 qualifying.
      Well, I don’t quite agree with you. Here: http://lubopitniy-1978.livejournal.com/27209.html the exact opposite is said. Quote from there:
      "After which it became clear that the pilots had shot down their missiles (yes, everyone shot down their own surprise missiles!), All five. And out of six (!!!) air defense missiles, two flew to the range. Moreover, they flew in the corridor and on the echelon, carefully selected for interception and shooting down, otherwise the pilots would have screwed up. By the way, it is not known how many calls our pilots made to knock down these missiles. And the rocket - although it flies like a Boeing - but it's not a Boeing, it only needs one hit from an air cannon to do it. But, at the very least, thirty interceptors somehow knocked down their five missiles with grief in half. But the air defense somehow did not work out from the very beginning."
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 3 June 2013 15: 46 New
        +7
        Did this curious Zhzhshnik hold a candle? Or OBS?
      2. krot00f
        krot00f 5 June 2013 10: 50 New
        0
        Bullshit is written. A missile is not enough to hit from an Air Cannon.
  2. Professor
    Professor 3 June 2013 07: 52 New
    22
    9 out of 11 - strong or weak?

    Digits too small for statistics. Now, if we were talking about a hundred targets and launches, then there would have been a completely different conversation.
    1. anip
      anip 3 June 2013 08: 07 New
      +4
      Yes, it’s not even statistics or an indicator of effectiveness.
    2. dominion
      dominion 3 June 2013 08: 28 New
      +9
      I agree, I think in subsequent exercises it is necessary to increase the number of discs launched by our conditional goals by an order of magnitude.
      Simulate, so to speak, a real attack by our "partners" from Tel Aviv and Washington.
      1. fokino1980
        fokino1980 3 June 2013 08: 41 New
        +6
        I think so, for a start, and 11 goals for the exercises are good! We looked at how the system works, saw errors and go ahead for work !!!
      2. Pimply
        Pimply 3 June 2013 14: 21 New
        0
        Well, for starters, then Jerusalem. And secondly, well, if, theoretically, Washington might need it. But why is Jerusalem ???
        1. Mikhail3
          Mikhail3 3 June 2013 20: 08 New
          +7
          What do you mean why?! What about democracy? To say the absolute power of the Israeli people over all obedient government? Who wrote boiling water on the topic of attacking our ships, so that they wouldn’t take you to 300? A good legend for naval exercises is the reflection of an air attack, a torpedo attack on a ship’s warrant, with the subsequent seizure of the ports of a conditional enemy and the destruction of manpower and equipment ... We must definitely learn. You never know what ...
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 3 June 2013 21: 32 New
            +1
            I don’t know who wrote nonsense about attacking Russian ships. Believe me, there are few such fools. Not in the sense that they won’t or will fall, but in the sense of - why?
    3. Phantom Revolution
      Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 08: 43 New
      +4
      Quote: Professor
      Digits too small for statistics. Now, if we were talking about a hundred targets and launches, then there would have been a completely different conversation.

      Well, tell me where you saw the air defense exercises where you used hundreds of targets? Give the ottoman. hi
      1. Professor
        Professor 3 June 2013 09: 00 New
        -2
        Quote: Phantom Revolution
        Well, tell me where you saw the air defense exercises where you used hundreds of targets?

        In addition to the exercises, there is experience of combat use with hundreds of real targets, not targets. Then the calculation does not know at what time and from which direction the shelling will be, and each missed target may be the last for the calculation. Those who fought know how it feels. I will not give statistics on the experience of combat use (it is also known to you) since it does not apply to the topic.

        Quote: Phantom Revolution
        Give the ottoman.

        On foreign forums that you regularly visit, there is a proof and a padded stool. laughing
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 3 June 2013 09: 09 New
          +9
          Quote: Professor
          In addition to the exercises, there is experience of combat use with hundreds of real targets, not targets.

          Who has? Just don’t talk about your "iron kumpol"
          1. vilenich
            vilenich 3 June 2013 10: 13 New
            +4
            Quote: Spade
            Just don’t talk about your "iron kumpol"

            And what theirs "kumpol"!
            We got an efficiency of 82% (which is not bad), as far as I know, the efficiency of "kumpol" is not higher!
          2. Professor
            Professor 3 June 2013 10: 22 New
            +1
            In addition to the LCD that passed the battle test, there is a Patriot 20 years ago that also passed the battle test, which was "somewhat different" from what he demonstrated at the range.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 3 June 2013 10: 32 New
              +5
              Quote: Professor
              In addition to the LCD tested by battle

              Which one? Pipes with powder checkers knocked down?

              Quote: Professor
              Patriot 20 years ago also tested by battle

              When was the air defense complex forced to carry out tasks that were only theoretically available to him?
              1. Professor
                Professor 3 June 2013 10: 40 New
                -8
                Quote: Spade
                Which one? Pipes with powder checkers knocked down?

                LCD discuss here I don’t want, nor what he shot down, how much.
              2. Pimply
                Pimply 3 June 2013 14: 23 New
                -4
                If you look, he recently shot down far from pipes.
                1. leon-iv
                  leon-iv 3 June 2013 14: 49 New
                  +3
                  Zhenya in the studio TTX goals?
                  1. Pimply
                    Pimply 3 June 2013 17: 43 New
                    -2
                    1506 missiles were fired from the Gaza Strip in Israel, the vast majority (at least 875 missiles (58%)) exploded in the open. 58 rockets exploded in urban areas (3,8%). The Iron Dome missile defense intercepted 421 missiles (84%).

                    Actively used Chinese analogues of the Soviet city (Type 90A), Fajr missiles, M75.

                    Fajr-5 - one of the variants of the Chinese missile Weishi WS-1. The missile weighs 915 kg, its length is 6,5 meters, the weight of the warhead is 175 kg, and its diameter is 333 mm.
                    1. aquatic
                      aquatic 4 June 2013 19: 03 New
                      +2
                      as a percentage of what I thought I wouldn’t understand) 1506, 875 is 58% and 421 is 84% ​​amazing next ....
                      1. bddrus
                        bddrus 6 June 2013 10: 40 New
                        0
                        no, 875 is their type and "did not want to catch" because they flew past
            2. Gari
              Gari 3 June 2013 10: 34 New
              20
              Quote: Professor
              In addition to the LCD that passed the battle test, there is a Patriot 20 years ago that also passed the battle test, which was "somewhat different" from what he demonstrated at the range.


              Here's about your Patriot
              Since 1983, these air defense systems have been in service with the US ground forces, supplied to America's NATO allies, as well as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Japan. The Patriot gained wide popularity during the Gulf War. And not even because they have established themselves as a reliable means of air defense, but thanks to a skillfully organized advertising campaign. By the way, not a single enemy aircraft was shot down by them. But the volume of their sales after that war was about $ 3 billion according to the manufacturer.
              During the war in the Persian Gulf zone, the Patriot air defense system was used to combat Iraqi operational-tactical Scud missiles. Their use required a warning from the reconnaissance satellite about the launch of the rocket and the trajectory of its flight. These data were supposed to arrive no later than 90 seconds before the appearance of the warhead on the radar screen. The interception was usually carried out at altitudes of 5-10 km at a distance of 7-15 km from the battery position. Moreover, the warhead was not always completely destroyed, but only the trajectory of its flight changed. The target could also be hit by shrapnel from a destroyed warhead due to the proximity of its interception. In a real combat situation, the effectiveness of the complexes turned out to be half the results of field tests: the probability of hitting a target ranged from 0,4 (according to the estimates of the Soviet General Staff) to 0,6 (according to the Pentagon), versus the range indicators 0,8 - 0,95. In addition, often "Patriot" finished off the "Scud" actually on the ground, at the target, only increasing the damage to the target.
              1. Professor
                Professor 3 June 2013 10: 41 New
                -9
                Quote: Gari
                In a real combat situation, the effectiveness of the complexes turned out to be half the results of the field tests: the probability of hitting a target ranged from 0,4 (according to the estimates of the Soviet General Staff) to 0,6 (according to the Pentagon), against the range of 0,8 - 0,95.

                Now try to estimate these numbers on the object under discussion ...
              2. aksakal
                aksakal 3 June 2013 11: 34 New
                24
                Quote: Gari
                Here's about your Patriot

                Quote: Gari
                By the way, not a single enemy plane was shot down by them.

