Military Review

"Fire on the Prairie" through the eyes of a specialist in electronic warfare of the USSR Navy

It will be about the March (1986) military conflict or, if you will, the military operations of the 6th fleet US in the Mediterranean against Libya. The Americans called this operation "Fire on the Prairie."

"Fire on the Prairie" through the eyes of a specialist in electronic warfare of the USSR Navy
Takeoff attack aircraft from the US aircraft carrier. The course is Libya.

The intelligence of Libyan leader Gaddafi a month before it was already known that the US command plans to launch a series of attacks on the country with the use of OBK forces in the Mediterranean Sea and long-range missile aviation from the metropolis. By this time, the Americans and their NATO partners considered this country a hotbed of terrorism and set the task of physically eliminating its leader Muammar Gaddafi. In such situations, before that, in order to prevent a direct attack from the United States, the Libyan leadership asked the leadership of the USSR to bring our warships and ships to their main ports of Tripoli, Tobruk, Benghazi and others in the hope that the Americans would not put on them strikes if our forces are there. The same thing happened in March 1986.

By this time, another U.S. Navy carrier group was additionally introduced into combat service in the Mediterranean Sea. The Americans took up their initial positions in the central part of the Ionian Sea and began intensive combat training of aircraft carrier aircraft as part of attack aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft, and EW aircraft. In addition, a separate detachment of US warships consisting of 7-8 ships cruised along the parallel 32 ° 30 'sowing. latitudes at the border of Sidra Bay, which the Libyans considered their historical by the bay. To protect this conditional border, they put up all their available naval forces and assets. These are about 10 units of French-made combatant-type missile boats, about 10 Soviet-built missile boats, 1 KFOR, 1 submarine, and a few other small and support ships.

From our flotilla's forces participated: 2 ship tracking aircraft carrier groups (visual and radio tracking), one ship north of Tripoli - 180 miles, another ship north of Benghazi - 20 miles in the village. Tobruk - ship in the base.

In the settlement of Tripoli, a floating base “Dmitry Galkin” with the operational group of the flotilla headquarters was brought on board - I was appointed as the group senior. The group included: an air defense post headed by the head of the air defense of the flotilla, captain 1, rank AN Bulavchik, chief of communications of the flotilla, captain 1 of rank V.I. Sushko, political officer, Captain 2 of the rank of V.Ye. Vergiles, the two most prepared midshipman operators E.M. Podpletta, V.V. Grabovenko.

"Dmitry Galkin" mother ship, 1988 year

We were assigned the task of collecting and processing data from our air tracking forces on the air situation in the combat area and transferring it to the local command of Libya’s air defense. To this end, a Libyan air defense group was deployed on a pier at the floating base in a special vehicle that was connected to the General Headquarters of the Libyan Armed Forces. My direct duties included a daily two-time report on the ML of the Navy and at the command post of the flotilla on the situation in the combat area.

The local side was primarily interested in data on the mass take-off of carrier-based aviation from aircraft carriers and bringing this information to command for making a decision on the use of air defense forces to repel air strikes. Then, modern Liberal-type fighter aircraft manufactured by the USSR, air defense missile systems of the C-75, C-125, C-200 systems deployed along the northern coast of the country were part of the Libyan air defense forces.

Events developed as follows. The Americans did not use the previously developed methods of applying massive strikes by carrier-based aircraft against enemy bases. Knowing perfectly well the capabilities of the Libyan air defense, the flights of the aircraft were carried out by small groups of 2 – 3, sometimes up to 5 aircraft. They, teasing the Libyans, flew, violating their airspace over the Gulf of Sidra and even over the land territory of the country. The same tactic was used by the squadron of warships on the border of the Gulf of Sidra, going for a short time to the south of the parallel 32 ° 30 ', without using weaponsas if causing "fire on oneself."

A representative of the adviser to the General Staff of the Libyan Navy arrived to us at the floating base with a request from the local side to allocate a direct tracking ship for the ACS in the Gulf of Sidra, so that, according to its tracking data, they would strike at the ACL with coastal missile launchers. However, neither the Main Headquarters of the USSR Navy, nor the flotilla command took this step, I suppose, fearing that our tracking ship could suffer during the battle. Honestly, and we are not very "light" to expose his chest. Over time, this is well understood. But at that time we were not asked, we had to execute any order of command.

