Military Review

Russian Tu-22М3 struck another blow to terrorist facilities in Syria

76
On Thursday morning, six Russian Tu-22М3 bombers struck in Syria at previously explored Islamic State facilities in the cities of S-Suhnya, Arak and Al-Taybeh (Homs province) and east of Palmyra, reports RIA News with reference to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.




“Long-distance bombers carried out a strike at 5.00 Moscow time. The targets for the defeat were command centers, clusters of manpower and militant equipment. The discovery of new targets has led to increased intelligence in this region, including space, ”the message says.

It clarifies that "as a result of the air strike, two control points of terrorists, manpower and military equipment of the IG in the shelter were destroyed."



The bomber cover was carried out by Su-35, stationed at the Khmeimim base.

After completing the assignment, the Tu-22М3 returned to the Russian Federation on the departure airfields.
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
76 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Partizan
    Partizan 22 July 2016 08: 28
    +4
    So what
    :-) normal learning process for VKS-)
    1. Andrey K
      Andrey K 22 July 2016 08: 37
      +14
      Quote: Partizan
      So what
      :-) normal learning process for VKS-)

      "Utilization" OFAB-250. Cheap, cheerful, reliable (like a roller). Without amerovsky beating with a heel in the chest.
      1. mitrich
        mitrich 22 July 2016 08: 48
        +5
        Not cheap at all. Delivery is not cheap. Judging by the photos and videos, they pour in 10 bombs. Previously, like 12 was. Not enough. And all because of not refueling in the air. And why on the video, on the ground, 5-6 breaks? The video is not from there or what?
        And why can’t you take the bombs to the maximum, fuel to Khmeimim, sit there, refuel, boot up and please the broads again?
        1. Andrey K
          Andrey K 22 July 2016 08: 59
          +14
          Quote: mitrich
          Not cheap at all. Delivery is not cheap.

          I agree with you in part.
          I wrote about cheap recycling. Even taking into account your arguments, it turns out: it is cheaper to deliver and "pour" on the pots of barmaley - than storage, security, transportation, disposal with the corresponding financial costs.
          1. ancient
            ancient 22 July 2016 11: 28
            +3
            Quote: Andrey K
            Even taking into account your arguments, it turns out: it is cheaper to deliver and "pour" on the pots of barmaley - than storage, security, transportation, disposal with the corresponding financial costs.


            If we take into account that how many denyuzhkov spend one SOOO "high-ranking ..." person "on" riding their dogs on a private plane (as he says to his wife - .. to raise the prestige of Russia " wassat on all sorts of exhibitions, salons ... then it was possible on a dedicated basis to "contain" in Syria a whole DIVISION of Tu-22-xX! soldier
            1. bober1982
              bober1982 22 July 2016 11: 48
              +1
              Ancient, what are you trifling with .... dogs ..., a four-legged lucky thing to say.
              There was a case in the Soviet Air Force when a regiment commander took a waitress from a flight canteen on a plane. There were times! And you are talking about dogs.
              1. Alex_Tug
                Alex_Tug 22 July 2016 12: 28
                +2
                There was a case in the Soviet Air Force when a regiment commander took a waitress from a flight canteen on a plane. There were times!


                Well rolled a waitress. A pilot training and summer hours. And then some officials ride.
              2. ancient
                ancient 22 July 2016 14: 27
                +2
                Quote: bober1982
                Well, what are you trifling .... doggies ... lucky four-legged, what to say.


                Frankly speaking ... just a "toad strangling" ... either a whole floor in a skyscraper on Kotelnicheskaya embankment, or a "fucking apartment" in .. "Londo'ne" wassat , then "Rolls-Royce", "dacha" castle in Austria and .. other-other-other, but at the same time ..... "everyone should shrink and save, that is, eat less and .. use gas and electricity " wassat Well, how not to say ... "urya ....."? !!!! laughing
        2. seregatara1969
          seregatara1969 22 July 2016 09: 16
          +4
          takeoff landing the most vulnerable spot for an airplane
        3. alexmach
          alexmach 22 July 2016 09: 41
          +3
          Because for this it is necessary to deliver fuel and bombs to this very Heimim, and this is logistics, that is, also money.
          1. ancient
            ancient 22 July 2016 11: 31
            +1
            Quote: alexmach
            Because for this it is necessary to deliver fuel and bombs to this very Heimim, and this is logistics, that is, also money.


