Operation Tomahawk: was the strike on an airbase in Syria successful? Why the S400 was not shot down by tomahawks in Syria.

Since the US strike cruise missiles Regarding the Syrian airbase, foreign media continue to debate why Russia did not use its air defense systems in Syria. In fact, three main answers are proposed: Russia did not risk aggravating the situation for political reasons; the power of Russian air defense systems is actually a myth, and they are not able to shoot down cruise missiles at all; and, finally, that Russian air defense systems are so ineffective that a small percentage of even downed missiles will destroy the demand for Russian complexes Air defense in the world and will affect the overall reputation Russian weapons for export.

Popular Mechanics is trying to understand the thinking of Putin, who did not order the use of air defense, although he knew in advance about the attack, as he was warned. Most likely it was clear that this would be a massive attack, and not several missiles; most likely it was clear where they would come from. Putin could give the order and then tell the whole world that he saved the lives of the Syrian military who are fighting terrorists. But he didn't do that. Why? The publication's guess is that he did not do this because if Russian air defense systems had not shot down the Tomahawks, it would have been a serious blow to the marketing campaign Russian weapons. As Popular Mechanics emphasizes, the biggest mystery in the world today in the military sphere is whether Russian air defense systems can really withstand the American Air Force or not?

However, a version has also been put forward that in this way Putin made it clear to Assad that he will not constantly cover up his actions, and that it is better for Assad to refrain from committing war crimes. This version pops up periodically both on forums and in the comments of foreign readers.

CNN even puts forward a version that Russia thus essentially agreed with the need to conduct a one-time demonstration attack on a Syrian target, although the Russians could shoot down the Tomahawks.

The Daily Mail publishes a piece with the headline “Russian leader’s missile defense systems fail to protect Syrian airbase"and notes that despite all the assurances of the Russian military that their air defense systems can protect against enemy missiles and aircraft, real life Russian air defense systems have not yet worked American equipment and technology.

Context

Putin is in a difficult situation

S-300 is not capable of destroying Tomahawks

Justin Bronk, an analyst from the British RUSI (Royal United Services Institute), believes that the S-400 complex, although advertised as being able to withstand cruise missiles, is actually good against ballistic missiles flying at the target from above, and against aircraft, but not against cruise missiles flying low over the surface with differences in altitude.

The publication also quotes Russian observer Pavel Felgengauer, who writes that Russian air defense systems, at best, can essentially cover only the objects where they are located; the effective defense radius is about 30 km, but not objects at long distances, and certainly not the entire territory Syria. The idea that Russia can protect Syrian airspace, according to the observer, is just PR for Russian weapons.

The translation of the article “Why Russian S-300 and S-400 did not shoot down Tomahawks” has also gone viral on the English-language network. In this material, Russian military experts explain the silence of air defense systems in Syria by Russia’s reluctance to bring the world to nuclear war: “The use of Russian air defense systems by the Syrian army in response to a missile strike from the United States would have led to a nuclear conflict, which did not happen only thanks to the composure of the Russian Supreme Commander-in-Chief,” said corresponding member Russian Academy military sciences Sergei Sudakov. “The most important question everyone asks is why? Russian air defense All these missiles were not shot down. The inhabitants believe that this should be done and thereby repel aggression. But, by and large, if we started shooting them down now, we might not wake up this morning. Because today what is called a “nuclear conflict” could happen, it would be a clash between two nuclear powers in a third territory,” Sudakov is sure.

At the same time, foreign commentators on these statements by the Russian expert do not see the connection, how the destruction of a cruise missile could become a reason for starting a nuclear war, and consider these explanations to be justifications for the helplessness of air defense.

Newsweek quotes military analyst Sim Tack of Stratfor as suggesting that Russia's decision not to use air defenses was made not for political reasons, but for military reasons, and that Russian air defense systems have never previously worked against American cruise missiles, i.e. the effectiveness of their shooting against Tomahawks cannot be predicted.