This "flirting" continued until 18 in March, while the nerves of the Libyan air defense command failed, and 4.30 was hit by calculating a rocket launcher from the area of ​​the city of Homs on 2 aircraft that violated airspace over Libya. By the morning, enthusiastic rumors had reached us that the targets had been hit, and an uplift reigned in the camp of our “allies”. Subsequently, our intelligence found that, indeed, one of the aircraft was damaged, but both of them still safely returned to the aircraft carrier.

The response was not long in coming. Immediately, before dawn, deck aviation responded to the coastal installations of the Libyan air defenses, and quite effectively. In particular, the “Harpoon” rocket fired near the city of Homs hit the radar target detection device directly. This was reported to us by the chief military specialist in Libya from the USSR Armed Forces, Lieutenant-General V.V. Zhdanov, who asked Moscow to urgently send a new antenna.

In the morning, 8.00 was attacked by Libyan ships, which were located along the parallel line 32 ° 30 ', by OBK and carrier-based aircraft. The blow was ruthless, cruel and meaningless, given the superiority of the forces of the US 6 fleet. Almost all the ships that were there were destroyed. The eyewitnesses later said that the superstructures of the ships, the logs and the deck devices had suffered. The rockets literally demolished the entire top of the boats with the command together. The specialists of the internal combat posts and the specialists of the engine rooms remained alive. People in the water were finished off with machine-gun bursts from the OBK helicopters. We witnessed how the wounded and picked up corpses after the massacre were brought to the base with boats to secure it. The submarine and the damaged KFOR, and 2 – 3 boats from all the forces of the Libyan navy that participated in the so-called battle returned to the base.

Of course, we expected strikes on Tripoli and prepared for this. First, we were put in the port in such a way that we covered the remaining boats and submarines in the base of the mother ship that had not been put to sea for one reason or another. This, naturally, put us at a disadvantage. Secondly, the armament of the old floating bases - fire and radio-electronic - was not so hot. With the Fut-4 air detection station, we could, if we could, find low-flying “Harpoon” rocket with a small reflection surface, then at very small distances. To get into it, shoot down the artillery with a fire - "weaving" or anti-aircraft guns - is very problematic. Third, by operating radar for detecting airborne targets, on the contrary, we could have aimed at Shrike missiles homing on working radars.

I invited the commander of the ship, heard his decision on self-defense, and we together with him came to the conclusion: in this situation, there are no other means besides the EW means for their defense.

On this basis, at the 200-meter ends, the 3 was equipped with large inflatable corner reflectors, and in the arches and artillery grabs there were passive interference shells in readiness for combat use according to the scheme developed by us, taking into account the closest vessels and coastal facilities.

God had mercy, and we didn’t have to actually apply all this, because this time the fighting ended. Carriers continued to patrol near the coast of Libya, but none of the countries any more carried out combat operations. True, the fighting with the use of long-range missile-carrying aircraft from the airfields of the metropolis along Libyan coastal objects continued in April. But by that time, our ship base was replaced by another one, and the flagship specialist of the RTS Flotilla, captain of the 1 rank, V.A., replaced me as a senior task force. Lobachev. Of course, the second war is no less interesting from the point of view of the use of forces by the parties (Operation Eldorado Canyon).

The route of NATO aircraft, taking off from the airfield of Great Britain and attacking Libya.

Subsequently, with the advent of the "base" (point 52), we produced a detailed report on both conflicts with conclusions and suggestions.

I would like to share my impressions of how the personnel behaved in combat conditions. On the floating bases, as a rule, officers, warrant officers and sailors, as they say, "increased risk", often written off from other ships, having disciplinary penalties and other offenses, served. Compared with the personnel of the rest of the squadron warships, they differed not for the better in terms of performance, and training, and, finally, in appearance, although they had, perhaps, easier conditions of service than on warships. If it was possible to talk about it in the conditions of combat service in general. The weather conditions on the football field are the same for both teams ...

