Why didn't the tomahawks reach Syria? Why not all the tomahawks reached the target and what the Russian air defense was doing at that time - opinion. What damage was caused to the Shayrat air base?

Cruise missile strike on Syrian airfield - “driving nails with a microscope”

A massive cruise missile strike was launched against Syria from American destroyers based in the Mediterranean Sea. As a result, the Shayrat airfield of the Syrian Air Force in Homs province was partially destroyed. The official reason for the strikes is to prevent the Syrian leadership from using chemical weapons against civilians. The Pentagon says all planned targets were destroyed. The Russian Ministry of Defense claims that this strike was being prepared long before information about the use of chemical weapons in Syria appeared.

MK asked military experts how effective the US actions were and what goals they primarily wanted to achieve.

According to military expert Viktor Murakhovsky, the American missile strike is simply a PR campaign. “Launching cruise missiles at an airfield can be compared to hammering nails with a microscope. Expensive and ineffective,” says Murakhovsky. In his opinion, the Americans can continue launching missile strikes, but the military effect of these actions cannot be called breakthrough. At the same time, Murakhovsky believes that under the cover of these attacks, terrorist groups that are secretly supported by the United States may go on the offensive.

Ivan Konovalov, head of the military policy and economics sector of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, is also convinced that a cruise missile strike is primarily a demonstration action. “What we see. The airfield's runway is practically untouched. Warehouses where, according to American intelligence, chemical weapons were allegedly located were destroyed, but there was no chemical release into the atmosphere. This means that no prohibited ammunition was stored in warehouses,” Konovalov noted. According to him, of course, the infrastructure of the airfield was destroyed, but it is too early to say that this destruction is critical. This means, apparently, there was no goal of completely destroying the airfield. In addition, the Syrian army was warned in advance about the attack and evacuated its units from the airfield.

According to Konovalov, it is still difficult to say why not all the missiles reached the target.

“Now the Syrians, under the supervision of Russian military experts, are establishing an air defense system, and this is not only anti-aircraft missile systems, this is building systems of decoys, electronic warfare. The missiles could have been knocked off course,” the expert suggested. Also, according to him, “Tomahawk” is an old complex developed back in the 70s of the last century and can no longer be called super-effective. “It is clear that the missiles have an expiration date and may have launched missiles that were soon to be decommissioned, so it cannot be ruled out that they simply did not reach their targets due to their advanced age,” Konovalov did not rule out.

The expert is convinced that the cruise missile strike is primarily a demonstration of US military power in front of its allies and a certain message to those who are wavering, such as Turkish President Erdogan. Turkey is faced with a choice - who it is with. In addition, Konovalov recalled that the launch of the Tomohawks occurred at a time when President Donald Trump was receiving his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping. It is possible that the United States demonstrated its tough position to the Chinese, with whom they have many unresolved problems.

The Russian Ministry of Defense, through the mouth of its official representative, Major General Igor Konashenkov, has already stated that it regards the actions of the American side as a gross violation of the Memorandum on preventing incidents and ensuring security during operations in airspace Syria.

"Ministry of Defense Russian Federation suspends cooperation with the Pentagon within the framework of this Memorandum,” Konashenkov emphasized.

He stated that the attack by American cruise missiles on the Syrian airbase was being prepared long before the events associated with the chemical attack on Khan Jeyhun.

“To prepare for such a strike, it is necessary to carry out a large complex of measures for reconnaissance, planning, preparation of flight missions and bringing the missiles into full readiness for launch,” he noted. The general said that in order to cover the most sensitive objects of the Syrian infrastructure, a set of measures will be implemented in the near future to strengthen and increase the effectiveness of the air defense system of the Syrian armed forces.

HELP "MK"

"Tomahawk" (Tomahawk) is an American multi-purpose high-precision long-range subsonic cruise missile (up to 2500 km) for strategic and tactical purposes. Flies at extremely low altitudes, skirting the terrain. There are 13 modifications. Can be equipped various types combat units, including nuclear ones. It has been used in all significant military conflicts involving the United States since its adoption in 1983. Estimated cost: $1.45 million.

Follow our online broadcast

So, yesterday I tried to cover in detail the situation with what was happening around the attack on Shayrat, and in the evening I began searching for information about the disappearance of 36 tomahawks.

