Syrian pilot: extremists have MANPADS capable of hitting targets at altitudes up to 4,5 km

The Islamists in Syria have MANPADS that can hit targets at altitudes up to 4,5 km, reports RIA News a message from a representative of the Hama airbase.


Militants on the captured aircraft.

“We know that the militants have Stinger complexes and some others, including those made in China, which they seized from our military. I have to admit that we lose quite a lot of airplanes from their attacks, ”said the source.

“The minimum height at which to fly safely is 4,5 kilometers,” he noted. “But often our pilots are reduced to dangerous heights in order to deliver more accurate strikes so that the civilian infrastructure does not suffer and the objects of the terrorists are hit.”

The representative of the base, as an example, spoke about the MiG-21, shot down on November 4: “A plane lowered to a dangerous height was shot down from an anti-aircraft gunner unit in the province of Hama, the pilot was injured. Because of his injuries, the pilot was afraid to eject, in addition, at that moment he was over the territory of the militants. He managed to reach the territory controlled by the army. However, the plane crashed. We found his wreckage and the body of the pilot. "

The Hama airbase is located in the suburb of the city of the same name (central part of Syria) and is of strategic importance. Militants have periodically tried to seize it, the base territory is often subjected to shelling. All in all, 15 military airfields in Syria, of which five are currently controlled by the Islamists.
Photos used:
AFP Photo / Omar Haj Kadur
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. avvg 9 November 2015 08: 58 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    In a war, as in a war, it is not necessary to decrease less than 4,5 km so that civilian infrastructure is not affected.
    1. Good me 9 November 2015 09: 04 New
      • 22
      • 0
      +22
      Quote: avvg
      in war as in war, no need to decline


      These are forced reductions caused by the inefficiency of old sighting systems and outdated destruction systems ...
      And no matter how, but the dedication of the Syrian pilots, at the cost of life ready to destroy the enemy, you can only admire.

      And besides admiration, our aviation experts should think about the possibility of delivering old types of aircraft to Syria, but with modernized systems ...

      After all, there are also examples of modernization, both ours: MiG 21-93, and Israeli MiG 21-2000
      1. DIVAN SOLDIER 9 November 2015 09: 18 New
        • -16
        • 0
        -16
        So ours do not fall either, on the video presented by the MOs are probably the most successful, and even those are rather oblique.
        1. NordUral 9 November 2015 09: 52 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          And how do you determine this by such and such a video, but still not knowing the purpose? On the cross?
          1. DIVAN SOLDIER 9 November 2015 10: 02 New
            • -2
            • 0
            -2
            And how do we determine that something specific was destroyed ??? Go down to the ground and look ??
            1. Vladimir 1964 9 November 2015 13: 52 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
              And how do we determine that something specific was destroyed ??? Go down to the ground and look ??


              So, Dear Vlad, moreover, according to the rules of the commission, with the preparation of the act of the commission, in the prescribed form. yes
              The army has strict reporting, colleague. hi
              1. Oman 47 9 November 2015 22: 54 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Acts approved by the commission, headed by Lieutenant General Vertipupkin A.Yu.? belay
                According to the established MO RF # 132-MUU * D-AK-537-639-821AY? stop
      2. 0255 9 November 2015 09: 38 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Good I
        to think of our aviation specialists about the possibility of supplying to Syria old types of aircraft, but with modernized systems ...

        After all, there are also examples of modernization, both ours: MiG 21-93, and Israeli MiG 21-2000

        The idea may be a good one, but did the maintainable old MiG-21 or MiG-23 remain in the Russian Federation? Which do not look like in these photos:


        You can recall how in the Chechen war they wanted to restore the MiG-27, but did not find a single side that could be returned to service.
        1. Good me 9 November 2015 10: 03 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: 0255
          The idea may be a good one, but did the maintainable old MiG-21 or MiG-23 remain in the Russian Federation? Which do not look like in these photos:

          What can I say ... Had, not saved ...
        2. alekc73 9 November 2015 14: 00 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Unfortunately in Russia, hundreds of Mig-23 and Mig 27 in the early nineties in excellent flight condition drove to storage bases. In the absence of money brought them to hand. Now, these planes could be sold to the Syrians in exchange for oil. "Thank EBN"
      3. avt
        avt 9 November 2015 10: 54 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Good I
        And besides admiration, our aviation experts should think about the possibility of delivering old types of aircraft to Syria, but with modernized systems ...