So, for the month of performance of the combat mission, not a single case of violation of military discipline, God forbid, disobedience, was recorded in any combat unit. The officers, even the most obstinate, died down, were ready to immediately execute any order. Caught orders, figuratively speaking, directly from the language of the commander. The sailors and foremen also became subdued, and, as it were, rallied, huddled together. We were confident that they could do more of what they could do.

Time passes. And now, being a veteran of the squadron, I would like to once again go out to sea, to the point of 52 and, perhaps, to look into the eyes of the same veterans of a potential enemy - "amerikosy", as we called them, with whom we once were ready " tearing each other's throats. " We once envied their conditions of service and rest in military service, they probably appreciated and respected our restraint and "unpretentiousness" to these conditions, most likely sympathized. Still, the tropical conditions of service, the iron hull, heat, dust storms from the mainland, storms, and rare visits to ports were worth it.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. duchy
    duchy 1 July 2013 08: 14
    Honor and glory to our Navy veterans who have gone through these events.
  2. altman
    altman 1 July 2013 09: 24
    here’s the answer to the question .. why is Russia’s ocean fleet needed. If it were, perhaps Gaddafi still ruled Libya.
    1. Andy
      Andy 1 July 2013 12: 36
      Russia needs a fleet to protect its interests, not Kadafi. Maybe I don’t know something, but he WASN’t an ally to us. So, business ...
      1. old man54
        old man54 1 July 2013 13: 08
        Quote: Andy
        maybe I don’t know something, but he WASN’T an ally for us. so, business ...

        in general, he was an ally to us, but such ... the same as the European countries of the socialist camp, that is, potentially not reliable! And historically, it just so happened, Libya and its people gravitated towards southern European countries such as Italy and France. It was this "craving" that subsequently ruined Gaddafi, in the face of France it ruined.
    2. postman
      postman 1 July 2013 23: 01
      Quote: altman
      Perhaps Gaddafi was still in control of Libya.

      But was it necessary?
      The official ideology was a mixture of extreme ethnic ultranationalism, rent-oriented planned socialism, state Islam and the military left-wing dictatorship with Gaddafi led by the declared collegiality of governance and "democracy."

      Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser recalled that when he personally met with Gaddafi (ca. 1969) and recognized his way of thinking, he came in horror

      Muammar Gaddafi repeatedly expelled tens of thousands of his fellow tribesmen, mainly the Egyptians and the "Palestinian" Arabs, as well as several tens of thousands of blacks. Exile accompanied public lynching by Libyan blacks Arabs and mass pogroms.
      In October 1970, Italian settlers were expelled from Libya in 7. This day was declared "the day of vengeance."
      In 2001, the Libyan leader called on African people to expel whites from the Black Continent. In his opinion, the white race should pay compensation to the indigenous people of Africa for the long-term use of natural resources.

      At various times, Libya provided military assistance to the governments and rebel groups of Benin, Gambia, Burkina Faso, Liberia, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, the Central African Republic, sponsoring coups in Senegal, Tunisia, Togo, Mauritania, Uganda, Sudan, and rebel movements in Senegal and Western Sahara.
      Gaddafi tried to unite Libya with Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Sudan and even Malta.
      He hosted the emperor of the Central African Republic, Jean-Bedel Bokassa (he was a cannibal (cannibal).
      The war in Chad, an attempted coup against the Sudanese president of Nimeira, the Egyptian-Libyan war,support for the Irish Republican Army (IRA), Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Armenian terrorist organization ASALA, Kurds in Turkey, Iraq and Iran, Italian Red Brigades, German RAF, Scottish and Welsh separatists and Basques in France and Spain, Namibian partisans SWAPO, etc.
      And for kui (or who) does all this need?
  3. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 1 July 2013 13: 17
    These are about 10 units of French-made combatant-type missile boats, about 10 Soviet-built missile boats, 1 SDK, 1 submarine and several other small ships and support vessels.

    Almost all the ships there were destroyed ... A submarine and damaged KFOR returned to the base, and 2 – 3 boats from all the Libyan Navy forces participating in the so-called battle.