First, a few historical points need to be clarified. As a rule, tomahawks reach the target with a probability of 85-90%, this is a fairly high probability, I think calibers with a large use of missiles will have approximately the same probability and this is a good indicator.

We saw this figure of over 90% in Libya, when out of hundreds of tomahawks launched, 93 tomahawks (93%) hit the target, the remaining 7 fell somewhere in the desert dunes.

In Yugoslavia, tomahawks of the previous generation were used and their likelihood was lower there. Around 86%. In total, over 400 tomahawks were fired across Yugoslavia, of which about 30 were shot down by the Yugoslav air defense forces. That is, we take the percentage of those “reaching” the target without taking into account their destruction by air defense forces.

By the way, there was an interesting case in Yugoslavia when a MiG-21 pilot approached a flying tomahawk and shot it with a cannon.

Secondly, the rumors that the Americans simply disposed of old tomahawks in this way are also lies, this can be understood by looking at photographs from the found parts of tomahawks. So all the tomahawks were manufactured in 2015. Tomahawk ammunition is not loaded onto the ship with parts of different manufactures.

You can read more about this here from Akbar (https://cont.ws/@akbar/580251).

Thirdly, there’s a mountain of different materials (I’m not an expert myself), but I can say that among experts, “hitting a tomahawk with a microwave” is more of a joke. In fact, this is impossible.

The latest generation of tomahawks uses three guidance systems and GPS is used only when flying over the sea, as well as corrective when approaching the target. When the tomahawk reaches land, the GPS value is neutralized for some time.

It is almost impossible to influence the other two systems using Syrian electronic warfare. But as it turned out, there is one loophole, which seems to have been tried in the Tartus area by the Syrians.

A small digression. I think that specialists from Russia, of course, helped the Syrians set up the system, and maybe they suggested how to “take down” the tomahawk, but the fact that Russian equipment was not involved and, specifically, Russian soldiers did not press any buttons, I think, is guaranteed. I'll explain why. One way or another, for a Russian officer, honor always stands high, and to shoot down something that you were warned about several hours in advance, given that the target is an airfield not controlled by Russia, is at least a little wrong. In this situation, Russian radars at most only fired tomahawks and told the Syrians their location. Once again, this is true for me, I am sure that Russian army did not take part in the destruction of American tomahawks. If only because then they would all be destroyed.

Fourthly, why am I sure that the tomahawks were not lost on their own, but were dug into the ground by the Syrians. Here Konashenkov himself gives a hint, precisely pointing out to the Americans how many missiles have reached and how many have not reached. Let me explain. The Tomahawk flies at an extremely low altitude of up to 15 meters; at this altitude it becomes invisible to the S-300 and S-400 radars at a distance of over 80-100 km. That is, at a certain moment, in the absence of our air defense/missile defense forces in the Shayrat area, Russia had to stop firing tomahawks. This is also evidenced by the fact that Konashenkov said that 23 missiles flew, although in fact (the parts found on Shayrat) only 15-16 missiles reached Shayrat. The rest fell in the area, were shot down by the air defense forces of the air base or something else.

From this we can conclude that Konashenkov knew exactly how many tomahawks passed into the invisibility zone and how many did not.

Now the most interesting thing is how the Syrians shot down the tomahawks. Information that appears from various sources in the Arab blogosphere can be concluded that the Syrians knocked down the tomahawk altimeters and they simply plowed the ground with their bellies. This is confirmed by photographs of fallen tomahawks in the Tartus area.

I also want to note that on the English-language Twitter of NATO supporters, people are already raising serious questions that the destruction that the Americans officially showed does not correspond to 59 tomahawks.

And this is really so, because after a few hours our helicopters arrived at the airbase, as I wrote about yesterday.

Translation: The damage does not correspond to 59 missiles at the air base.

It was to this unexpected conclusion that General Konashenkov’s phrase about the Tomahawks reaching the target led the experts. I will not bore readers with details of why this act is impossible - there are both political and purely technical reasons. The latter, however, are of a secondary nature - having missed the first launches, ours could well have worked on the launched missiles. But this is already a direct military clash, for which Russia and Syria did not sign an agreement, helping only in the fight against terrorists. The USA, de jure, is not such. But de facto, it’s clear where those who disagree can put themselves - after Yugoslavia, even the most slow-witted understood. And after Libya...