        Do they have any? Well, the old planes mastered by the Syrians? Secondly - modernization is a good thing, but to modernize the MiG-21, but for work on the ground ???? Another thing is interesting - there are Rooks in storage, that’s why the Syrians are not being transplanted to them? They were given to Iraq, but why not transfer the Assad’s?
        Quote: 0255
        You can recall how in the Chechen war they wanted to restore the MiG-27

        Yes, the same picture is with the Su-17s who were in storage, but the Syrians lack it, they know it under the export name Su-22.
      4. GRAY 9 November 2015 11: 32 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Good I
        This is a forced decline

        Syrian aviation is operating.
      5. mvg
        mvg 9 November 2015 12: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Still to selflessness a drop of brains and cold calculation .. And it would not be necessary to be Alexander Matrosov. The front-line fighter "plows" the land on the front line .. The pilot is a valuable specimen of arap, we must protect it .. Syria has Su-22 (17), Su-24 .. That's who has to work on the ground .. There are cutlets, chopsticks for sushi - unhealthy.
        1. Good me 9 November 2015 13: 04 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: mvg
          Still to selflessness a drop of brains and cold calculation .. And it would not be necessary to be Alexander Matrosov. The front-line fighter "plows" the land on the front line .. The pilot is a valuable specimen of arap, we must protect it .. Syria has Su-22 (17), Su-24 .. That's who has to work on the ground .. There are cutlets, chopsticks for sushi - unhealthy.


          That's right, but there is a catastrophic lack of airplanes or pilots.
          Not from a good life, MiGs "plow the land" ...
    2. Alex_Rarog 9 November 2015 09: 06 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      You also compared the su34 and su 25 with the twink21, not protection not maneuverability ...
      1. Good me 9 November 2015 10: 09 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Alex_Rarog
        You also compared the su34 and su 25 with the twink21, not protection not maneuverability ...


        This is WHO, WHAT is not there?

        If we are talking about the MiG-21, then with the protection of the cockpit, he, like most front-line fighters, really is not very. And with maneuverability ...

        21 th, and now will give odds to some "young" yes .

        And the Su-34, as for a fighter-bomber, is very "screwdriver", and is quite well protected
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. creak 9 November 2015 13: 05 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Good I
          . And with maneuverability ... 21st, and now will give odds to some "young"


          Not surprising, because the 21st was originally created as an interceptor for the country's air defense aviation. And accordingly, from the weapons he carried only two air-to-air missiles, it was believed that this was enough to hit the target ...
          However, over time, life made its own adjustments and cannon weapons were also mounted on it.
    3. Lord of the Sith 9 November 2015 09: 08 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      By the way, I noticed that in the reports of the Ministry of Defense of Russia the numbers “6000 meters” began to be mentioned, and earlier they always spoke of 5000 meters.
      1. Kunar 9 November 2015 10: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Looks like the adversary also has something in the storeroom (Or fear has big eyes. Although in a moment -21 and red-ey or a needle would be enough.
      2. PSih2097 9 November 2015 13: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Lord of the Sith
        By the way, I noticed that in the reports of the Ministry of Defense of Russia the numbers “6000 meters” began to be mentioned, and earlier they always spoke of 5000 meters.

        Starstreak
        Starstreak HVM rocket has a length of 1,37 m and a maximum case diameter of 130 mm. The weight of the transport and launch container with a missile is about 14 kg. Swept striking elements with a length of 45 cm and a diameter of 2 cm are equipped with small stabilizers and steering wheels. The total mass of the three miniature warheads mounted on the striking elements is about 900. The Starstreak SAM system can hit targets at ranges up to 6 km and altitudes up to 5 km.

        as they say - God saves the safe ...
    4. w3554152 9 November 2015 09: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: avvg
      In a war, as in a war, it is not necessary to decrease less than 4,5 km so that civilian infrastructure is not affected.