            Delivered and regularly! And no problems!



            "Arbuzovoz" .... sea wink

        4. Alex_Tug
          Alex_Tug 22 July 2016 12: 40
          +1
          Not cheap at all. Delivery is not cheap. Judging by the photos and videos, they pour in 10 bombs. Previously, like 12 was. Not enough. And all because of not refueling in the air. And why on the video, on the ground, 5-6 breaks? The video is not from there or what?
          And why can’t you take the bombs to the maximum, fuel to Khmeimim, sit there, refuel, boot up and please the broads again?


          Opinion sofa expert.
          - photos and videos are unlikely from a place from a specific event
          - How many bombs can not be judged so the video
          - Refueling? Is she needed in a particular case? Maybe for training only.
          - Sit in Hmeimim. What for? Extra depreciation costs and the development of aircraft resources. So not needed.
          - Babahs can be arranged with airplanes that are at the base. - - These flights are only for training pilots and utilizing scrap metal from arsenals (a wise decision).
          1. ancient
            ancient 22 July 2016 14: 40
            0
            Quote: Alex_Tug
            - photos and videos are unlikely from a place from a specific event


            1. Absolutely right!
            2. Why? .... Press pause and count the number of cast iron that "fell out" during a salvo discharge (Volley 2 or 4) bully
            3. A priori is not possible, because. it is not on the plane ... although it would be very useful, because. You can then "carry" as much as you want (within reasonable limits) and even though on the internal and at least on the external sling.
            4. If with a landing in Khmeimim, then initially you can take about 20 tons of bombs or less, but then perform several repeated approaches and "work out" on the newly identified targets, the other question is that then fly back home ... it will be very problematic recourse
            5. "Cast iron" does not deteriorate from time to time, so it "does not need to be disposed of", otherwise in the pre-extreme "war" it was necessary to "throw" the cast iron model "M-39" fish soup "cut off) wassat
      2. bif
        bif 22 July 2016 18: 42
        0
        Quote: Andrey K
        Cheap, angry, reliable
    2. Dam
      Dam 22 July 2016 09: 06
      +8
      Apparently, it’s all a matter of study, since it is economically inexpedient to drive strategists to destroy a handful of barmalei, it would be possible to gasp cheaper than something. But strategists also need to be taught. So they combined the useful with the pleasant
      1. ancient
        ancient 22 July 2016 11: 30
        0
        Quote: Damm
        But strategists also need to be taught.


        To do this, there are flights according to the UBP plan on..polygon! soldier
        1. Alex_Tug
          Alex_Tug 22 July 2016 12: 45
          +1
          To do this, there are flights according to the UBP plan on..polygon!


          And here is not a training ground? The landfill, but already real.
          1. ancient
            ancient 22 July 2016 14: 43
            0
            Quote: Alex_Tug
            And here is not a training ground? The landfill, but already real.


            So I'm talking about this, but there is only one "small" feature .... if you have a "dead" motor (I will not give reasons), then you need to take 1500-1800 and "stomp" home or to the nearest alternate airfield .... then what if you have over the territory of Syria (God forbid ... vibration or shavings in oil or dangerous T gases, etc.)?
            "Fast and Furious" on one? ... So quickly you will find yourself completely empty soldier
            1. Alex_Tug
              Alex_Tug 22 July 2016 15: 03
              0
              only there is one "little" feature ...


              A purely personal opinion. Flights through Iraq and Iran are coordinated by the MO with the relevant services. Maybe in these agreements there is an emergency landing in case of something.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. evge-malyshev
      evge-malyshev 22 July 2016 09: 12
      0
      Quote: Partizan
      normal learning process for VKS-)


      Cynically.
  2. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 22 July 2016 08: 30
    +5
    Unlike the coalition, which once again killed civilians, our intelligence is not in vain eating its bread ... True, from this coalition it’s like water from a goose. They promised to investigate. Without explaining, what is the coalition doing in Syria?
  3. darksoul
    darksoul 22 July 2016 08: 36
    +3
    Well done boys
  4. kam4atka
    kam4atka 22 July 2016 08: 44
    -1
    It seemed to me alone that not enough bombs? They devoured more resources, and at the output zilch. (you can minus). Not commensurate costs.
    1. Hariton laptev
      Hariton laptev 22 July 2016 08: 50
      +8
      Yes, no, it didn’t seem, but looking for what it’s not enough, if you make scorched earth in half of the country, then yes, but if everything is so hit the target with sufficient accuracy, then that’s enough.
    2. queen
      queen 22 July 2016 08: 53
      +3
      Quote: kam4atka
      Not commensurate costs.