                - why? Patriots shot down planes during the Iraq campaign ... Their own allies wassat wassat One Tornado and one more. Glitch in the "friend or foe" system wassat Read on Courage.ru, the link is too lazy to look for. Then they were removed from sin away and used to protect Israel. So there is a Patriot real combat aircraft wassat
                By the way, for "hundreds of simultaneous targets" the professor would be nice to know that statistics are made up of hundreds of firings at Sary-Shagan and Ashuluk, and that the S-300 complexes (any complexes) have restrictions on observation channels - at the same time they see limited (according to the S-300 I don't remember, 36 targets in my opinion) and therefore "hundreds of simultaneous" targets - in fact, the attack is incorrect, exceeding the capabilities of the air defense missile system for simultaneous observation. For simultaneous firing of targets, the restrictions are even steeper - only 6 targets.
                But there is a healthy grain in this proposal. The fact is that soon the expiration date of hundreds, if not thousands of missiles standing on alert "three hundred", is coming out. Such "expired" missiles should not be on the COMBAT DESK. Disposal costs a lot of money and several lives of conscripts - took place last year. There were plans to convert part of the expired missiles into targets. So you can experiment with hundreds of simultaneous targets, at the same time usefully write off these hundreds of "expired" missiles.
                It is possible that after this there will be questions on improving the air defense systems when working with a large number of targets, in particular, it may be necessary to improve the horizontal exchange of information on goals between neighboring air defense systems (when one air defense system is underloaded and the other is overloaded, you need to level it out), prioritization of goals, improvements in terms of the speedy release of channels for observation and others. Of course, neither I nor anyone here has accurate information on these algorithms, all of these are assumptions based on logic and common sense, it seems to me that this is the case.
                And if such super-large-scale exercises are carried out, then this can improve the characteristics of Russian air defense systems in the future - after all, it is in the algorithms that all the advantages of Russians sit.
                1. Arkan
                  Arkan 4 June 2013 00: 54 New
                  +1
                  Quote: aksakal
                  The fact is that the expiration date of hundreds, and even thousands of missiles standing on alert "three hundred", is soon going out. Such "expired" missiles should not be on the COMBAT DESK.

                  Well, why not Russia to sell these missiles to the Persians, or to some Lebanese people? The missiles are still good, they have never been used - it’s a pity these are targeting ... laughing
                  1. Refund_SSSR
                    Refund_SSSR 4 June 2013 04: 31 New
                    0
                    Can Ukrainians not? I do not want? so why bother nonsense ?! fool
                  2. aksakal
                    aksakal 4 June 2013 10: 17 New
                    +2
                    Overdue, who will buy? A self-respecting country will not buy, will not risk its own security. Some warring Yemen or Somalia, perhaps ... But again, humanitarian considerations. And why such backward countries of the S-300? They really have no planes, except for helicopters.
              3. poquello
                poquello 3 June 2013 20: 59 New
                +5
                Right I neighing as in the Iraq campaign wandered skads and petriots.
            3. leon-iv
              leon-iv 3 June 2013 10: 45 New
              13
              The Patriot 20 years ago also passed a battle test which was "somewhat different" from what he demonstrated at the training ground.

              Profff here is debatable at all. For they didn’t let 10 pieces per minute like love to do on ashuluk. They didn’t shoot around the 360 ​​gr sector, they didn’t put any kind of interference, but the goal itself was simple. Yes, and the patriot then was kraegov shitty system.
              1. Gari
                Gari 3 June 2013 11: 30 New
                +5
                Quote: leon-iv
                Profff here is debatable at all. For they didn’t let 10 pieces per minute like love to do on ashuluk. They didn’t shoot around the 360 ​​gr sector, they didn’t put any kind of interference, but the goal itself was simple. Yes, and the patriot then was kraegov shitty system.

                Dear leon-iv, you seem to understand, I haven’t just found an article if you can explain, I think
                Professor, it will be interesting for you, Patriot, your sky is guarding, but the S-300 is already ours
                with respect
                1. leon-iv
                  leon-iv 3 June 2013 11: 39 New
                  0
                  throw proof on the article
                  1. Gari
                    Gari 3 June 2013 14: 35 New
                    +2
                    Quote: leon-iv
                    throw proof on the article


                    http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/patriot/patriot.shtml
        2. Phantom Revolution
          Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 09: 15 New
          +6
          Quote: Professor
          In addition to the exercises, there is experience of combat use with hundreds of real targets, not targets. Then the calculation does not know at what time and from which direction the shelling will be, and each missed target may be the last for the calculation. Those who fought know how it feels. I will not give statistics on the experience of combat use (it is also known to you) since it does not apply to the topic.

          They left again in the wilds. You compare, hot to cold, exercises and combat use. It goes without saying that such systems will be suppressed by a large amount of funds, but this does not mean that everyone should shoot 100 targets, although it would not be bad, but not at our budget.
          Quote: Professor
          On foreign forums that you regularly visit, there is a proof and a padded stool. laughing

          So I have not seen such teachings. Maybe you have your own special source wassat .
          PS campaign your pride really hurt that topic?) laughing
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 3 June 2013 09: 23 New
            +7
            And Prokhvessor is touched by any topic that is put in the "plus" of Russia. He is always trying to screw up this "topic".
          2. Professor
            Professor 3 June 2013 10: 31 New
            -7
            Quote: Phantom Revolution
            It goes without saying that such systems will be suppressed by a large amount of funds, but this does not mean that everyone should shoot 100 targets, although it would not be bad, but not at our budget.

            Did you learn probability theory? What about the statistics? Do you know what a confidence level and small numbers statistical analysis are? With how many tests can statistics be made at all? 11 trials do not talk about anything at all, about any statistics (neither good nor bad), nor about any probability. Those who believe that 9 out of 11 is an interception probability of 80% do not understand anything at all in probability, like those who insist that the tests failed.

            They would ask about this in foreign forums - there, for your information, a statistics course is required for study at technical universities. Have you been informed about this? wink
            1. Phantom Revolution
              Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 10: 39 New
              +9
              Quote: Professor
              They would ask about this in foreign forums - there, for your information, a statistics course is required for study at technical universities. Have you been informed about this? wink

              You would first find exercises with hundreds of targets in foreign forums. laughing
              And then they talked about statistics. Probability theory forgot to mention). laughing
              About the military use, well, it's not my fault that Israel screams about the imbalance and that the c-300 is an offensive weapon))))
              1. Professor
                Professor 3 June 2013 10: 46 New
                -10 qualifying.
                Quote: Phantom Revolution
                You would first find exercises with hundreds of targets in foreign forums.

                As soon as you tell me how many samples it is customary to start counting statistics, I will immediately give you an example of such a mass test abroad. Foreign forums to help you. wink
                1. Phantom Revolution
                  Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 14: 29 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Professor
                  As soon as you tell me how many samples it is customary to start counting statistics, I will immediately give you an example of such a mass test abroad. Foreign forums to help you. wink

                  Clearly, you do not have this data. laughing . Strange you still try to set conditions. Alas, when you know the answer to a question, you clearly and clearly answer, and when you do not know, go into the wilds, alas, the second option is already going on as a trend. hi
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 3 June 2013 14: 34 New
                    -10 qualifying.
                    Quote: Phantom Revolution
                    Clearly, you do not have this data.

                    There is data and, as promised, I will post it as soon as you answer the elementary question:
                    with how many samples it is customary to start reading statistics
                    Ask at a foreign forum if one of the one can this be considered 100%? And two of the two is already 100%? wink
                    1. Phantom Revolution
                      Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 16: 59 New
                      0
                      Quote: Professor
                      There is data and, as promised, I will post it as soon as you answer the elementary question:
                      with how many samples it is customary to start reading statistics
                      Ask in a foreign forum if one of the one can this be considered 100%? And two of the two is already 100%? wink

                      No, really. My question was the first, so please follow the order. hi
                      When you deign to answer, then you will receive the long-awaited answer to your question wink about statistics numbers. Or will we continue to go into the wilds further?)
            2. JIaIIoTb
              JIaIIoTb 3 June 2013 13: 08 New
              +6
              Sorry professor could not resist. Statistics are of course needed. But how your pilots will feel knowing that out of 11 two (maybe) will return. By the way, planes are easier to beat.
              1. Professor
                Professor 3 June 2013 14: 18 New
                -4
                Quote: JIaIIoTb
                Sorry professor could not resist. Statistics are of course needed. But how your pilots will feel knowing that out of 11 two (maybe) will return. By the way, planes are easier to beat.

                I'm sorry. It would be more correct to formulate. But how your pilots will feel knowing that out of 11 CRs two (maybe) goals will be achieved.

                Quote: JIaIIoTb
                By the way, planes are easier to beat.