      Take a pencil and paper and urgently write to the General Staff to give this to TsU pilots.
      1. mvg
        mvg 9 November 2015 12: 55 New
        • -2
        • 0
        -2
        Idiot. It’s better to sit at the computer yourself, find guogle, (if you can) and dial ... I will buy brains .. I will do the transplant myself .. I can’t guarantee survival, but the train of thought is correct. And give advice to yourself, so interesting .. and more honest
    5. NordUral 9 November 2015 09: 32 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      No, this cannot be done, then the army will lose, the people will oppose it. Here we need Russian technical assistance.
    6. igor.borov775 9 November 2015 10: 31 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Sure. So a man of a foreign country can reason. For example, the USA. And these are the pilots of their people and they know very well that they are bombing and why. You read what they are talking about again. This is not someone else’s territory but your own and they try to reduce the destruction of the enemy as accurately as possible without destroying everything.
    7. Andrey Yuryevich 9 November 2015 10: 36 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      a little about the Syrian pilots from RT ...
    8. max702 9 November 2015 10: 41 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      It seems like it's time to start a new production of the SU-25 (it is very desirable with night equipment) to wait for a new attack aircraft for a long time and it will be difficult, expensive, and raw. Other types of aircraft with such databases are less effective, and most importantly roads, require complex maintenance and support . The SU-25 in large numbers is just what you need, it will not be difficult for local pilots to master it, and perhaps there is reason to recall the IL-28 with more modern electronics, there was an article on VO that this aircraft was easy to learn and maintain It’s very technologically advanced, and therefore it’s cheap that in the light of ever-expanding conflicts it is of great importance, and the massive saturation of the troops will give exactly the necessary support from the air. Speak expensively chasing every Toyota on the SU-34? Here you have the apparatus for cheaper .. The sky from the "partners" air force was closed, and you can fight the Bakhs with MANPADS with tactics and appropriate equipment, progress in this direction seems to be there.
      1. mvg
        mvg 9 November 2015 13: 02 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Our former union republics have a bunch, just a "pack" of Rooks .. You can bring it to the Su-25M variant. Rook (new) costs 7-9 million tugriks, modernization is 1 million, and he is able to use smart weapons even at night .. Cheaper than Su-34 10 times .. Already 100 pieces can be found ... And 100 Rook Ikoff "really can erase to the" lunar landscape "and Aleppo and Raqqa .. And more examples will not be necessary ...
        PS: If you beat, then with all your strength, and until you find yourself, finish it off ... Strengthen the grouping. To beat ruthlessly, let these "green" and "blue" yell ... They won’t judge the winners .. if there are no bases, but we don’t have bases, use Iran ...
    9. Vladimir 1964 9 November 2015 11: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: avvg
      In a war, as in a war, it is not necessary to decrease less than 4,5 km so that civilian infrastructure is not affected.

      Of course not, Dear colleague. We need to change the tactics of combat use of army aviation! And that’s it. The question is cleared. hi
    10. Maxom75 9 November 2015 11: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The point is to save what the militants then use? They are sparing nothing.
  2. cniza 9 November 2015 08: 59 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    This is not a secret and it is clear how they got there.
    1. Smoked 9 November 2015 09: 02 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Well, our “partners” are world famous even, say the Saudis and Co. supply plentiful anti-tank missiles, but MANPADS from Libya and from the Syrian depots themselves are enough for militants.
      1. Darkoff
        Darkoff 9 November 2015 09: 08 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        In general, it was surprising that there were still no reports of Islamists using MANPADS.
        With their capital and international support, a bald trait could have been acquired for a long time.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Mera joota 9 November 2015 09: 45 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: DarkOFF
          In general, it was surprising that there were still no reports of Islamists using MANPADS.

          What was captured in warehouses has been used for a long time, now if it remains, then obviously there are only a few.
      2. Nyrobsky 9 November 2015 10: 58 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Yes everyone knows that they know that we know
  3. Same lech 9 November 2015 09: 00 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    “We know that the militants have Stinger complexes and some others, including those made in China, which they seized from our military.