      In 41-45, did they count money in the trenches?
      1. kam4atka
        kam4atka 22 July 2016 09: 00
        0
        Your comment is not clear.
    3. Alexey-74
      Alexey-74 22 July 2016 09: 07
      0
      Of course you know better than the General Staff of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation ....
    4. seregatara1969
      seregatara1969 22 July 2016 09: 20
      0
      Well then it was necessary not to load ofab-250. they would put ofab-50 like firewood - a much larger pile would have turned out.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 22 July 2016 09: 23
        0
        Ofab-50, there is no such caliber of a / bombs.
    5. Black Colonel
      Black Colonel 22 July 2016 09: 33
      +6
      But in my opinion everything is fine:
      1. real combat training (no need to drive empty) soldier
      2. disposal of bearded am
      3. flag demonstration (as in the Navy) drinks
      4. disposal of expired batteries fellow
      And all for one flight. good good drinks
  5. VICTOR-61
    VICTOR-61 22 July 2016 08: 45
    +4
    The main thing is to successfully track down and deliver an unexpected blow. The young people and most importantly, our fighters are not suffering.
  6. Leto
    Leto 22 July 2016 08: 47
    -5
    It clarifies that "as a result of the air strike, two control points of terrorists, manpower and military equipment of the IG in the shelter were destroyed."

    But what about the leaders? Why weren't the leaders killed? And what is this result, high-precision carpet bombing of six bombers, and only two control points, could not write six? Well, what kind of "manpower and equipment in the shelter," it was necessary: ​​"117 militants, 13 tanks, 25 technicians and 10 jihadimobiles were destroyed"
    Eh, sadly with their imagination ...
    1. evge-malyshev
      evge-malyshev 22 July 2016 09: 21
      -1
      Quote: Leto
      Eh, sadly with their imagination ...


      Cynically.

      Quote: Leto
      Well, what kind of "manpower and equipment in the shelter," it was necessary: ​​"117 militants, 13 tanks, 25 technicians and 10 jihadimobiles were destroyed"


      More cynical.
      1. Leto
        Leto 22 July 2016 09: 42
        -4
        Quote: evge-malyshev
        More cynical.

        Normal reaction to a lie.
    2. Alex_Tug
      Alex_Tug 22 July 2016 12: 50
      0
      Well, what kind of "manpower and equipment in the shelter," it was necessary: ​​"117 militants, 13 tanks, 25 technicians and 10 jihadimobiles were destroyed"


      The flag is in your hands, you can visit, calculate and at the same time we have a photo-video report.
  7. kam4atka
    kam4atka 22 July 2016 08: 51
    0
    Quote: kam4atka
    It seemed to me alone that not enough bombs? They devoured more resources, and at the output zilch. (you can minus). Not commensurate costs.

    This is what I mean, past wars have clearly shown that to inflict maximum damage to the enemy, it is necessary to bomb not with 10 bombs, but with hundreds, and it’s not a fact that they will put everyone ...
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 22 July 2016 09: 12
      +4
      And if you bomb with thousands of bombs, tens of thousands of bombs? Can you imagine what the maximum damage will be done to the enemy!
      In order to destroy a specific target, you need as many bombs as it takes, no more, and no less, why carry too much?
      The control points that destroyed are very difficult goals, and you say ....and at the exit zilch
      It's good to sit on the couch, take a sip of tea ...
    2. weksha50
      weksha50 22 July 2016 11: 17
      +2
      Quote: kam4atka
      past wars have clearly shown that to inflict maximum damage to the enemy, you need to bomb not with 10 bombs, but with hundreds, and it’s not a fact that everyone will be put ...



      Hmm ... Did you turn to the experience of the Amer and British aviation in the 2nd World War?
      Well - naturally, to the experience of the US Air Force in Vietnam? To carpet bombing?

      Well then it’s easier to say - drop one nuclear bomb ... No.