    Strange ...

    Only two losses are reliably known:
    - MRK Ein Zaquit (died)
    - RTO Ein Mara (damaged) - until 1991, it underwent repairs at the Primorsky plant in Leningrad, returned to the Libyan Navy under the name Tarik ibn Ziad (in Russian it would have sounded Tarik Ziyadovich :)))

    - RTO Vohod - Americans claim to be sunk, Libyans deny loss

    The death of Ein Zakquit is described as follows:
    USS Yorktown cruiser discovered a small target 20 miles from Benghazi. It was the Libyan IRC “Ein Zakuit”, crept up to the Americans in radio silence mode, imitating a fishing vessel. Even short-term (only two turns of the antenna) inclusion of the radar unmasked the small missile ship and thwarted the attack. By launching two Harpoon missiles, an MPC was set on fire and sank after 15 minutes.

    Perhaps the respected caperang meant some small boats and yachts, but there were no other losses of more or less large units.

    The Algerian MRK "Rais Ali" is an analogue of the deceased Ein Zaquit. Export version of the Soviet MRK (missile corvette) pr. 1234. Full military equipment ~ 700 tons
    1. postman
      postman 1 July 2013 22: 23
      At 8.25 a.m. on 25 March, the A-6E Intruder attack aircraft attacked the Libyan air defense system of pr.1234E Ein Mara with two Harpoon anti-ship missiles. The missile launcher “Harpoon” did not enter the boat, and due to failures in the homing system it crashed into the sea only 5-6 m from the side of the boat, 1a warhead did not explode at all.
      And there is nothing to repair

      1 MRK pr.1234E
      1 RK "La Combattant"
      landing craft (or RTOs)
      easy - MRK pr.1234E,

      During this operation, Harpoon anti-ship missiles were used for the first time in combat conditions, 6 anti-ship missiles were issued

      1 RC of French construction "Vohid" on March 24, at 19.29 (22.29 Moscow time) from the anti-ship missile "Harpoon", did not cope with the fire, thrown, detonation "Otomat"

      On the night of March 24–25, Americans in the port of Benghazi with precision-guided cluster bombs “Rokkey” damaged a landing ship (or MRK class Nanuchka (Project 1234), it went out to Sidra Bay, was detected by aircraft from the Saratoga aircraft carrier
      WAS what it hunts for:
      Libyan fleet in 1986 had 113 combat and auxiliary ships and vessels and 6500 personnel. The combat core of the fleet included:
      1 British TFR of the Vosper type with Otomat and Aspide missiles in 1969. - "Dat Assawari"
      6 Soviet submarines, Project 641K (according to NATO classification - Foxtrot) in 1977-1983. - “Al Badr” 311, “Al Fatah” 312, “Al Ahad” 313, “Al Matrega” 314, “Al Khyber” 315, “Al Hunyan” 316.
      2 Yugoslav tugboats of combat swimmers of the Mala type, according to some reports in 1982. written off.
      4 Italian missile defense systems of the Wadi / Assad type with Otomat missiles in 1977-1979. - “Assad Al Tadjier”, “Assad Al Tougour”, “Wadi Marsit” then “Assad Al Kalij” 414, “Wadi Magrava” then “Assad Al Hudud” 415.
      4 Soviet RTOs, pr. 1234E with P-20 anti-ship missiles (NATO classification - Nanuchka II with SS-N-2C missiles) 1981-1984. - “Ean Mara” 416 (hereinafter “Tariq Ibn Ziyad”), “Ain al Galaza” 417, “Ain Zaara” 418, “Ain Zanquit” 419.
      Large rocket boat
      10 French RCA type La Combattante II with Otomat missiles in 1979-1982. - “Sharara” (until 1983 it was called Beir Grassa, the same is with others) 518, “Shehab” (ex - Beir Gzir) 522, “Wahg” (ex - Beir Gtifa) 524, “Glulud”, “Shouaiai” (ex - Beir Algandula) 528, "Shoula" (ex - Beir Ktitat) 532, "Shafak" (ex - Beir Alkarim) 534, "Bark" (ex - Beir Alkardmen) 536, "Rad" (ex - Beir Alkur) 538, Laheeb (ex - Beir Alkuesat).
      12 Soviet RCA pr. 205ER with P-15U anti-ship missiles (according to NATO classification - Osa II with Styx missiles) in 1976-1980. - “Al Katum” 205, then 511, “Al Zuara” 956, then 513, “Al Rwae” 515, “Al Baida” 208, then 517, “Al Nabhaa” 209, then 519, “Al Safhaa” 952, then 521, “Al Fikar” 210, then 523, “El Mathur” 525, “El Mosha” 527, “Al Zakab” 954, then 529, “El Bitar” 531, “El Sadad” 533.
      3 British Susa-type RCAs with SS12 missiles in 1967-1968. - "Susa", "Sirte", "Sebha".
      Patrol vessels
      4 British Gharyan class SSs in 1969 - "Garian", "Khawlan", "Merawa", "Sabratha".
      4 British PS class Benina in 1967-1968. - “Benina”, “Misurata”, “Homs”.
      Landing craft
      2 French BDK Ave. PS-700 in 1977-1978. - “IBN OUF” 132, “IBN Haritha” 134.
      3 built in Poland KFOR pr. 773KL (according to NATO classification - Polnochniy) in 1977-1979. - “Ibn al-Hadrani” 112, “Ibn al-Umhayya” 116, “Ibn al-Furat” 118.
      7 Soviet MTSC pr.266ME (according to the classification of NATO - Natya) in 1981-1985. - Ras Hadad 111, then Al Tayyer, Ras El Gelays 113, then Al lsar, Ras al Hamman 115, Ras al Falluga 117, Ras al Oula 119, Ras al Dawar "121," Ras Massad "123.