The Asia Times article notes that despite the fact that the S-400s were not used, it is obvious that the United States took their presence into account and launched missiles from a great distance, and even after warning the Russians. That is, even the presence of the S-400 complex already plays a role and cools down the “hot heads.” This should please China and India, which purchase air defense systems from Russia. On the other hand, as the publication writes, most likely Russian radars detected a swarm of cruise missiles, but the fire system was not activated. This was not necessarily due to the weakness of the system, but it still calls into question how effective the S-400 really is against a large number of low-flying targets.

As for the versions in the comments to the articles, the spread is wide: Russian air defense systems were not activated because it is too expensive to use the S-400 against cruise missiles; because Russian air defense systems in Syria simply do not have such a number of shots against dozens and dozens of cruise missiles; because the S-400 is simply not designed to work against this type of target; because the S-400’s power supply system failed, etc.

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.

After April 7 American destroyers Ross and Porter launched a strike with Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Syrian airbase of Shayrat in Homs province, and Russian anti-aircraft missile systems did not repulse the attack, doubts arose about their effectiveness - as previously stated, they tightly close the sky over Syria from outside interference. Our Version's correspondent found out why Russia didn't even try to prevent the Tomahawk attack.

Back in 2013, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that they had deployed modern complexes S-400 "Triumph", which are capable of protecting the country's airspace from any possible attacks. The claims were supported by the fantastic characteristics of these complexes. As stated, within a radius of 400 kilometers, air defense systems are guaranteed to hit almost all aerodynamic targets, including tactical and strategic aviation, ballistic missile warheads, as well as all types of cruise missiles. It was especially emphasized that Triumph missiles are capable of hitting low-flying targets - moving at an altitude of 5 meters.

And so the Americans provided an opportunity to test the effectiveness of the Russian S-400 in practice. At the same time, the task turned out to be as easy as possible - the Pentagon warned the Russian military in advance about the proposed attacks. Moreover, American destroyers demonstratively fired through the four-hundred-kilometer range of Russian anti-missile systems located in Khmeimim. But as a result, 59 American Tomahawks flew unharmed past the Russian air defense systems deployed in Tartus and Khmeimim without any damage to themselves. In addition, according to the American side, not a single Tomahawk was intercepted.

Didn't want to or couldn't?

Now experts give different reasons why Russia did not shoot down Tomahawk. Military-political arguments are in the foreground - it is obvious that any forceful reaction to American actions would provoke a response, which is why the level of conflict could rise to an unacceptable level high level. If we assume that Russian air defense systems or fighters would have shot down all the American Tomahawks on approach, the Pentagon, according to military logic, should have responded by deploying an arsenal to suppress these air defense systems, and so on in increasing numbers. It is almost impossible to predict where such an escalation might lead, so the silence of the air defense systems in Syria can most easily be explained by Russia’s reluctance to bring the situation to a nuclear war. An alternative version, that out of 59 only 23 made it, and then in order not to humiliate the United States, we discussed in the last issue in the material “Staged War...”

However, some foreign commentators believe that the destruction of Tomahawk could hardly be a reason for starting a nuclear war, calling these explanations just excuses for the helplessness of Russian air defense systems. As a result, the opinion is growing that the power of Russian air defense systems is in fact a myth and Russian air defense systems are simply not able to shoot down complex targets at all. All these statements come against the backdrop of repeated attempts to discredit Russian air defense systems. Suffice it to recall how the story of the interception by the Arrow-2 missile defense system of a Syrian anti-aircraft guided missile fired at an Israeli aircraft of the Russian-made S-200VE air defense system that happened on March 17 was inflated.