                This is when the aircraft stupidly as targets rod in the air defense position without using electronic warfare, etc. request
                1. JIaIIoTb
                  JIaIIoTb 3 June 2013 15: 39 New
                  +2
                  Professor. You are right about the "rod stupidly without a rail", but in theory, imagine that our specialists are sitting on the complexes in Syria, who CAN reduce the losses from the rail and, accordingly, will deliver an EXACT hit on your aircraft. Are your pilots ready to die en masse for your government's support of any rabble? A hypothetical question about Our calculations.
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 3 June 2013 16: 24 New
                    -2
                    Quote: JIaIIoTb
                    Professor. You are right about the "rod stupidly without a rail", but in theory, imagine that our specialists are sitting on the complexes in Syria, who CAN reduce the losses from the rail and, accordingly, will deliver an EXACT hit on your aircraft.

                    In the exercises discussed in this article, it was not the Syrians who were sitting at the consoles, and if the S-300s themselves were the target of the attack, then the two penetrating missiles would have destroyed them.

                    Quote: JIaIIoTb
                    Are your pilots ready to die en masse for your Government's support of any rabble.

                    The Israeli government does not support any side of the Syrian conflict (even within the government itself there are disagreements about who should perhaps be supported). Israel does not supply any material and technical assistance, does not train militants and does not finance anyone.
                    Israeli pilots are ready to die for its Homeland своих children, etc. and not for "allies".

                    Quote: JIaIIoTb
                    The question is hypothetical at the expense of our calculations.

                    Counterquestion. How many Russian guys are you willing to sacrifice for the sake of maintaining the Assad regime?
                    1. leon-iv
                      leon-iv 3 June 2013 16: 32 New
                      +4
                      In the exercises discussed in this article, it was not Syrians who were sitting at the consoles, and if the S-300 were the target of the attack, then the two penetrating missiles would have destroyed

                      KR on a mobile complex that will cover the shell? I somehow do not believe much.
                      1. Professor
                        Professor 3 June 2013 20: 35 New
                        -3
                        As Shells have shown themselves in Syria, it’s already known, but at the expense of mobility, here’s how the Kyrgyz Republic works for a mobile target.

                    2. JIaIIoTb
                      JIaIIoTb 3 June 2013 16: 53 New
                      +9
                      Quote: Professor
                      Counterquestion. How many Russian guys are you willing to sacrifice for the sake of maintaining the Assad regime?

                      Counter-answer: We are not flying to bomb targets in Syria.
                      1. Pimply
                        Pimply 3 June 2013 21: 34 New
                        -6
                        Assad himself bombing targets in Syria;)
                    3. Kirgudum
                      Kirgudum 3 June 2013 17: 00 New
                      +8
                      The Israeli government does not support any side of the Syrian conflict
                      - especially this "non-support is expressed in your bombardment of warehouses with Syrian weapons, which were supposedly intended for Hezbollah (no matter how much I ask you and other Israelis to give proof of this - in response, at best, a neurotic mooing or reference to" secret intelligence data ").
                      1. Professor
                        Professor 3 June 2013 20: 37 New
                        -9
                        Quote: Kirgudum
                        - especially this "non-support is expressed in your bombardment of warehouses with Syrian weapons, which were supposedly intended for Hezbollah (no matter how much I ask you and other Israelis to give proof of this - in response, at best, a neurotic mooing or reference to" secret intelligence data ").

                        If you’ve already begun to say JACOB, then do not forget to add especially this "non-support is expressed Allegedly in your bombing of Syrian weapons depots
                      2. Kirgudum
                        Kirgudum 5 June 2013 13: 29 New
                        +2
                        How did you sing?
                        Well, you have not been able to prove that Syria somehow helped the terrorists. I will not say that "prove the guilt of Syria in court", I will simply say that you simply do not have any evidence of this - not only for the court, but even for the yellow rag.
                        How do you think. when you have another terrorist attack, should I gloat. as vfa now, saying "and first prove in court that it is those whom you consider guilty to blame"?

                        My opinion, professor, you have turned from a debating opponent into a cynical troll. And I see, many share it on this site.
                      3. Professor
                        Professor 5 June 2013 14: 05 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Kirgudum
                        My opinion, professor, you have turned from a debating opponent into a cynical troll. And I see, many share it on this site

                        I have a suggestion for you - add me to the black list since there is no worse punishment for a troll than ignoring. hi
                2. poquello
                  poquello 3 June 2013 21: 16 New
                  +4
                  "The Israeli government does not support either side of the Syrian conflict (even within the government itself, there are disagreements over who should be supported). Israel does not supply any material technical assistance, does not train militants and does not finance anyone."

                  It would not hurt to apologize for the erroneous goals of a random attack and compensate Syria and people for the damage.
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 3 June 2013 21: 18 New
                    -8
                    Quote: poquello
                    It would not hurt to apologize for the erroneous goals of a random attack and compensate Syria and people for the damage.

                    Let them sue and prove that it was Israel that bombed.
                  2. poquello
                    poquello 3 June 2013 22: 19 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Professor
                    Quote: poquello
                    It would not hurt to apologize for the erroneous goals of a random attack and compensate Syria and people for the damage.

                    Let them sue and prove that it was Israel that bombed.

                    In general, this is your relationship with them, and you all look at Uncle Sam and his world community.
                    Little boy complex?
                  3. ultra
                    ultra 4 June 2013 16: 34 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Professor
                    Let them sue and prove that it was Israel that bombed.

                    This is a frank flood!
                  4. Professor
                    Professor 4 June 2013 21: 58 New
                    -3
                    Quote: ultra
                    This is a frank flood!

                    And this is not a flood for you? request
                    Quote: poquello
                    It would not hurt to apologize for the erroneous goals of a random attack and compensate Syria and people for the damage.
              2. Pimply
                Pimply 3 June 2013 21: 34 New
                -7
                Not to support the party does not mean not to defend your interests and eliminate threats.
              3. poquello
                poquello 3 June 2013 22: 36 New
                +3
                Quote: Pimply
                Not to support the party does not mean not to defend your interests and eliminate threats.


                If you have about the last attack, then your habits are worse than in the remote Siberian taiga. There, a man with a gun, meeting another with a gun, keeps him on the fly until they disperse along their roads. And according to this logic - I saw shoot.
      2. Airman
        Airman 3 June 2013 18: 03 New
        +6
        [quote = JIaIIoTb] By the way, planes are easier to beat. [/ quote]
        This is when the aircraft stupidly as targets rod in the air defense position without using electronic warfare, etc. request[/ Quote]

        As soon as REP containers are hung on planes, the bomb load drops sharply. Aircraft - jammers, destroyed in the first place, especially since radars with phased array can very clearly identify the jammer. Pilots of jamming aircraft, kamikaze.
        1. atalef
          atalef 3 June 2013 18: 17 New
          -10 qualifying.
          Quote: Povshnik
          As soon as containers are hung on planes RAP

          Companions jammed to the eyeballs by different Eminem. wassat
          In general, it’s time for an air defense engineer to know the difference between electronic warfare and electronic warfare

          Quote: Povshnik
          . And airplanes - jammers, are destroyed first of all, especially since radars with phased arrays can very clearly identify the jammer

          Only fuck to interfere, if radars and so everything is visible
          1. Airman
            Airman 3 June 2013 18: 42 New
            +9
            [/ Quote]
            Companions jammed to the eyeballs by different Eminem. wassat
            In general, it’s time for an air defense engineer to know the difference between electronic warfare and electronic warfare

            [/ Quote]

            It’s time to know that the containers of REP (electronic countermeasures) are hung on the plane and not the fight.
            1. atalef
              atalef 3 June 2013 19: 32 New
              -4
              Quote: Povshnik
              It’s time to know that the containers of REP (electronic countermeasures) are hung on the plane and not the fight.

              If so, sorry. repeat
              But all the same cool.
          2. Pimply
            Pimply 3 June 2013 21: 26 New
            -1
            And here you Sasha, ate 8)
          3. The comment was deleted.
        2. Professor
          Professor 3 June 2013 20: 42 New
          -5
          Quote: Povshnik
          As soon as REP containers are hung on planes, the bomb load drops sharply. Aircraft - jammers, destroyed in the first place, especially since radars with phased array can very clearly identify the jammer. Pilots of jamming aircraft, kamikaze.

          The combat load of the F-16 is about 5 tons, even if the container of electronic warheads weighs a ton (but a very large container), then there will be 4 more tons of bombs and missiles.
          Pilots of jamming airplanes are not kamikaze, they are nerds, so these planes have been unmanned for 30 years. Remember how it was in Bekaa?
  3. Airman
    Airman 3 June 2013 17: 44 New
    +4
    [quote = professor] [/ quote]
    Did you learn probability theory? What about the statistics? Do you know what a confidence level and small numbers statistical analysis are? With how many tests can statistics be made at all? 11 trials do not talk about anything at all, about any statistics (neither good nor bad), nor about any probability. Those who believe that 9 out of 11 is an interception probability of 80% do not understand anything at all in probability, like those who insist that the tests failed.