  4. old man54
    old man54 1 July 2013 13: 22
    I liked the article, it was written openly and honestly, thanks to the author and "+".
    I agree with the above that this story once again perfectly illustrates the assertion that Russia, Russia, or what else in the future will be politically called the territory here where the Slavs live and will live, need a large navy of the far sea zone! It is necessary in order to represent your interests in different parts of the globe! Russia without a fleet is an exodus! Isolation in its political land borders. That is why, long ago, the Anglo-Saxons, then represented by Britain, were so afraid of the Slavs entering the oceans and in every way prevented this.

    The meaning of the actions of the Libyan Navy, which deployed its boats, albeit with anti-ship missiles, far at sea, far from its naval forces and, accordingly, from coastal air defense systems, is not entirely clear. Thus, opposing them to several AUG punks under the flag from a prison robe. :( What did you achieve by this? Amer was so scared? It seems to me that the result of these actions was quite predictable, which actually happened. :(
  5. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 1 July 2013 13: 25
    Carriers continued to patrol off the coast of Libya, but none of the countries carried out active combat operations anymore.

    Aircraft carriers are, of course, a force
    But the author only casually mentions who was the main striking force in this operation.

    Tactical bomber F-111 Aadvark with variable geometry of the wing - machines of this type operated from the air base Lakenhit (UK). In the illustration, the F-111 demolishes the Libyan airport with IL-76 cargo, which, according to the White House, was used to supply terrorist organizations around the world
    1. old man54
      old man54 1 July 2013 13: 45
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      In the illustration, the F-111 demolish the Libyan airport with cargo IL-76, which, according to the White House, were used to supply terrorist organizations around the world [/ i]

      and whose planes were they, the Il-76? Ours or Libyan? I have not heard that it was the cargo planes that were targeted ... I read that in general, Libya's military infrastructure was bombed, but they tried to "liquidate" Gaddafi.
      By the way, not so long ago I watched a video essay on the network refuting Libya’s involvement in the bombing of the (B-747) plane over Scotland, the U.S. frank bribery of witnesses in this case, their possible perjury, and all that in the spirit of enlightened Democrats from the West.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 1 July 2013 13: 59
        Quote: old man54
        and whose planes were Il-Xnumx? Our or Libyan?