In principle, there is a basis for such a version. According to open data, the S-400 system demonstrates about 90 percent of successful interceptions. True, we are talking about training interception, and not about combat, that is, carried out in sterile conditions with predetermined flight parameters of a projectile simulating an enemy object. In a combat situation, these systems were not used, especially against American cruise missiles, so the effectiveness of their fire on Tomahawk cannot be predicted. And since the conditions in Syria were quite difficult, the interception attempt might not have been 100% successful. As a result, a small percentage of downed missiles could significantly reduce the demand for Russian air defense systems in the world and generally affect the reputation of Russian weapons that are planned to be supplied, including for export. However, the Pentagon, as it turns out, took the capabilities of the Russian air defense system very seriously.

Indirect confirmation of this is the fact that the simultaneous launch of 59 cruise missiles at once was an unprecedented case. Experts also determined that the debris found at the attacked airfield allows us to identify the missiles as the most modern Tactical Tomahawk (RGM/UGM-109E Block 4) missiles in the US Navy arsenal, which have the most great opportunities to overcome air defense systems. Thus, the mere presence of the S-400 complex in Syria played a role and even forced the Americans to adjust their plans.

It is also significant that the missile launches were carried out at the maximum distance from the Syrian coast - the distance to the Shayrat airbase from the missile launch zone was about 1,200 kilometers, and almost the entire Tomahawk flight took place over the sea and only 75–80 kilometers over land. Experts suggest that it was not for nothing that the Americans significantly complicated the flight route of cruise missiles. The Pentagon did not officially report information about their trajectory, but, presumably, Tomahawk from the outside Mediterranean Sea first entered Lebanese airspace, and then moved along the Jordan-Syria border, where there are practically no radars capable of detecting the passage of missiles. Then the missiles turned north and entered the combat course. In this case, the Russian S-300V4 and S-400 were located 200–300 kilometers from the Tomahawk. Why was there no interception?

Anatoly Tsyganok, director of the Center for Military Forecasting:

– Judging by the photographs, 59 missiles definitely did not reach the Shayrat airbase; the destruction in the photo clearly does not correspond to the power of the strike. But what happened to the 36 Tomahawks that didn’t make it remains to be seen. According to some information, 5 rockets fell in the vicinity of Shayrat, killing several civilians and wounding about 20 people. The remaining Tomahawks crashed into the sea, never reaching the shore. The inaccuracy of the hit may be due to the fact that the missiles were aimed using satellite means without additional reconnaissance of the targets. According to another version, many American missiles had expired and were faulty. There is also an assumption that the guidance devices of most Tomahawks were disabled by external influences and Russian electronic warfare systems may be behind this.

It should also be noted that the US Navy actually conducted a kind of exercise for the Russian air defense to repel a massive attack of American cruise missiles by Russian air defense systems. Moreover, the cost of this training for the US Navy was about $90 million, approximately the same amount that the American media estimate 59 launched cruise missiles to be. At the same time, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation did not spend a penny on this unique experience. Never before at any exercises or training grounds Russian troops Air defense did not have the opportunity to observe a real massive attack of American Tomahawk cruise missiles, while it was possible to capture them for escort, determine flight parameters, and receive radar signatures of these air attack weapons. If we take into account the fact that this moment All Russian components of the surveillance system have been deployed in Syria, I have no doubt that this missile strike maximum will be extracted vital information. In particular, very useful experience was gained in tracking groups of cruise missiles in a real combat situation, which may prove invaluable in further combat training of troops, as well as in the modernization of radar detection, electronic warfare and anti-aircraft guided missiles.