    They would ask about this in foreign forums - there, for your information, a statistics course is required for study at technical universities. Have you been informed about this? wink[/ Quote]

    Professor, even 2 starts, one successful, the other not, this is already statistics - 50%.
    1. Professor
      Professor 3 June 2013 20: 49 New
      -3
      Unfortunately you are wrong. If you performed 2 tests and one succeeded, then the yro has no statistics yet. For example, if only one test was performed and it succeeded (100% success?) Does this mean that the next will succeed too? What is the likelihood of success? 100%? Nothing like this. In the first year of the bourgeois polytechnic in the subject of introduction to statistics, they study this. In order to talk about at least some statistics, it is necessary to conduct an X (let the phantom sweat on foreign forums) trials (throw in a personal). hi
      1. Airman
        Airman 4 June 2013 10: 45 New
        +1
        Quote: Professor
        Unfortunately you are wrong. If you performed 2 tests and one succeeded, then the yro has no statistics yet. For example, if only one test was performed and it succeeded (100% success?) Does this mean that the next will succeed too? What is the likelihood of success? 100%? Nothing like this. In the first year of the bourgeois polytechnic in the subject of introduction to statistics, they study this. In order to talk about at least some statistics, it is necessary to conduct an X (let the phantom sweat on foreign forums) trials (throw in a personal). hi


        Statistics only take into account what "happened", not what "might happen." Statistics and probability theory are different things.
        1. Professor
          Professor 4 June 2013 10: 52 New
          -1
          Quote: Povshnik
          Statistics only take into account what "happened", not what "might happen." Statistics and probability theory are different things.

          Let's pretend that you did not write this, but I did not see this? wink
          1. krot00f
            krot00f 5 June 2013 13: 04 New
            0
            I read you and it’s not entirely clear, you say that the sample size is small, but what about the calculation methods with a small sample size? It is clear that for small and large samples the laws will be different. Ultimately, the reasons why they didn’t get shot down are not clear. maybe they shouldn’t have brought down?
            1. Professor
              Professor 5 June 2013 13: 52 New
              -1
              Quote: krot00f
              But what about calculation methods with a small volume of samples?

              I've been waiting for the Phantom to find out on foreign sites the "minimum sample size". In any case, 9 out of 11 does not mean anything.
  • Oberst_71
    Oberst_71 3 June 2013 10: 15 New
    20
    For example, they launched not hundreds, but only 16:
    in early August 1991, the boat went to sea. Together with the crew, Rear Admiral Leonid Salnikov and General Designer of the ship Sergey Kovalev were on board the ship to see with their own eyes what no one else had succeeded in.
    And so at 21 pm Moscow time, the first R-9RM missile (SS-N-50 'Skif' according to NATO classification) set off from a depth of 29 meters upward. A few seconds later, the second, then the third ... And so all sixteen missiles were fired in just a couple of minutes. No country in the world has yet been able to repeat anything like this. Our fleet has proved that the nuclear submarine is a formidable combat unit, not only in the minds of ordinary people. After all, such a volley in a war with one blow could cover an entire state ..
    1. Phantom Revolution
      Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 10: 31 New
      +1
      Quote: Oberst_71
      For example, they launched not hundreds, but only 16:
      in early August 1991, the boat went to sea. Together with the crew, Rear Admiral Leonid Salnikov and General Designer of the ship Sergey Kovalev were on board the ship to see with their own eyes what no one else had succeeded in.
      And so at 21 pm Moscow time, the first R-9RM missile (SS-N-50 'Skif' according to NATO classification) set off from a depth of 29 meters upward. A few seconds later, the second, then the third ... And so all sixteen missiles were fired in just a couple of minutes. No country in the world has yet been able to repeat anything like this. Our fleet has proved that the nuclear submarine is a formidable combat unit, not only in the minds of ordinary people. After all, such a volley in a war with one blow could cover an entire state ..

      I don’t understand what does Operation Begemot have to do with launching ballistic missiles and air defense exercises?
    2. JIaIIoTb
      JIaIIoTb 3 June 2013 13: 24 New
      +4
      Quote: Oberst_71
      After all, such a salvo in a war could cover a whole state with one blow ..

      Slightly correct, not the state but the mainland. One volley from one TARKSN is enough to end any war and finish off the entire planet. Only this threat also saves us.
    3. Denis
      Denis 4 June 2013 02: 29 New
      +1
      huge to you + and respect!
  • berimor
    berimor 3 June 2013 12: 49 New
    +9
    It is truth too! The battles of S-125 in Egypt (1970-1971) and in Syria (1973) with Israeli aircraft (I participated in these events) showed that the defeat of enemy aircraft (which, incidentally, was like no other) really reached the level of 50-60 % This is despite the fact that the knowledge of our calculations of the time was several orders of magnitude higher than today. In those days, each ZRDN approximately every 2 to 3 years, carried out real live firing in either Ashaluk or Saryshagan.
  • dominion
    dominion 3 June 2013 09: 13 New
    +2
    Hundreds of educational goals are a must.
    Since in reality thousands of cruise missiles from ships, submarines and aircraft of the enemy will fly at us in one gulp.
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 3 June 2013 09: 25 New
      10
      Why not millions? They will all fly for different purposes. In different areas. Each of these areas will have its own air defense. Which, on average, will have several dozen goals.
      1. Hey
        Hey 3 June 2013 16: 02 New
        +2
        According to the latest data from the Ministry of Defense, during the exercises, up to 2000 civil aviation aircraft were observed in the adjacent areas, including foreign ones that do not naturally have our identifiers "friend or foe".
      2. Airman
        Airman 3 June 2013 18: 23 New
        +3
        Quote: alicante11
        Why not millions? They will all fly for different purposes. In different areas. Each of these areas will have its own air defense. Which, on average, will have several dozen goals.


        The meaning of a breakthrough in an air defense system is the massive use of air attack weapons on a narrow front section. If the complex’s working time is the longer the working time, the smaller the number of targets the complex can fire, and vice versa. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to break through the defense in depth, including aviation.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 3 June 2013 21: 29 New
          0
          Right. But it must be a truly multi-level complex and powerful air force. There are not many countries in the world capable of building such a defense. Russia, however, is one of them.
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 3 June 2013 09: 27 New
      +3
      This "necessity" will cost 250-300 million rubles
      1. evfrat
        evfrat 3 June 2013 11: 13 New
        +6
        And them, as luck would have it, Serdyukov stole ....))
        1. Airman
          Airman 3 June 2013 18: 52 New
          +3
          Quote: evfrat
          And them, as luck would have it, Serdyukov stole ....))


          He then stole more, with that money it was possible to arm 2-3 BUK-M2 brigades
          1. sergeschern
            sergeschern 5 June 2013 19: 43 New
            0
            And how do you like this digital: -------------------------------------------- ----
            Comment text
            ------------------------------------------------

            June 5, 2013, 16:05 (Moscow time) | Events | Kommersant-Online
            Former deputy of Moscow regional Duma, chairman of the board of directors of the Petrovskoye breeding plant Vasily Dupak was sentenced to 6 years probation and a fine of 1 million rubles. The official was found guilty of land fraud, the damage from which amounted to 15 billion rubles.
            -
    3. Phantom Revolution
      Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 09: 29 New
      +4
      Quote: dominion
      Hundreds of educational goals are a must.
      Since in reality thousands of cruise missiles from ships, submarines and aircraft of the enemy will fly at us in one gulp.

      In reality, if there is a war against the United States, not only cruise missiles, but also ballistic missiles will fly, from which no air defense will save.
      But in fact, can you imagine how many X-NUMX vehicles will need to be used for such exercises and how many rockets to shoot? Everything would be great, only we don’t print money and no one conducts such exercises.
      1. Check
        Check 3 June 2013 12: 38 New
        +2
        Quote: Phantom Revolution
        In reality, if there is a war against the United States, not only cruise missiles, but also ballistic missiles will fly, from which no air defense will save.


        I’m not sure what is possible, because they are aware that there is a Perimeter System
      2. Pimply
        Pimply 3 June 2013 14: 26 New
        -9
        You can predict not the United States. China is much more likely.
      3. Airman
        Airman 3 June 2013 19: 06 New
        0
        Quote: Phantom Revolution
        Quote: dominion
        Hundreds of educational goals are a must.
        Since in reality thousands of cruise missiles from ships, submarines and aircraft of the enemy will fly at us in one gulp.