        Quote: old man54
        I have not heard that it was the cargo planes that were targeted ... I read that in general, Libya's military infrastructure was bombed, but they tried to "liquidate" Gaddafi.

        airfield with IL-76 - just one of the key goals
    2. postman
      postman 1 July 2013 22: 54
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      But the author only casually mentions who was the main striking force in this operation.

      And the "shock" force was not sickly helped:
      1.KS-10A and KS-135 = 28 tanker aircraft.
      The ratio of strike and support aviation in the groups was 1: 2,3 (directly in the strike area - 1: 1,1)
      2. In 15 minutes Before the strike, Hokai AWACS aircraft occupied patrol zones located 50 to 100 km from the coast.
      3. 3a 13 minutes EW aircraft (EF-111A and EA-6V), which began the formulation of active combined interference.
      4. In 6 minutes Prior to the main attack, the supporting groups attacked the radar, and 48 Shrike and Kharm anti-radar missiles were launched.
      5. F-111F Air Force bombers while being above targets were covered from the air by F-14 fighters, but the Libyan fighters did not appear.
      6. returned from the route England - Mediterranean 1 EW EF-111A aircraft
      7. AWACS (deck-mounted) hung in the air for 1,5 days, refueling from deck-based tankers KA-6D;
      Landing on an aircraft carrier, only in case of equipment failure
      2,3,4,5,7 your "favorite" deck ships

      13 F-111F (planned 18) attacked objects in Tripoli. In the capital, 4 were destroyed, up to 80 buildings were damaged, including the French Embassy and 3 IL-76 aircraft (according to 2x SR-71)

      8. At 4.30-4.35 and 5.30-6.00, strike aircraft from the 6th US fleet struck Tripoli. They managed to destroy or damage 9 targets. According to Libyan data, air defense shot down 5-6 targets, mainly UAVs. - At 2.00, carrier-based aviation of the 60th operational formation (14 A-6E, A-7E attack aircraft) with the support of 12 F / A-18 aircraft delivered the main blow to the Benghazi facilities.

      4 buildings were destroyed 5 aircraft destroyed, 4 helicopters, 4 more aircraft and the helicopter were damaged, the self-propelled reconnaissance and guidance unit of the “Square” division was destroyed

      9. The second blow was delivered at 3.40-3.45. Libyans lost 4 anti-aircraft missile battalions during the fighting. ... serious damage was caused to all objects, 17 fighters were destroyed and damaged at airfields, 10 transport planes and helicopters.

      = who is more ??? ===========

      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      In the illustration, the F-111 demolished the Libyan airport with cargo IL-76,

      In the illustration it was necessary to draw 12 F / A-18 aircraft, or at least A-6!

      Of the 5 F-111Fs and 2 A-6s, they did not complete the combat mission, in other words, they failed to carry out targeted bombing.

      Deviation from the target of guided GBU-10 bombs as a result of aircraft performing anti-aircraft maneuver reached 150 m and cluster and conventional bombs - 700 m. The low altitude and high speed of the aircraft during the bombing led to the fact that a significant part of the bombs did not explode.

      Thirteen minutes after the start of the raid, the F-111F pilots received the command “take away legs”, and carried them away, having lost

      The contribution is not great ... What do you think?
      it was worth rubbing into such a distance?
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 1 July 2013 23: 27
        Quote: Postman
        The contribution is not great ... What do you think?

        Nevertheless, they are usually silent about the F-111, although they threw off the lion's share of the bombs
        Quote: Postman
        it was worth rubbing into such a distance?

        The Yankees were kidding, practicing an ultra-long range mission. Av also drove for a show

        in fact, they have bases in the region above the roof - they could crush land aviation. Cheap and cheerful

        The scheme of the NATO European airbases used to launch attacks on Libya (2011 year) of the Court, Araxos, Sigonella - is it much closer ?? request
        1. postman
          postman 1 July 2013 23: 33
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          although they threw off the lion's share of the bombs

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          worked out ultra-long combat mission