Konaenkov’s speech is interesting and self-sufficient in itself:

But the conspiracy theory is also beautiful. According to Russian objective monitoring data, only 23 missiles reached the Syrian airbase. The crash site of the remaining 36 cruise missiles is unknown,” Konashenkov said. Plus the video of the destruction in his own speech is clearly insufficient for 59 missiles. Based on this, let's start:

"... I trust the Russian Defense Ministry, writes chervonec:

a) it is possible to determine on the spot the number of missiles that reached the airfield
b) the shooting shows completely uncritical destruction

It is doubly surprising that there are no reports that Russia used the S-300 and S-400 complexes (only target illumination?) and its aircraft as air defense.

Another point --- the attack came from the sea, from which the missile cannot fly much --- 100 km and only 30 km over Syrian territory (from the Lebanese border). Accordingly, to counter the Syrian air defense - there is nothing at all, time and distance.

So where did 61% of the missiles disappear? The rest... are missing?
23 flew, and 4 hit the target.

As a result, 59 cruise missiles worth almost 100 megabucks were spent on 6 old MiG-23s under REPAIR. And I feel sorry for the dining room."

The dining room is really a shame. As well as the dead. But the version is just developing. We start from the number 36. By the way, there was another missile that crashed there, the 37th. Remember: “At the number 37, the hops immediately fly off my face...”?:

The missiles clearly caused too little damage for their smart 59 brains, in fact, barely enough for two dozen:

Here's how Tomahawks hit targets:

Some of the open-air aircraft and some of the caponiers also survived here.

But let's develop topic 36:

"So, given: - how many missiles were fired from American destroyers: 59; - how many missiles flew to the ill-fated Syrian airfield: 23. The remainder: 36 missiles. Where did they go? Did they just scatter across the desert or fall into the sea? I don’t care It’s hard to believe, the Americans are too prudent and pragmatic to simply lose more than half of the missiles somewhere, especially since Tomahawks have long been used in punitive operations, starting with the Gulf War in 1991, then Yugoslavia, again Iraq, Libya .

It’s rare that Americans lost dozens of Tomahawks at once. Follow the numbers: 59 - 23 = 36... Intriguing biggrin Remember the number 36. Let's now look at the tactical and technical characteristics of the S-400 Triumph air defense system, you can find it on any military website, no one hides this data. Small screenshot:

American Tomahawks in Syria could have been shot down by our S-400 Triumph 59 - 36 = 23

Number of simultaneously fired targets ( full staff ZRS) 36. What does this mean? This means that 1 S-400 division is capable of simultaneously shooting down 36 targets. One S-400 division includes a lot of different equipment: a command post, radars, the launchers themselves, technical assistance, etc. There are 12 launchers in the division, the ones that we always see at parades (see photo below, for those who haven’t seen it). , i.e. 12 x 4 = 48 missiles. This means that the number of missiles for 1 accurate salvo is quite enough. The height of destruction of targets is from 5 meters; cruise missiles are included in this category of targets.

American Tomahawks in Syria could have been shot down by our S-400 Triumph

Why am I so sure that the 1st S-400 division is based in Syria? Because it's open information, which is in the public domain:

Based on all the data, we can conclude that there is 1 S-400 Triumph division in Syria, capable of destroying up to 48 targets, but 36 of them in one salvo. 36.

Here's more useful information, for those who say that the Tomahawks were out of reach of our air defense.

Why am I so sure that the Tomahawks were destroyed by the S-400? And let's ask a counter question, why did the Americans suddenly want to launch 59 (!!!) cruise missiles at the Syrian army airfield? This huge swarm of metal, fire and explosives was launched at one military airfield.

To completely paralyze such an airfield, it would take a couple of missiles to hit the runway, and that’s all. By the way, why exactly 59 and not 60, for example? Probably 1 rocket did not take off or fell somewhere on the deck. Such a swarm of missiles was needed to somehow get through our air defense. The maximum we can do in such a situation is to shoot down 48 missiles from an obvious enemy. It was decided to shoot down 36 out of 59 in one salvo.