The military is waiting for Prometheus

As experts explain, the S-300V4 and S-400 cover only the installations of the Russian Armed Forces, and Bashar al-Assad’s troops are responsible for the air defense of Syrian installations. Thus, the Khmeimim air defense systems located in the region, in principle, would not be able to withstand a massive strike, since the distance to the Syrian Shayrat air base is about 100 kilometers. It should be noted that although formally the maximum engagement range of the S-300V4 and S-400 is 400 kilometers, this rule only works if the air target operates at medium and high altitudes, since the S-400 is primarily designed to destroy high-altitude aircraft. targets - airplanes and helicopters. Another thing is cruise missiles that fly at altitudes of 30-50 meters, which makes them difficult to detect because the terrain gets in the way. SAM radars at a great distance do not see missiles, which are very maneuverable and fly below the visibility zone under the cover of the so-called radio horizon. To increase radio visibility, various measures are used - in particular, in air defense systems, the radar is raised on towers. There is such a tower in Khmeimim, but it does not allow increasing the detection range to the required values, so the S-300 and S-400 divisions in Khmeimim and Tartus could simply not notice the distant target. However, experts emphasize, this does not mean at all that Russian air defense systems are not suitable for modern warfare. The fact is that a cruise missile is a very difficult target, and when the launches are sudden and massive, the air defense is powerless. In addition, Russia has deployed too few forces in Syria air defense, and systems such as the S-400 cover a certain and very limited area.

In addition, there is a possibility that some of the systems deployed in Syria are armed with old missiles, which significantly worsens the characteristics of this advanced air defense system. Let us recall that for several years they could not create a new extended-range missile for this system, which would allow achieving the declared tactical and technical characteristics S-400. Recently in official sources statements were made that testing of a new long-range missile had been completed. It is currently reported that new rocket is completely ready, but the production speed of missiles for the S-400 and these air defense systems themselves is quite low, and accordingly, the re-equipment of air defense is proceeding at a slow pace.

Against this background, it is worth noting that almost immediately after the American Tomahawk attack in Russian Ministry of Defense announced the imminent adoption of a new anti-aircraft missile system S-500 "Prometheus". The military hopes that the new air defense system will be significantly superior to the S-300V4 and S-400 and will reliably prevent massive cruise missile attacks. This complex, according to the developer represented by OJSC Concern VKO Almaz-Antey, represents a new generation of anti-aircraft missile systems"ground-to-air" and is designed to intercept ballistic missiles with a range of up to 3,500 kilometers at medium and close ranges. According to the design documentation, Prometheus is capable of destroying missiles medium range, operational-tactical missiles, as well as missiles in near space and, thus, will be an element of strategic missile defense. However, as experts note, the timing of its adoption into service is constantly being postponed. It is possible that problems have arisen again with the S-500 missiles, since they have only recently begun to undergo flight tests. However, it should be noted that the American company Lockheed Martin Missiles, commissioned by the Pentagon, has been developing the THAAD (Theater High Altitude Area Defense) mobile long-range interception missile defense system for almost 25 years, but it is still not possible to create a workable system.

Alexander Gorkov, former boss anti-aircraft missile forces Russian Air Force:

– The Tomahawk flight route was carefully planned and lined up to keep the missiles as far as possible from air defense systems and radars, and therefore the route passed outside the zones combat use Russian air defense systems, carefully avoided the fire zones. And this is not surprising - similar tactics, completely eliminating risks, were used in Yugoslavia and earlier in the Middle East. This was, perhaps, a double reinsurance, since the S-400 is capable of detecting cruise missiles only at a line-of-sight range. It is also difficult to say why this was simultaneously applied a large number of rockets. Since there is no objective control data, it is impossible to say that such a quantity was released to guarantee a breakthrough Russian system Air defense, no reason.

If the Ministry of Defense has information that 36 missiles did not reach the target, I see no reason not to trust it. In any case, such failures are theoretically quite possible and explainable. For example, a equipment failure occurred or data for the guidance program was entered with errors. Before launch, a terrain map is entered into the on-board devices, the flight route is determined, and devices such as a parametric altimeter, which reads the distance relative to the sea surface, and a radio altimeter are on board - the difference between these values ​​indicates the terrain. The Tomahawks flew at extremely low altitudes from 50 to 100 meters, skirting the terrain, which is why any error in data entry or failure in the radio altimeter could lead to the loss of the missile.