    Boggling ... they couldn’t blow up warehouses or something ... now these portable air defense missiles are walking all over the region wandering from country to country, creating a threat to all aircraft.
    1. Black Colonel 9 November 2015 09: 12 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      There may be MANPADS from Libya and Iraq.
  4. Bobxnumx 9 November 2015 09: 02 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The United States, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the like actively supply weapons to extremists. Therefore, Russia actively deployed active suppression systems and try to fly planes at 5000 m.
  5. Black Colonel 9 November 2015 09: 05 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Skill, electronic warfare and luck on the side of pilots and helicopter pilots. I wish ALL pilots to return to their home base alive and healthy in their aircraft.
  6. rotmistr60 9 November 2015 09: 06 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    It was strange to expect that militants would not have MANPADS. Moreover, the Americans made it clear (Kerry's statement) that they would help the terrorists in this.
    which they captured from our military

    And the Syrians need to strictly monitor their military property.
  7. iliitchitch 9 November 2015 09: 06 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    At 4.5 km from MANPADS, even if it is super modern, it is problematic to hit a fighter. It’s alarming for helicopter pilots, and our SU-25’s work there is risky. Good luck to the guys.
    1. Nevsky_ZU 9 November 2015 09: 29 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: iliitch
      At 4.5 km from MANPADS, even if it is super modern, it is problematic to hit a fighter. It’s alarming for helicopter pilots, and our SU-25’s work there is risky. Good luck to the guys.


      If there SU-25CM3, then you can even not worry a little bit. Although better to perebdet than nedoddit))
  8. Vikxnumx 9 November 2015 09: 18 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Good luck to the flyers!
    And the "gods of war" work more accurately and efficiently!
  9. veksha50 9 November 2015 09: 18 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    "The Islamists in Syria have MANPADS that can hit targets at an altitude of up to 4,5 km" ...

    Hmm ... Strange ... I thought that our Russian Verba “takes” up to 4,5 km, and Amer Stinger - up to 4,0 km ... If it’s not right - correct who knows ...

    But in general, in order to have less opportunities to work with MANPADS, it is necessary to develop ground operations and destroy manpower, first of all ...
    1. Kunar 9 November 2015 10: 03 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Not 4 km, but 3,5 km. Moreover, 3,5 is ideal ... Confidently for low-speed targets 0,5-3,5 km, for high-speed tandem shots at a height of 2,5-3,0 at a distance from 0,5 "in the forehead" and 5,5 km maximum when shooting in the "catch-up". So it seems to be written. Although this is a stinger with FIM-92
  10. Engineer 9 November 2015 09: 32 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    What nonsense the author writes: not a single foreign MANPADS has such a height of defeat. The Chinese, those who shot down the Mi-35 in Iraq, and that the Islamists have, can’t hit at such heights. The only MANPADS operating at such altitudes is the “Willow” 9K333.
  11. Vladimir Pozlnyakov 9 November 2015 09: 44 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: DarkOFF
    In general, it was surprising that there were still no reports of Islamists using MANPADS.
    With their capital and international support, a bald trait could have been acquired for a long time.


    In Afghanistan, the mattresses made the Taliban "Stingirs", and then bought them at wild prices when frostbitten dushmans began to shoot down the hosts' planes.
  12. roskot 9 November 2015 10: 37 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Yes, it’s hard and dangerous, but cockroaches must be defeated. Good luck to the Syrian pilots and Assad's army. Victory will be yours.
  13. Denis Skiff 9 November 2015 10: 50 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: jarome
    I think that not every strike is simply recorded by drones. This is how many they need to have at Hmeimim? !!
    There are very accurate shots, and there are misfires.
    But we regret the bombs on Dushar. Sometimes you just want to add a couple.
    Of the latter, the bridge in Raqqa hit for sure, but only one lane became "full of holes", the other in order.
    Why was it not to bomb the bridge so that only pillars remained of it? Yes, even ordinary fabami ....