The rest were most likely blinded and deafened by our electronic warfare, because... It is not entirely clear why the missiles did not hit the target exactly. Well, this is an assumption, I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the information. Or maybe the Americans didn’t set exact goals, but simply wanted to demonstratively pass through our air defense. And they passed, with losses, but they passed. As planned. By the way, this was a reason for all liberal media to shout that our air defense is leaky like a sieve and to start holding a funeral for the S-400.

But none of them counted our specific resources and downed enemy missiles. If we proceed from the fact that 59 missiles were launched not at the airfield, but to break through our air defense, then this can be considered a direct strike on us. The breakthrough in this case was successful; 23 missiles passed through our defenses. The United States is once again openly showing aggression towards Russia, but we do not see an adequate response. Or is it too early to expect any reaction, although... wait for the replenishment of S-400 divisions in Syria, there are clearly not enough resources there."

This is the version. For me, it’s incredible - it’s impossible to hide the launch of dozens of missiles - the network would already be bursting from the footage recorded on phones, fortunately there are plenty of people around our base, and especially no one was hiding this phenomenal success. But like a beautiful fairy tale, it has the right to life

KP.ru journalist Viktor Baranets answers seven naive questions about why two-thirds of the US Tomahawks did not reach the target and where the Russian air defenses were at that time.

1. Where did Trump hit Syria?

From two US destroyers “Porter” and “Ross”, which are drifting off the Greek island of Crete in the Mediterranean Sea. These destroyers are equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles. And he fired 59 of these missiles at Shayrat air base in Homs province in Syria, which belongs to the government forces of Bashar al-Assad.

2. What damage was caused to Shayrat air base?

According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, as a result of the strike, 6 MiG-23 aircraft located in repair hangars were destroyed, as well as a radar station, ammunition and fuel depots, and a canteen... 4 Syrian soldiers were killed and 2 were missing, 6 more were burned while extinguishing the fire at the base due to missile hits.

The Syrian authorities have already stated that “America has caused serious damage to the fight against ISIS*.”

One of the base employees frankly admitted: “We can say that Shayrat is out of order.” However, the Russian Ministry of Defense has slightly different information: “the runway, taxiways and Syrian Air Force aircraft in the parking lots are not damaged.” And, judging by the first photos from Shayrat, this is closer to the truth - we see the surviving “take-off” and several surviving aircraft. Considering that the cost of 1 Tomahawk missile is at least $1.5 million (and the price of some modernized copies can reach up to $2 million), it turns out that Donald Trump spent 100 million full dollars on such an ineffective attack from a military point of view! In rubles, this amount looks threatening - 6 billion. Apparently, the political result of such an irrational waste of ammunition was more important for Trump.

Launch of a cruise missile from the destroyer Porter.

3. Were there Russian military personnel at this base?

The Pentagon officially reported that they were trying to “minimize the risk to base personnel,” including Russian military personnel who could be at the facility. And before the strike, they allegedly informed the Russian military through established communication channels that are used to prevent conflicts in Syria. Yes, there are such channels. But the Americans’ message reached the command of our group in Syria at the very last moment, when the Tomahawks were already approaching. For it is absolutely clear that if the warning had been “two hours” before the attack (as the US claims), then the Russians would have warned the Syrians, and they could have removed their planes and helicopters from Shayrat during that time.

Some Russian military experts “initiated” in this emergency claim that “there was no warning at all.”

4. Why didn’t Russian and Syrian air defense work?

The Russian S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems, which are located at our bases in Syria in Khmeimim and Tartus, protect precisely these objects. They do not have the task of covering the entire sky of Syria.

But why didn’t the Syrian air defense system work? This is the most difficult question yet, the answer to which has not yet been received. There are only assumptions by our specialists that the calculations of the Syrian anti-aircraft missile systems covering the Shayrat base “turned out to be unprepared” to repel such a massive missile attack. In addition, the Americans, on their destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea, came as close as possible to the shore and significantly reduced the flight time of their Tomahawks to their targets. In this case, the response time to an attack by air defense crews should be instantaneous. Apparently, this did not happen.

But there is other information: part of the Tomahawks was shot down after all! The Pentagon cheerfully reported that “all missiles reached their target.” But this, to put it mildly, is not true. According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, out of 59 missiles fired at Shayrat, only 23 reached the target. A little more than a third!