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          could land crush. Cheap and cheerful

          but not in 1986
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 4 July 2013 09: 03
            Quote: Postman
            but not in 1986

            why such a conclusion?
  6. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 1 July 2013 15: 06
    "Our weapons were outdated and inadequate." Have I ever met other words? If we have modern weapons in sufficient quantities, they are anywhere but in the combat zone. To say that this is boring is to say nothing ...
    1. postman
      postman 1 July 2013 22: 08
      "Our weapons were outdated and inadequate."
      Libyan Air Force used the French Mirage F.1ED and Mirage F.5D aircraft in the air defense system
      Regiment of French anti-aircraft complexes "Crotale"
      Radar manufactured in Sweden, Germany

      The point is not in our weapons, but
      Colonel General Evgeny Yurasov, former First Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Air Defense Forces: “A characteristic feature of the Libyans' anti-aircraft missile defense was the presence in it of various types of radars: Soviet, German, and Swedish. Information from them was collected, generalized and reflected by means of automation of various production, which were not initially coupled with each other. As a result, data on the air situation came to two different command posts, and the commanders of the Tripolye and Bengazi groupings had to literally be torn apart. "
  7. Skiff-2
    Skiff-2 1 July 2013 22: 31
    But what I heard about this right after those events from a colonel, whose brother was at that time an air defense advisor in Libya and had just returned from there: the day before we put the 200th complex, deployed, the Libyans immediately combed their hands on " try ", looked at both, so as not to cheat in the heat of the moment - the Americans constantly flew along the border. But they didn’t look, left the checkpoint for a snack, walked about 100 meters, when they heard that the rocket “went off,” ran back, thought it was a spontaneous launch, but no ... On the eve of Katdafi, he unilaterally straightened the sea border in the Gulf of Sidra (according to international law territorial pods - twelve-mile zone), in general, the Americans flew along the 12-mile zone without violating the old border, but they violated the new one and our advisers were not nearby, in short, they slashed two sides of the two sides with one missile and galloped for joy, they completely stopped obeying the advisers, the next day, even the command post was not allowed, so as not to interfere with the fight and in vain. disabled the most dangerous air defense system and the path to Tripoli was open for a night raid, but these were also happy in vain ... Fortunately for the Libyans, there was a Soviet ship in the port with a second set of two, so they took a brand new cabin of the SOC and barely had time to turn to the beginning of the "disco". And the Yankees from England on the FB-6 in full confidence that the terrible S-111 is dead, at an extremely small distance, 200 km to Tripoli. , hands itch .. and then the siren "irradiation by the station S-30". In general, they had a panic, the bombs left wherever they hit and the scabbard hit all the blades, only the palace and the barracks were damaged, and the city got some S-200s from its own, they stood on the shore and fired at the dogon, when the planes were over the city, here are the acceleration blocks from 75 to the city and fell, a couple of huts were destroyed. The fireworks were noble and the Yankers suffered a lot of fear, especially from the realization that they had thrust themselves into the S-75's affected area. There were no retries. One F-200 hit the base barely lasted, it was then written off. After those events, our advisers were all changed, and they gave a simple description of Katdafi - a goat (this is to the question - well, what is this Muamor). But the conclusion of the Yankurs was correct - there is no need to fly where the S-111 is.
    1. old man54
      old man54 1 July 2013 23: 12
      and you don’t know who to believe, you or Kapova! :)) But you certainly are more pleasant, it warms the soul. :)
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. postman
      postman 1 July 2013 23: 34
      Quote: Skif-2
      thought a spontaneous start

      spontaneous launch is not possible on the S-200. IN PRINCIPLE.

      Quote: Skif-2
      two Shriki with A-6

      ? which AGM-45 Shrike
      AGM-88 HARM!!
      Quote: Skif-2
      carried the TWS (target illumination station) of their two hundred

      Yes you?
      Tricked out:

      ..... Sometimes it happens...

      Quote: Skif-2
      For the happiness of the Libyans

      Fortunately, such tales are told only with a bottle

      Quote: Skif-2
      and the city got from their little S-75s on the shore, they stood and shot already in catch-up

      They stood "on the shore" and would shoot at the "dogon", the scavengers would fall into the sea, but not on the city
      Where did the Americans drive? towards the desert? deep into Africa ("to your home")?

      Tales ... "tales from the crypt"