        In reality, if there is a war against the United States, not only cruise missiles, but also ballistic missiles will fly, from which no air defense will save.
        But in fact, can you imagine how many X-NUMX vehicles will need to be used for such exercises and how many rockets to shoot? Everything would be great, only we don’t print money and no one conducts such exercises.


        When conducting training firing at the firing range, missiles with expiring expiration dates are fired, after several extensions of their operational life. The so-called recycling launch.
    4. klimpopov
      klimpopov 3 June 2013 09: 46 New
      +5
      There were hundreds of targets with only a lot of electronic launches ...
      1. Phantom Revolution
        Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 10: 09 New
        0
        Quote: klimpopov
        There were hundreds of targets with only a lot of electronic launches ...

        By the way, everyone forgot about electronic ones. But in essence this is also no less an imitation.
    5. Check
      Check 3 June 2013 12: 33 New
      0
      Well, for starters, the enemy must come to the right distance, which again is not so simple.
  • berimor
    berimor 3 June 2013 12: 40 New
    +3
    Absolutely correct!!!! There have never been more than 20 real targets for my service. The rest, as mentioned earlier, is either a crediting task for the combat work of the command post for so-called "paper" targets or for real aviation, acting according to a single concept as targets with disabling the "friend or foe" identification systems. In this case, the anti-aircraft missile launcher is fired with an electronic shot with further confirmation of the point of detection, launch and meeting of the missile for the purpose of objective control documents (these are tracing papers or maps of target wiring, schemes for firing anti-aircraft missile systems or interception of aircraft, photo control materials, barospidograms of aircraft flight simulating enemy aviation.
  • Oberst_71
    Oberst_71 3 June 2013 10: 08 New
    0
    hundreds of starts is money.
  • ed65b
    ed65b 3 June 2013 10: 17 New
    0
    Well yes. as with a dome. who knocked down the self-propelled guns.
  • Pimply
    Pimply 3 June 2013 14: 20 New
    -4
    And other data are not enough. Under what conditions the exercises were conducted, on what type of goals.
    1. poquello
      poquello 3 June 2013 21: 48 New
      +2
      Quote: Pimply
      And other data are not enough. Under what conditions the exercises were conducted, on what type of goals.


      Especially for you I explain. The official report of Kozhugedovich is an opium for the public, as well as other official reports of other persons.
  • urich
    urich 3 June 2013 15: 08 New
    0
    I generally think that the very fact that the general public was informed of real results is already an achievement. They would have said nothing, no one would have known that two goals were missed. So all that we are discussing here takes place only if there is a fact of disclosed information.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 3 June 2013 23: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: urich
      no one would know that two goals were missed.

      Good evening. When summing up the results of the exercises on air defense, the fleet’s report on the analysis indicates: how many are air defense centers, of which - shot down, FIRED, not shot down.
      Many times, being a controller, I watched the detonation of missiles at a target, which sank, caught fire, but, burning, continued to fly. Crossed the order line and fell after a couple of kilometers. This "P-120" was considered not shot down. Hopefully, the shtatovskiye RCs are more tender, and after the detonation of the warhead, the missile defense systems will not continue to execute the BZ as our "targets".
      It is a pity that nothing is known about the type of targets, how many of them were fired, how much the flight continued after that. If there are such (most likely!), Then we can be proud of the vitality of our KR!
  • avant-garde
    avant-garde 3 June 2013 08: 04 New
    +8
    The chicken is pecking, everything will gradually improve and the exercises will become regular and 99 out of 100 goals will be hit, or you’ll look at 100%. Most importantly, we are off the ground.
    1. Phantom Revolution
      Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 08: 51 New
      +7
      I agree, we’ll catch up on our own) This is better than in the 90s.
    2. Phantom Revolution
      Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 09: 37 New
      +7
      Here's another video, an interesting sound from the engine of twinks.
      1. dominion
        dominion 3 June 2013 09: 46 New
        -9
        If our flyers lose weight, we could still hang missiles on the fuselage smile
        1. Phantom Revolution
          Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 09: 58 New
          0
          Well, I don’t think that a person’s body weight plays a critical role, even dropping 20 kg, what kind of missiles would they hang?)
          P-40 - only the mass of the warhead 38 kg, and the rocket itself weighs about 455 kg)
          if only the P-60 and then with an interference))) But you have to lose weight to a dystrophic state, only the pilot’s problem will not be allowed to fly the plane)
          1. dominion
            dominion 3 June 2013 10: 03 New
            +3
            This is of course a joke, but some comrades would need to lose body weight, officers still. Yes, and good for health.
            1. Phantom Revolution
              Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 10: 16 New
              10
              Quote: dominion
              This is of course a joke, but some comrades would need to lose body weight, officers still. Yes, and good for health.

              This is true, I don’t remember where the acquaintance served, but honestly they didn’t communicate for a long time in reconnaissance under the yulan, so there the commander of the unit every day 10 km in the morning and was in great shape, such should be all army ranks, not pot-bellied bags that cannot pull up 10 times. All senior ranks should set an example.
              1. evfrat
                evfrat 3 June 2013 11: 22 New
                +1
                You are more careful, otherwise even Zhukov at one time, who decided to fight the "belly", was leaked to Khrushch, who were comrades, so to speak ...
      2. Fofan
        Fofan 3 June 2013 22: 06 New
        0
        Quote: Phantom Revolution
        Here's another video, an interesting sound from the engine of twinks.

        ahaha! and rusty-rusty radome fairing a-50 and wooden computer nl-10! funny as a brick, but deadly like a blow with this brick in the face!
  • idealist
    idealist 3 June 2013 08: 11 New
    +1
    To conduct such events more often, and I’m sure that the result will be much better
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 3 June 2013 08: 50 New
      27
      Quote: idealist
      To conduct such events more often, and I’m sure that the result will be much better

      - Will be. The trouble is that these soldiers will leave for the DMB, new, untrained ones will come - and they will allow the same jambs, the same missed 2 missiles. Well, here I don’t know, either to change the training method somehow, or to put down the pros for managing the complex, and conscripts only at the pick-up - reload missiles into containers (loading and unloading, in short), drivers and others.
      The VAF announced that "9 out of 11" is a "disgusting result"! No more no less! But 9 out of 11 is almost 0.82! For comparison, if the VAF makes such a verdict to the anti-aircraft gunners, then in response we will climb into his garden. Russian melee missiles for air-to-air fighters have a coefficient of only 0.6! Amer missiles AIM-120 - higher, 0.7-0.8! Let me remind you that the firing discussed in the SABJ was carried out according to the principle "1 missile - 1 target". How pale a critic of the VAF would look if his interceptors were erased like this, according to the principle "1 missile - 1 target." But the manufacturer of the air defense missile system itself determined the probability of destruction according to this principle of the S-300 at the level of 0.8-0.9 and therefore recommends launching two missiles at the target! In this situation, not a single rocket would have passed!
      And yet - the vaunted amerskih "Patriots" do not have such a coefficient - 0.82! When the Iraqis attacked Israel in scads, we saw their Patriots in action! wassat wassat
      So I would not rush to assess the "disgusting result". Considering that no one obliges you to defend on the principle of "one missile-one target" in a real battle, given that fighters are. that they have successfully intercepted everyone, they will work on the same, making up the first echelon of defense, given that the third echelon will be short-range and ultra-short-range air defense systems - why panic? Let amers look at this matter, at these 9 out of 11 and draw the correct conclusions. And the correct conclusion is that you should not meddle, they will wet you, they don’t even see what your wunderwaffle is called there - an eagle, a predator or a stratospheric fortress, they just wet it and that's it.
      1. kartalovkolya
        kartalovkolya 3 June 2013 09: 01 New
        0
        Good girl, I completely agree with you: they write all sorts of nonsense or spiteful critics, or not quite adequate, so they’ll go to the clinic ...
      2. leon-iv
        leon-iv 3 June 2013 09: 06 New
        +5
        The VAF announced that "9 out of 11" is a "disgusting result"! No more no less!

        with all due respect to the VAF, I would not have affirmed this way without seeing the introduction and the legends of these teachings. Well, what on ashuluk can TKOE arrange, both for interference and for the target situation
        Amer missiles AIM-120 - higher, 0.7-0.8!

        if this is a SD rocket and the question is at what range and at what height is such a probability?
        Threat Gospola without a legend has nothing to say.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 3 June 2013 09: 15 New
          0
          Quote: leon-iv
          with all due respect to the VAF, I would not have affirmed so without seeing the introduction and the legends of these teachings.