But whether the 36 Tomahawks that did not make it were actually shot down or simply fell into the sea and got lost along the way - this remains to be seen.

The destroyer USS Porter, one of the US Navy ships that launched missiles into Syria.

5. What is a Tomahawk?

This is an American multi-purpose high-precision long-range subsonic cruise missile for strategic and tactical purposes. It was put into service back in 1983. But it is constantly being modernized.

The rocket received its name in honor of the edged weapon of the Indians - a battle ax, with which they not only chopped, but also often threw it at the enemy.

The Tomahawk is not easy to detect by air defense radars, since it flies at extremely low altitudes (up to 25–30 m) and follows the terrain.

Firing range - 2500 km.

Average speed is 800–900 km/h.

Length - 6.25 m. Weight - 1500 kg. The weight of the warhead is 120 kg. The Tomahawk can also be equipped with a nuclear warhead.

Some have already stated that Russian air defenses simply cannot shoot down such a powerful, fast and cunning missile as the Tomahawk. This is a lie. Even the S-300 (not to mention the more modern S-400 system) shoot down such “targets” flying at speeds of up to 10 thousand km/h! So “Tomahawks” are quite tough for them.

But is it possible to compare the Tomahawk with the Russian Caliber missile, which has already shown itself in all its glory in Syria? Yes, you can. In fact, these are very similar missiles. They have similar speed. The “Caliber” has a more modern weapon that hits the target more accurately. We can say that "Caliber" is a super-"Tomahawk".

6. Moscow announced that it was withdrawing from the Memorandum on Flight Safety with the United States. What does it mean?

The US missile strike was a flagrant violation of the Russian-American agreement (2015 Memorandum) that the parties undertake to avoid sudden actions in Syrian airspace (whether aircraft flights or missile launches). The Russian side, in accordance with the agreement, always warned the US military about the time, areas and nature of the actions of its aircraft and ships in the region.

After the violation of the MoU by the United States, Russia simply “frees its hands” and abandons the established “rules of the game.”

7. Why did the ISIS attack begin immediately after the US attack?

Indeed, ISIS* militants launched an attack on the Shayrat base a couple of hours before the US strike. Maybe the Americans “by mistake” warned not the Russians, but the Ililovites about their missile attack? And they did not miss the moment.

This once again suggests that suspicions of Washington’s patronage over ISIS in Syria are not groundless. The same timing coincided with the ISIS attack on the positions of Assad’s army near the city of Dar ez-Zor immediately after US coalition planes struck government troops.

Near Shayrat, Syrian soldiers nevertheless repelled the attack of the bandits. But the aftertaste from its synchronization with the American strike remained...

Victor Baranets * Terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation.

Cruise missile strike on Syrian airfield - “driving nails with a microscope”

MK asked military experts how effective the US actions were and what goals they primarily wanted to achieve.

According to Konovalov, it is still difficult to say why not all the missiles reached the target.

“Now the Syrians, under the supervision of Russian military experts, are establishing an air defense system, and this is not only anti-aircraft missile systems, this is building systems of decoys and electronic warfare. The missiles could have been knocked off course,” the expert suggested. Also, according to him, “Tomahawk” is an old complex developed back in the 70s of the last century and can no longer be called super-effective. “It is clear that the missiles have an expiration date and may have launched missiles that were soon to be decommissioned, so it cannot be ruled out that they simply did not reach their targets due to their advanced age,” Konovalov did not rule out.

The Russian Ministry of Defense, through its official representative Major General Igor Konashenkov, has already stated that it regards the actions of the American side as a gross violation of the Memorandum on preventing incidents and ensuring security during operations in Syrian airspace, signed in 2015.

“The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation suspends cooperation with the Pentagon within the framework of this Memorandum,” Konashenkov emphasized.

He stated that the attack by American cruise missiles on the Syrian airbase was being prepared long before the events associated with the chemical attack on Khan Jeyhun.

"Tomahawk" (Tomahawk) is an American multi-purpose high-precision long-range subsonic cruise missile (up to 2500 km) for strategic and tactical purposes. Flies at extremely low altitudes, skirting the terrain. There are 13 modifications. It can be equipped with various types of warheads, including nuclear ones. It has been used in all significant military conflicts involving the United States since its adoption in 1983. Estimated cost: $1.45 million.