      PS Here the psychological factor - Tu-22M3 flight and bombing - affects not only the Be-Behs, but also the United States and its alliance ...
  8. Thomas I do not believe40
    Thomas I do not believe40 22 July 2016 08: 51
    +1
    As soon as the barmalei with their gang got up on the karachiks to pray, they immediately hold the bomb from above.
    And then chasing them alone in the desert of bombs is not a graze fly plaque.
  9. agfa
    agfa 22 July 2016 08: 51
    +5
    Like 10 FAB-500. Those. 5 tons in total with a maximum load of 24 tons. Probably so little because of range. Although m / b is 1000
    Reference: Bomb weapons, consisting of conventional and nuclear free-falling bombs with a total mass of up to 24.000 kg, are located in the fuselage (up to 12000 kg) and on four nodes of the external suspension on the nine-lock girder holders MBDZ-U9-502 (typical versions of the bomb load - 69 FAB- 250 or eight FAB-1500). Infa from the site http://chortos.livejournal.com/150283.html
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Oa1nkDtdvFs/U5U2_eqGB2I/AAAAAAAAAdw/S05n2tRO4ws/s1600/

    2291786.jpg
    http://nevskii-bastion.ru/kartinki/FAB-250M62_PK_MAKS-2009_05.JPG

    Most likely it was 10 fab-500-m62

    but if it was 10 fab-1500 then impressive. 15 tons !!!


    In the bomb bay Tu-22m3, which is called the cargo compartment on the cassette holders KD can hang:
    33 FAB-250 or
    18 FAB-500 or
    8 FAB-1500 or

    Most likely, the outer suspension was not used for a long range.
    Looked closely.
    No, it’s just 1500 in appearance - they are not so streamlined as the M62
    1. ancient
      ancient 22 July 2016 11: 09
      +2
      Quote: agfa
      Like 10 FAB-500.


      On the "peephole" determine the caliber? wink

      Quote: agfa
      with a maximum load of 24 tons.


      The maximum load is when the target is at ... "arm's length" (or in the region of the 4th turn)

      Quote: agfa
      and on four nodes of the external suspension on nine-chute beam holders MBDZ-U9-502 (typical versions of the bomb load - 69 FAB-250


      If you look closely, even the wing-mounted BD-4Ks have been removed on the plane (to somehow reduce the CLS), but you also want to hang "hedgehogs"? wassat

      Quote: agfa
      but if it was 10 fab-1500 then impressive. 15 tons !!!


      This is not the C-34, where the weight of the fuel is separate and the weight of the ammunition unit is separate ... On the Tu-22M3, all together ... or fuel or bombs ... ask about the specific fuel consumption (hourly or kilometer .. no difference) and then make up your mind ... either to fly somewhere, at least with something, or fly to bomb, but very ... "close", and MIRACLES and DREAMS ..... there are no soldier

      Quote: agfa
      No, it’s just 1500 in appearance - they are not so streamlined as the M62


      Because they are .. "tailored" according to the ballistic tables M-46 and M-54 wink
  10. berezin1987
    berezin1987 22 July 2016 08: 55
    +3
    Why not negotiate with Iraq on the use of its airfields for attacks on terrorists. Then the Tu-22m3 could take on board much more bombs. 6 bombers with a half load of weather do not do, we need massive strikes on the positions of terrorists.
    1. desyatka
      desyatka 22 July 2016 09: 08
      +2
      to Iraq, too, and then it is necessary to protect, it’s better to deliver a b / h express.
    2. Alexey-74
      Alexey-74 22 July 2016 09: 09
      0
      I think the United States and its coalition are putting pressure on Iraq.
    3. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 22 July 2016 09: 10
      +2
      Hop airfield is located in northwestern Iran.
  11. kam4atka
    kam4atka 22 July 2016 09: 21
    +3
    Quote: bober1982
    And if you bomb with thousands of bombs, tens of thousands of bombs? Can you imagine what the maximum damage will be done to the enemy!
    In order to destroy a specific target, you need as many bombs as it takes, no more, and no less, why carry too much?
    The control points that destroyed are very difficult goals, and you say ....and at the exit zilch
    It's good to sit on the couch, take a sip of tea ...