          Here you need to know the allocated number of missiles. This is not a war, exercises.
          1. leon-iv
            leon-iv 3 June 2013 09: 18 New
            +1
            This is not a war, exercises.

            oh well, so I think the raid was immediately mass and so without TZMok generalized IMHO. And again, you need to look at what type of targets, because each one has different missile consumption.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 3 June 2013 09: 29 New
              0
              I think so, they allocated one missile per target, the most likely option.
              1. leon-iv
                leon-iv 3 June 2013 09: 36 New
                0
                I think so, they allocated one missile per target, the most likely option.

                the question is who? Training manager / mediator / division commander / crew? Who?
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 3 June 2013 09: 49 New
                  +2
                  There are norms. And in accordance with them, a certain number of missiles is allocated by the RAV service. The rates are roughly as follows: N missiles per battery per year. Norms are interesting. I remember the anti-tank complained - he had 12 missiles a year. On a battery of 9 installations. Distribute as you know.
      3. vilenich
        vilenich 3 June 2013 10: 37 New
        +3
        Quote: aksakal
        The trouble is that these soldiers will leave for the DMB, new, untrained ones will come - and they will allow the same jambs, the same missed 2 missiles.

        Something I deeply doubt that there conscripts were allowed to prepare data and launch missiles. So you just need to improve the training of personnel, and completely agree with the rest.
        1. aksakal
          aksakal 3 June 2013 13: 57 New
          +5
          Quote: vilenich
          Something I deeply doubt that there conscripts were allowed to prepare data and launch missiles. So you just need to improve the training of personnel, and completely agree with the rest.

          - Well, when I served, they shot in Sary-Shagan, there were conscripts - we, that is, we shot ourselves and got our well-deserved five. All targets were shot down, and under different conditions of introduction. We had S-200, single targets, the principle - "one missile - one target", for one combat crew (PU), in our unit there were three divisions - one missile each. Have the pros missed two out of 11 targets? Wow Wow!
      4. Kamchadal
        Kamchadal 3 June 2013 17: 19 New
        +1
        )))... well said....)....
      5. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 3 June 2013 17: 43 New
        -2
        Regarding the Patriots, let me say that it has undergone modernization twice during this period, including due to the shortcomings revealed during the combat use. Look for the SM-3 Patriot variant.
        But the question that interests me and that no one raised is, and how many missiles were hit by targets? If 11 air defense missiles were fired at 11 targets, shooting down 9 is a very good option. And if for example 18, then it's mediocre.
        1. Aljavad
          Aljavad 6 June 2013 04: 10 New
          0
          The Supreme (to the press chamber) was informed of the average result of training exercises. No unnecessary details. The average temperature in the hospital. And you are already building global concepts.
  • VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 3 June 2013 08: 20 New
    +3
    Probably it should be understood that air defense covers, but not completely protects. To achieve 100% success, it is worth attracting other forces - electronic warfare, electronic warfare, tactical missile systems, the air force and our cruise missiles (for striking at carriers of cruise missiles, both air and ground)
    1. PROXOR
      PROXOR 3 June 2013 10: 47 New
      0
      Quote: VohaAhov
      Probably it should be understood that air defense covers, but not completely protects. To achieve 100% success, it is worth attracting other forces - electronic warfare, electronic warfare, tactical missile systems, the air force and our cruise missiles (for striking at carriers of cruise missiles, both air and ground)

      Precisely speaking. C300 and C400 are the final defense level. ICBMs should still be found in outer space.
      1. Mikhail m
        Mikhail m 3 June 2013 13: 37 New
        0
        Start ICBMs - the cranks of civilization. At least meet me.
        1. Aljavad
          Aljavad 6 June 2013 04: 04 New
          0
          this is what dear comrade Eun is up to. Fear Ooooh!
          But the Japanese, and after two "launches" did not consider that her civilization was the end.
  • omsbon
    omsbon 3 June 2013 08: 20 New
    +6
    More often exercises - higher results.
    Immediately and suddenly a 100% result, this does not happen. You need to learn!
  • rugor
    rugor 3 June 2013 08: 21 New
    +2
    It’s hard to learn, easy in battle.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 3 June 2013 23: 26 New
      +2
      Quote: rugor
      It’s hard to learn, easy in battle.

      The fact of the matter is that it’s not easy in battle. They also kill there. And everyone remembers that. Therefore, the Arabs and jumped out of the control cabins. But the Cubans, even the wounded, continued to work ...
  • Tirpitz
    Tirpitz 3 June 2013 08: 27 New
    +6
    No army in the world has 100% protection against missiles. and will never have. The only option is to destroy the carriers, but even here 100% of the result is difficult to achieve, and when the missiles go to the goal, then here the map will fall. The main thing is that there is something to strive for.
    1. 101
      101 3 June 2013 23: 00 New
      0
      Quote: Tirpitz
      no army in the world has protection against missiles.

      Both both armies should have 100% protection. If we shot down their missiles and they didn’t succeed, it means we tried in vain.
      1. Aljavad
        Aljavad 6 June 2013 04: 01 New
        0
        good post for 1980 And if the war is even nuclear, but not global? And such a mother ...
  • Aeneas
    Aeneas 3 June 2013 08: 28 New
    +2
    the result is good. There is no such air defense zone that is so saturated with air defense systems and other complexes (radar, RTR, electronic warfare) that is tactically organized on Ashuluk during exercises, in Russia. Well, maybe around Moscow.
    1. Phantom Revolution
      Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 08: 54 New
      +1
      Which non-belligerent countries have such a density?
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 3 June 2013 09: 07 New
        +1
        and the warring?
        current LCD Rafael with obscure data. Yes, and his goals are elementary.
        1. Phantom Revolution
          Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 09: 21 New
          0
          Well, how can I say, although the goals are elementary, the system is pretty good for their database conditions. But in fact, there is no such air defense as around Moscow, no one.
          1. leon-iv
            leon-iv 3 June 2013 09: 38 New
            +1
            Well, how can I say, although the goals are elementary, the system is pretty good for their database conditions

            it is controversial, for example, for example, they did not answer a number of questions on the channel regarding the number of targets fired, etc., etc. But without these data it makes no sense to say.
            1. Phantom Revolution
              Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 10: 26 New
              +1
              Quote: leon-iv
              it is controversial, for example, for example, they did not answer a number of questions on the channel regarding the number of targets fired, etc., etc. But without these data it makes no sense to say.

              Well, judging by the way she shot down Kasama, she went through baptism of fire pretty well. As for the characteristics, they will not be disclosed to you.) In controversy, this is better than if the 400 Kasams fell in cities. Let's just say that all countries like to overestimate the characteristics of their products, but about the dome I will say this system pays for itself, it is much cheaper than a fallen rocket in the city, and even there we say lives are more expensive and their calculations are different.
              1. leon-iv
                leon-iv 3 June 2013 10: 48 New
                0
                Let's just say that all countries like to overestimate the characteristics of their products, but about the dome I will say this system pays for itself, it is much cheaper than a fallen rocket in the city, and even there we say lives are more expensive and their calculations are different.