    Even from Chechnya, there are still photos taken during the bombing from Su-24. The drying itself recorded the results.
  14. kartalovkolya 9 November 2015 11: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And no one promised a "light walk" in Syria! A beast cornered is doubly dangerous and must be approached with even greater caution! As for the Syrian pilots, it’s an honor to praise them, but it wouldn’t hurt to “throw” dozens or two more devices for them a bit newer, and there you look and the business will be “arguing” more fun! And it would not be bad if the "cries" of General Bridlaw, from NATO, about the "bubble of 600 km.", Turned out to be a "bitter" truth for ISIS and its patrons!
  15. Cynic 9 November 2015 12: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It’s not news for a long time, last year there were pictures of Libyan and Iraqi Arrows among bandits.
  16. Old26 9 November 2015 23: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: avt
    Another thing is interesting - there are Rooks in storage

    Probably due to the fact that until a certain time they did not really need them. Let's just say that their main enemy was in the air (Israeli Air Force), and the work on the ground was of a secondary nature.

    Quote: avt
    Yes, the same picture is with the Su-17s who were in storage, but the Syrians lack it, they know it under the export name Su-22.

    According to the data for 2014, they had 40 SU-22 and 20 SU-24

    Quote: max702
    there is reason to recall the IL-28 with more modern electronics

    You still remember the IL-2 ... Start production of IL-28 - it is cheaper to create and start production of new attack aircraft

    Quote: mvg
    And 100 "Grach'ikoff" can actually be erased to the "lunar landscape" and Aleppo and Raqqa .. And more examples will not be necessary ...

    And most importantly, with all the inhabitants. See how many inhabitants there were in Aleppo before the war. even if 10% is left there now, it’s a hundred or two thousand. Do you propose to erase them into moon dust? So after such advice, Assad, even with our help, will not last a month. Even those who are not fighting now will take the side of the militants

    Quote: Smoked
    Well, our “partners” are world famous even, say the Saudis and Co. supply plentiful anti-tank missiles, but MANPADS from Libya and from the Syrian depots themselves are enough for militants.

    Only ours there are 4 types. Arrows 2 and 3, Needle and Needle-S ...
  17. RUSIVAN 10 November 2015 02: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Of course, I understand everything, but then where are our vaunted EWs (Vitebsk, Mercury, Lever, Rubella) when using which all guided missiles should be diverted to the side or destroyed on approach ... I believe that all of this is working for us, but it’s just that a lot has been said about it lately, but in fact no one talks about their use or possible use., so the question arises is bluff or reality.
  18. Old26 10 November 2015 09: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: RUSIVAN
    Of course, I understand everything, but then where are our vaunted EWs (Vitebsk, Mercury, Lever, Rubella) when using which all guided missiles should be diverted to the side or destroyed on approach ... I believe that all of this is working for us, but it’s just that a lot has been said about it lately, but in fact no one talks about their use or possible use., so the question arises is bluff or reality.

    Do not understand where the vaunted Vitebsk, Mercury, Lever, Rubella? And now we have a new national fun. A new system appears, no matter EW or rocket or plane. And then they begin to publicize it.
    Here we have a radio-electronic intelligence complex (RER) combined with an active jamming station. Designed to protect the aircraft from anti-aircraft and aircraft missiles. So the journalists made him a child prodigy, capable of jamming everything and everyone. And the writers do not think about what dimensions the station should have, what energy consumption ...

    There is a station for suppressing radio fuses of shells and also plus VHF channels. The question immediately becomes. AND WHY IT IS NOT IN SYRIA? And there are two oncoming. Are you sure not? This is a local application system; it won’t cover half the world, as our media sometimes write. And the second question. If not, is she even needed there?

    Or do we have a system (station) of an electronic jamming station / unified ground-based interference module designed to cover objects from aircraft radars such as AWACS radars. Is she there or not? Even if not, is there a need for it? The same question is not asked.

    There is an EW station, developed by order of the Strategic Missile Forces. They also reproduce why not in Syria. There are aircraft protection stations. There is probably something, but of them, they again make a prodigy in the media. They say everything is jamming. But how then does our WTO work - the media is not interested in this issue

    Well, I do not mention CALIBER. Some especially zealous to them, i.e. missiles designed to destroy stationary targets are going to sink ships, and at a distance of 1500-2500 km