    As practice showed on the same palmyra: VKS, arta, then the infantry attack and rolled away. Again vks, arta again attack and so repeatedly. And about the sofa, although no, I will not comment. And I dare to suggest that such targets can be covered with art. Or the same su-34. And no one will guarantee that the target is destroyed. I know what I'm talking about. Rather, their practice is combined with the fighting, because nobody canceled their studies.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 22 July 2016 09: 26
      +1
      I sincerely wish you all the best, you are apparently a good person.
      1. kam4atka
        kam4atka 22 July 2016 09: 29
        +2
        Thank you for your kind words.
    2. weksha50
      weksha50 22 July 2016 11: 22
      0
      Quote: kam4atka
      Rather, their practice is combined with the fighting, because nobody canceled their studies.



      Hmm ... Well, Shoigu directly stated that the costs of conducting military operations in Syria are included in the budgetary expenditures of the Defense Ministry for the exercises ...

      So to speak - two in one, pleasant with useful ...
  12. rudolff
    rudolff 22 July 2016 09: 44
    +3
    I do not see the point in such sorties. Even in terms of combat training. What is stopping:
    1. Make an intermediate landing in Khmeimin for rest, refueling, replenishment of ammunition, clarification of goals?
    2. Secondment a pair of 22 for an indefinite period based on Khmeymin to perform special tasks?
    3. To return at least part of the equipment from among the hastily and extremely unreasonably withdrawn from Khmeimin back. The Su-24/34 is able to solve all the tasks posed an order of magnitude more efficient than the 22nd with a dozen 250s on board.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. pigkiller
      pigkiller 22 July 2016 10: 33
      +5
      Two remarks: these bombers based on a / b in Syria is problematic for technical and other reasons; bombing strikes on areas for them is a secondary task; flight routes are being worked out in the Eastern Mediterranean and, possibly, the Persian Gulf.
      The task of the 22x-Carcasses is to break through layered air defense and destroy strategic facilities, including special ammunition.
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 22 July 2016 10: 54
        +3
        I agree. The use of missile carriers as ordinary bombers is unreasonable in itself. But even if you load them with OFABs, then use them more efficiently.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. ancient
      ancient 22 July 2016 11: 12
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      I do not see the point in such sorties. Even in terms of combat training.


      I absolutely support, especially about ... "combat training" soldier

      Now what is stopping:
      1. The maintenance of forces and means of anti-terrorist operation.
      2. A short strip and very hot ... for the Tu-22M3.

      with the 3rd paragraph, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE! good soldier
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 22 July 2016 11: 21
        +2
        Hello, buddy Ancient! I cited Khmeimin as an example, there are other airfields. In Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon. But it’s better, of course, not to drive them there at all. As well as the 160s.
        1. ancient
          ancient 22 July 2016 11: 36
          +1
          Quote: rudolff
          . In Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya.


          In Syria, no, in Iraq ... it’s very problematic, in Iran ....... these are dreamers and hoteliers, but from Libya ... it's almost like home (not to mention the situation there)!
          HELLO ,,, FRIENDLY !!!! drinks
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 22 July 2016 12: 03
            +2
            No, not Libya. Lebanon. Is there really nothing suitable in Syria? What about al-Shairat? Three km, almost like an old lane in Engels. True, the asphalt is not concrete.
            1. ancient
              ancient 22 July 2016 14: 46
              +1
              Quote: rudolff
              . Is there really nothing suitable in Syria? What about al-Shairat?


              Of course there is, but ..... only "theoretically" with the conditions ... "if yes mares" ... on the T-4 "tried" .. the result? .. Right ... "in the face" soldier
    6. Alex_Tug
      Alex_Tug 22 July 2016 12: 57
      0
      1. Make an intermediate landing in Khmeimin for rest, refueling, replenishment of ammunition, clarification of goals?


      Like a couch expert.
      - double production of the engine life of a bomber. Is she needed? So training.
      1. ancient
        ancient 22 July 2016 14: 50
        0
        Quote: Alex_Tug
        - double production of the engine life of a bomber.