                Yes, it’s not for me that Rafael made the system that he was ordered to, in principle, was well-tuned for the tasks; no one needs to intercept the division of the city from her. Here the questions are in the TTX.
                1. Phantom Revolution
                  Phantom Revolution 3 June 2013 14: 05 New
                  0
                  Well, TTX will not be told to you here) This is a secret, it is possible only at the level of rumors and speculation to find.)
  • individual
    individual 3 June 2013 08: 29 New
    0
    When summarizing the results of the exercises and the result - two missiles were not intercepted, shows the real state of affairs in air defense / missile defense.
    The two missiles "reached the target" sets the task of revising Russia's defense initiatives. The exercises were held in order to see the real state of affairs in the defense department of air and missile defense.
    To give an assessment, duty of inspectors.
    The Ministry of Defense should take into account that there is a "hole" in the defense and effectively "patch" it.
    1. Aljavad
      Aljavad 6 June 2013 03: 56 New
      0
      2 GOALS, and these are not always rockets.
  • alicante11
    alicante11 3 June 2013 08: 31 New
    0
    And it seems to me that this is a question about nothing at all. Where did the targets break through, what are the targets, which of the defended objects did they hit and what damage did they inflict? If these were missiles or UAVs, then maybe they were rejected by electronic warfare, if they were aircraft, then which ones, how much damage could they cause, were they able to work on the main targets or were they forced to hit the secondary ones and were they able to return back to the bases?
    We don’t know anything about this, but what can we say for sure, in order to disrupt the adversary’s fulfillment of at least an operational task, the percentage of goals destroyed is good, and even excellent for a strategic task. And do not drag the terver. Well done missiles!
    Here, by the way, some Jewish trolls cited the results of these exercises as an example, saying that it is easy to destroy the S-300, as it turns out. A total of 11 missiles are needed and that the exercises are conducted in greenhouse conditions. So now they can shut up. Since the complexes did not defend themselves, but the area, that is, a certain set of goals or target. And when attacking the complex itself, there is its close cover. Which these two "goals" would have grabbed and not frowned. But the presence of the withdrawal of part of the forces, the use of introductory strikes, additional attacks of the CD from the strategists, all this suggests that the exercises are taking place in conditions as close as possible to combat ones. And someone will talk about the absence of electronic warfare.
    1. Aljavad
      Aljavad 6 June 2013 03: 54 New
      0
      9 out of 11 is the result of not a clash, but a training task. and he is not very bad. And here it is not important, perhaps a tactical situation, etc. The task was worked out in the framework of the technical characteristics of the air defense system.
  • bear
    bear 3 June 2013 08: 39 New
    +1
    Shoigu well done, Yes, and the teachings are needed in order to learn, but to gain experience.
  • Pacifist
    Pacifist 3 June 2013 08: 41 New
    +7
    for those who are in the tank, 9 out of 11 is an efficiency of 0,8 i.e. close to one. This means that the calculations worked out within the theoretical limit of the complex. So the guys are great, and the rest ... well, of course I want a unit, perfectionism in this matter is good, but we must not forget that the principle of uncertainty has not been canceled (let's call it a factor of chance for simplicity) and even the most advanced systems from it not insured. Everyone knows how Patriot worked during a meat grinder in the desert, their combat effectiveness was in the region of 0,1-0,3 ... so the result of 0,8 is wonderful. And the students who are successful in their studies and competent commanders who understand that the effectiveness of air defense / missile defense in separation and quantity. And the quality of our complexes is not inferior to anyone.
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 3 June 2013 19: 17 New
      0
      Quote: Pacifist
      do not forget that the principle of uncertainty has not been canceled (let's call it a factor of chance for simplicity)
      And let's call it even easier --- Nebel des Krieges (Fog of War) hi )))
  • Turik
    Turik 3 June 2013 08: 47 New
    +3
    This is not a computer shooter. 2 missiles missed are 2 cities, or about 4-5 million people burned down! This will be the alignment in the next war.

    Well, well done Shoigu, correctly the soldier drives. All hazing in the army from idleness. A soldier should hang up without hind legs after hanging up, then comrades will smash their faces.
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 3 June 2013 09: 02 New
      +3
      This is if a vigorous loaf is missed. so against vigorous loaves and amers cannot create a Pro at all.
  • Dwarfik
    Dwarfik 3 June 2013 08: 49 New
    0
    Kind! Whether they missed it or not - we don’t know, and I wouldn’t advise respected journalists to saliva and shout about the failure of 2 missiles to miss! The author is certainly right in mentioning misinformation! And also let's look at the teachings from a different angle! Syria! yes yes, what complexes can be delivered there? That's right, the heroes of this article! In principle, when shelling a target with 2 missiles, a defeat is achieved with a high degree of probability, and they broke through / if these 2 blanks broke through for a completely different reason.
    1. Nitup
      Nitup 3 June 2013 10: 41 New
      -1
      Quote: Dwarfik
      and broke through / if these 2 discs broke through for a completely different reason.

      And why talk about 2 breakthroughs if they were not?
  • wulf66
    wulf66 3 June 2013 08: 51 New
    +2
    The guys worked, Air defense in my opinion, more than normal. Teachings for that and teachings to study and receive in the face in quotation marks. Learning and labor will grind everything! Let the squeals go to sleep.
  • erased
    erased 3 June 2013 08: 53 New
    +2
    And the exercises were by today's standards really more than ambitious

    Judging by the number of people, this is an incomplete division. The scale of conventional exercises within an army or corps. So here the author is delighted in vain.
    The variety and variety of tasks is understandable, but in the end, everything was done in order to intercept missiles, this is the ultimate goal. Otherwise, why fence the garden.
    As a result, the percentage of destruction of "enemy" missiles is almost 82. Not enough? Perhaps.
    But I agree with the author - if you continue in the same spirit, then from doctrines to doctrines the percentage should grow and reach an acceptable 99,9.
    We hope so. There is no other left.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 3 June 2013 09: 17 New
      0
      Quote: erased
      Judging by the number of people, this is an incomplete division.

      Incomplete Air Defense Division? In my opinion, this is a lot.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 3 June 2013 09: 00 New
    +2
    After all, Americans do not scream, but slowly build bunkers for themselves - they know that air defense is not a panacea!
  • bubla5
    bubla5 3 June 2013 09: 02 New
    +1
    ALREADY ONE THAT HONESTY TOLD THAT TWO GOALS HAVE NOT ATTECTED - PLUS OUR MILITARY, but they could have said 100% of the result, and they will learn from mistakes, it’s not without reason that there’s no shortcoming who does nothing
    1. dominion
      dominion 3 June 2013 09: 22 New
      0
      Nobody will tell the truth about how many were launched and how many were shot down to us. wink
  • Svarog
    Svarog 3 June 2013 09: 05 New
    +1
    It must be understood that most likely the oldest of the missiles that were to be decommissioned or even decommissioned was most likely launched. The fact that they all left normally is already not bad. Although statistics are not enough launches, of course. And again, it is not said what was launched, by what means. How green were the conditions or vice versa. Perhaps the most inconvenient goals for the complex were taken.
  • Was mammoth
    Was mammoth 3 June 2013 09: 12 New
    +2
    Served for a long time. At the C-25. The probability of defeat is 0.98. Up to four missiles could be launched at the target. So, not everything is so bad. And do not argue that if K is less than one, "everything is lost, chief." I will add that the regiments were firing at the old missiles, not at the planes. The regiments were rated for the year based on the results of combat firing.
  • V. A.
    V. A. 3 June 2013 09: 23 New
    +1
    At the same time, Shoigu emphasized that a certain part of the S-300 air defense system’s calculations, which usually covers this area, was transferred to the Ashuluk firing range for conducting training firing.

    In my opinion, this part of the calculations was thrown somewhat south to the Damascus area. And for those who remained, these exercises were carried out so as NOT TO SPEAK !!! wink
  • Hamul
    Hamul 3 June 2013 09: 27 New
    +2
    As it turns out interestingly, they say publicly - missed two out of 11 missiles.
    The conclusion is unequivocal - STRANGE.
    If you don’t know, then nothing is done just like that, and it’s not a matter of what they missed (and whether they missed ????), but of what they announced it - IMHO - this is a game.
  • avant-garde
    avant-garde 3 June 2013 09: 34 New
    +1
    9 out of 11 we remove the preposition "from" we get 911 fellow A subtle hint to the Americans that they would not forget the phone of their rescue service, if in another they are amiss against Russia.
  • Fox
    Fox 3 June 2013 09: 43 New
    +3
    it’s still not clear what they thought ... at the C300 firing in '91, 3 missiles hit the target. but the sensor hit only the third one 10 meters from the ground. Visually (after the first missile) falling debris was visible, the second entered into these debris, the sensor Only the third finished it. And the results were counted by these sensors. Maybe here too?
  • ded10041948
    ded10041948 3 June 2013 09: 52 New
    +1
    How can you talk about the results of exercises without knowing the "scenario"? If you missed two targets that hit the neighboring empty swamp, scaring away the frogs, this is one thing, but if a debris of the target that crashed into the ammunition depot is missing, this is another! I understand that the example is very exaggerated, but with an absurd version it turns out clearer and clearer. If they shot in 1 target - 1 missile mode, then the result is very decent, and if two missiles were fired at the targets, and even did not hit two targets, then the guys were in vain wearing shoulder straps! Therefore, without a complete alignment of the battle, conclusions cannot be drawn.
  • Vanek
    Vanek 3 June 2013 09: 56 New
    0
    9 out of 11 ...

    Well, you know, better than nothing. In any case, more than half.

    And here's a question: - If at least TWO anti-aircraft guns work for ONE goal ... Of course, to achieve a hundred percent result, we must try.