        What do you mean by the term .. "double depletion of a motor resource"? Repeated starts of the engine and APU? So does the same thing happen at the departure airport (base) when preparing for a second departure?
        And the motor resource (that is, the engine operating time), on the contrary, will be less, since the distance to the target (generally close) and the BC can be taken much, much more, that's just ... "these are dreamers" (although if at night, and even splash several buckets of kerosene, so ... for an hour ...) then you can try soldier
        1. Alex_Tug
          Alex_Tug 22 July 2016 15: 19
          0
          "double production of a motor resource"


          These bombings, in principle, have no "strategic" value. Additional landing and takeoff is the resource of the landing gear, the engine mode during takeoff is the development of the aircraft resource.
          The whole strategy is the same, to train crews to fly in an unfamiliar area of ​​Iran, Iraq (without the support of native flight control systems).
          And the bombing is so demoralization of the militants - Mahmoud, listen here, the Russians have flown, they have thrown bombs. Abdullah was killed, I was shocked, blood is flowing from my ear. Ishak (camel) was killed and how now I will carry ammunition.

          The opinion of a purely couch expert.
  13. cheburator
    cheburator 22 July 2016 09: 49
    0
    Commendable, but the news is a bit outdated.
  14. Hunt
    Hunt 22 July 2016 11: 05
    0
    Very beautiful and formidable aircraft! Good news, let the crews train.
  15. Mentat
    Mentat 22 July 2016 11: 49
    0
    Quote: rudolff
    I do not see the point in such sorties. Even in terms of combat training. What is stopping:
    1. Make an intermediate landing in Khmeimin for rest, refueling, replenishment of ammunition, clarification of goals?
    2. Secondment a pair of 22 for an indefinite period based on Khmeymin to perform special tasks?

    Hmeimiм does not meet the requirements for basing strategic missile carriers. Lightning fast, well-prepared night raid on the base and the capture or simply destruction of the Tu-22M will cause not only serious material damage, but also significant image losses, which is even more important.

    3. To return at least part of the equipment from among the hastily and extremely unreasonably withdrawn from Khmeimin back. The Su-24/34 is able to solve all the tasks posed an order of magnitude more efficient than the 22nd with a dozen 250s on board.

    Yes, you, dear reader, need to the General Staff! At least to the analytical department, and you are wasting time here on the forum, ah-ah-ah.
    1. rudolff
      rudolff 22 July 2016 12: 06
      +2
      The withdrawal of the main part of the group from Khmeimin was a political decision, and not a decision of the General Staff.
      1. ancient
        ancient 22 July 2016 14: 53
        +1
        Quote: rudolff
        The withdrawal of the main part of the group from Khmeimin was a political decision


        Have you already decided to live without ... HPP? belay wink
        1. rudolff
          rudolff 22 July 2016 15: 25
          +2
          From these KhPPs Russia got upset, like that cow in a bomb bay.
    2. ancient
      ancient 22 July 2016 14: 52
      +1
      Quote: Mentat
      Khmeimim does not meet the requirements for basing strategic missile carriers.


      It’s absolutely true, only we have all the bases (such as the entrance yard !!!!) .. this is not for you Barvikha or Valdai wassat
      And Khmeimim is not suitable for its "capabilities" soldier
  16. KVashentcev
    KVashentcev 22 July 2016 12: 45
    0
    Why do you want to know that the Russian air forces have attacked terrorist targets in the US ........................ ????
  17. Mentat
    Mentat 22 July 2016 14: 30
    0
    Quote: rudolff
    The withdrawal of the main part of the group from Khmeimin was a political decision, and not a decision of the General Staff.

    Well, then urgently to the analytical center! You have nothing to do on the site. You will tell them there what kind of hasty fools they are, express yourself, the whole world will kneel!
    1. rudolff
      rudolff 22 July 2016 15: 45
      +1
      The giraffe is big, does he know better? So under Gorbachev, the union was ruined, under Yeltsin, Russia was being sold ... Were al giraffes then "lower" in height?
  18. ver_
    ver_ 24 July 2016 16: 54
    0
    Quote: Mentat
    Quote: rudolff
    The withdrawal of the main part of the group from Khmeimin was a political decision, and not a decision of the General Staff.

    Well, then urgently to the analytical center! You have nothing to do on the site. You will tell them there what kind of hasty fools they are, express yourself, the whole world will kneel!

    The conclusion was conscious - what the hell was flyers doing in the wind season - dust to heaven .., aviation for routine maintenance for this period, something else was modernized based on the experience gained, negotiations with the opposition and mattresses, etc.