    Study, study and study again. Like that.
  • duchy
    duchy 3 June 2013 09: 59 New
    +1
    The main thing is experience. Deficiencies will be eliminated. Mr. Professor, judging by the "speaker", statistics are needed. This is Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya. Kumpol, if it comes down to it, will not do. hi
  • Barabas
    Barabas 3 June 2013 10: 04 New
    +3
    Russia is not Iraq, "probable partners" will not bother too much with non-nuclear warheads. They know about the response. A simple calculation says 2 out of 11, 20 out of 110, 200 out of 1100, etc. I don’t know how many missiles are in the first salvo from the enemy, I just hope that he simply won't have time to do the second one. "Friends and partners" just need to know that it is better to burn out instantly than to suffer in radioactive hell for thousands of years!
    therefore the defense must be ACTIVE !!!!!!!
  • IRBIS
    IRBIS 3 June 2013 10: 14 New
    +4
    9 out of 11 is a very decent result. And there is no need to groan about "thousands burned in nuclear fire." No combat system in the world has a 100% kill rate. The past exercises have shown the ability of our air defense to respond quickly even to a surprise attack, and this is already good. Well done guys, they don't eat bread for nothing.
  • si8452
    si8452 3 June 2013 10: 14 New
    +5
    Everyone is discussing the number of shot down missiles. Let's look at the situation from the other side. 2 of our 11 missiles overcame the defense of the alleged enemy and hit the targets, and the defense was serious, not the level of a small Transcaucasian republic. Indeed, the combat use during exercises is practiced by those who defend themselves and those who attack.
  • Russ69
    Russ69 3 June 2013 10: 28 New
    +3
    For me, the result is normal, after the C300 there are two missiles left, which for near-range air defense is quite feasible to destroy.
  • ed65b
    ed65b 3 June 2013 10: 28 New
    +5
    You will notice how the attitude towards informational support of teachings and openness has changed. Does anyone remember when they last reported and voiced the numbers. And the theft under Serdyukov could not say anything. Who would know that they squandered like that. As for the exercises, they could say in passing on TV that the tasks were completed and that’s all. No, there are changes.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Boricello
    Boricello 3 June 2013 11: 10 New
    +3
    I may be a little off topic ... but read gentlemen enemies and "well-wishers". I am sure that if God forbid someone wants to check the Russian soldiers now ... then there will be such people at the present time ... And you need to make films about such stories, you look homosexuals who put condoms to the eternal fire, they would put on a stake. http://ruspravda.info/Russkie-ne-sdayutsya-274.html
  • shamil
    shamil 3 June 2013 11: 44 New
    0
    not so long ago, Israel fired on hezbola. So they had air defense systems in residential areas. How many of their missiles exploded on their territory?
    1. atalef
      atalef 3 June 2013 12: 23 New
      +1
      Quote: shamil
      not so long ago, Israel fired on hezbola.

      Hamas /
      Hezbollah has not shelled Israel for 7 years. More precisely since the end of the 2nd Lebanon war
      1. si8452
        si8452 3 June 2013 14: 38 New
        0
        Rather, they were the same "people" who staged provocations on the Syrian-Turkish border.
      2. alicante11
        alicante11 3 June 2013 15: 22 New
        +1
        And then you shozh their weapons in Syria hollow?
        1. Toit
          Toit 3 June 2013 16: 52 New
          -6
          Quote: alicante11
          And then you shozh their weapons in Syria hollow?

          And so it wasn’t
          1. Aljavad
            Aljavad 6 June 2013 03: 39 New
            0
            And without Assad, you will be sooo bad with the Islamists.
  • shamil
    shamil 3 June 2013 11: 51 New
    +1
    The purpose of the exercises is to show all Jews, Turks and Americans, the effectiveness of Russian air defense, that is,
    What the Russian S-300 is capable of in Syria
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 3 June 2013 11: 53 New
    +2
    interesting question of course. but the question here is actually different. as far as is known, the exercises were carried out suddenly, i.e. in fact, the combat crews and their crews did not know anything, but nevertheless, the higher command was definitely in the know and it was unlikely that no one let out a rumor.
    So there are two options:
    1) the combat crews were relatively notified and missed 2 goals, which is far from very good.
    2) combat crews did not know anything and missed 2 goals out of 111, which is sooo good. Because in real combat operations, there is reconnaissance, planning, etc., which gives some time for deployment and bringing to increased combat readiness.
    so don't just draw conclusions. and then. that some criticize, so it's about normal. There are always several parties who see their interest in something, but are not at all interested in something.
  • Old warrior
    Old warrior 3 June 2013 11: 57 New
    +1
    Moscow was not built right away ... (c), especially after such a "Mama slaughter" ...
  • Opera
    Opera 3 June 2013 12: 32 New
    +3
    9 out of 11 good or bad? Good. Firstly, the good thing is that such exercises are conducted. Secondly, it’s good that 9 shot down the shift team as I understood it. Thirdly, it’s good that the problem is revealed. They will decide, they will fix it.
  • My address
    My address 3 June 2013 12: 38 New
    +1
    Normally worked for the first such. Down and Out trouble started. Then everything goes and goes. Just do not stop!
    In production, after a long downtime or when mastering a new one, such miracles happen! After you think: "How did you manage to bring so many idiots together? And I stand out even among the worst with complete moronism!" Time passes and sometimes you want not only others, but also pat yourself on the head and wonder why you did not immediately notice the obvious interfering one.
  • runway
    runway 3 June 2013 12: 51 New
    +2
    More exercises need to be conducted and critically evaluated. Only then will the true state of things be seen. Of course, there is no tragedy in the fact that 2 goals in the exercise were not hit. The main thing is that in real life the guys and equipment do not screw up ....
    Another thing is alarming. Why the S-400 still does not have a long-range missile (expected by the end of 2012); where is the S-500 capable of intercepting targets in near space? And if today, in comfortable conditions of non-combat operations, our air defense forces and means "miss" targets, then what will happen in a different situation when the enemy uses hypersonic strike systems with UAVs? Against this background, the statements of the Minister of Defense Shoigu that the Aerospace Defense Forces and the Air Force are ready to repel the enemy's space attack sound very cheap. Because the willingness and ability to reliably fulfill the tasks assigned to them are two different things.
  • Djubal
    Djubal 3 June 2013 13: 45 New
    +4
    And it was not the Syrians who organized the teachings for an hour? :) Graduation, so to speak, before staging in the home country? :)
  • Prishtina
    Prishtina 3 June 2013 14: 40 New
    +3
    9 out of 11 a lot or a little ?? For KR and UAVs, probably an estimate 4-... And now imagine that 9 out of 11 are manned F-16/15/18/35 .... This is called - and without options - not acceptable losses !!!. And this despite the fact that the CR is not much more difficult target than the above)
    And now a couple of questions to critics and jaundice journalists ...
    1. You know the goals were not noticed and passed (this is one), or the goals were taken to escort, but the missiles could not destroy them (intercept), agree that it’s completely different!
    2. And who knows how many missiles were issued for 11 targets ??? _ if 11 ... then the result is excellent! Since figures of probability of interception of a target of the type КР_ 0,75-0,9 appear everywhere. In our case, the result is close to ideal.
    In general, the military, as always, is not verbose, which is what the magazine-flyers who speculate are far from the Air Force / Air Defense.
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 3 June 2013 14: 55 New
      +1
      During World War II, bombers often broke through barrage anti-aircraft fire. But at the same time, even at that time, they did not always have the opportunity to bomb on a target, dropping bombs on reserve targets or even in a pure field. Given that he’s also flying back, and just next to destroy 9 from 11 of his carifans. At the same time, he himself most likely avoided missiles, maneuvering. It will not be easy for him to complete the task.
  • Tommygun
    Tommygun 3 June 2013 14: 52 New
    -1
    Quote: avant-garde
    9 out of 11 we remove the preposition "from" we get 911 fellow A subtle hint to the Americans that they would not forget the phone of their rescue service, if in another they are amiss against Russia.

    By the way, 9 11 is also the 11 of September ...
  • sonik-007
    sonik-007 3 June 2013 15: 20 New
    +1
    Quote: Yarbay
    Attention, a question. Nine of the eleven is good or bad, a lot or a little?

    It's good. Since the author of the article correctly pointed out - the probability of not getting there always exists. However, as a rule, 2 missiles are fired at enemy targets. Those. it turns out that even 4re missiles could not hit the target.
    1. sinedanafin
      sinedanafin 3 June 2013 22: 35 New
      0
      Yes, but I think that 1 missile was fired during the exercises, for the purpose of economy and plus the awareness of the personnel that the goal would be more difficult to shoot down.
  • Strashila
    Strashila 3 June 2013 15: 24 New
    0
    The question is debatable ... what is more important to us is a means of defense or a means of attack. If defense, then analysis ... why? ... and there were other options? ... 2 struck conditional ground targets, what was that? Not knowing the essence is difficult to evaluate.If proceeding from the attack ... even more deplorable, 9 out of 11 missiles could not overcome the air defense system of the conditional enemy, here there is something to think about.
  • KononAV
    KononAV 3 June 2013 15: 28 New
    0
    Well done, all well done. And God grant us never to know the effectiveness of our aerospace defense and defense in reality.
  • Victor Vldimvch
    Victor Vldimvch 3 June 2013 16: 04 New
    +1
    missed, well then, you have to train (all night)