In addition, the Americans use an inertial guidance system when at the final stage to increase the accuracy of hitting a specific goal The guidance head may be either radar or optical - errors are also possible at this stage. Most likely, exclusively technical methods of missile guidance were used, data from satellites were used, which could also lead to incorrect aiming. Therefore, preparing such operations requires a long time; it is necessary to determine objects and terrain in advance, enter this data and “sew up” them into the program. Moreover, it is not so easy to launch missiles from a destroyer - the coordinates of the destroyer must be verified with surgical precision. If the ship's coordinates are determined incorrectly, this means that the entire route and correction areas will be calculated incorrectly. I think the whole point is that the operation was prepared in a hurry. The order for a massive launch probably came as a surprise even to the command of the 6th Fleet of the US Navy, and American sailors did not have time for thorough preparation.

The United States would have led to a nuclear conflict, which did not happen only thanks to the composure of the Russian Supreme Commander-in-Chief, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences Sergei Sudakov told Izvestia. At the same time, Russian air defense systems are subordinate only to Russia and protect its military facilities, military expert Vladislav Shurygin noted in a conversation with Izvestia.

Hot war

The most important question that everyone is asking is why Russian air defenses did not shoot down all these missiles. The inhabitants believe that this should be done and thereby repel aggression. But, by and large, if we started shooting them down now, we might not wake up this morning. Because today what is called a “nuclear conflict” could happen, because it would be a clash of two nuclear powers on a third territory, Sudakov believes.

Russian air defense systems are subordinate only to Russia and cover Russian military facilities; everything else is PR, which has no relation to reality, Shurygin notes.

Therefore, Israel and Turkey periodically bomb Syria - we cover our airfield and our facilities. I think it was accepted and political decision not to shoot down these missiles, because ultimately this would be a conflict between the United States and Russia at the level of repelling air defense, the expert believes.

According to Sudakov, Donald Trump has approached a state called a “hot war.”

If not for the composure of the Russian Supreme Commander-in-Chief, the order to “shoot down the Tomahawks” would have been given. And this means the beginning of a war,” the expert notes.

The United States warned through diplomatic channels that they were going to strike, Russia also warned the Syrians, and they withdrew the train from the base and transferred equipment from there, Shurygin continues.

This does not indicate the strength of our position, but even with all these goodies, the aftertaste remains very bitter,” the expert concluded.

Attacks and parallels

About a week ago, one of the Syrian bases, on the territory of which the Russian Air Force was present, was struck by the Israeli Air Force, and there are parallels between these attacks, they have not yet been paid attention to, but they are significant, notes leading expert of the Center for Contemporary Politics Viktor Olevich.

Israel, a key US ally in the Middle East, takes a position on Syria that is close to the US, and these strikes that it carried out are partly reminiscent of today's history. They can be considered, if not as a kind of training, then as a test for reaction, and Russia in this case chose to leave the response for the future. Russia will definitely respond adequately, the expert explains.

If the American bombing of Syrian troops in the province of Deir ez-Zor in September 2016 put an end to the agreements that were reached in Switzerland to resolve the Syrian crisis, then today’s missile attack put an end to Moscow’s hopes for a quick normalization of relations with Washington, Olevich continues.

According to the political scientist, a number personnel changes, preceding today's military aggression against Syria (for example, the removal of Michael Flynn, who took a moderate position on Syria), "show that Trump is incapable of standing up to the American establishment": replacing key figures in his administration who did not suit the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties , the president is now taking steps that the establishment, as well as the intelligence agencies, are happy with.

Wrong move

Trump needs to take some steps to foreign policy, which would make him respected internally. I believe that the step he took was absolutely in vain. It was not his decision, but the decision of his advisers, and it was a big mistake. The number of times the United States has violated UN articles, invaded and destroyed the sovereignty of others cannot be counted. But what we see now is another aggression, which was carried out against an ally of two quite serious opponents - Russia and Iran, explains Sudakov from the Russian Academy of Military Sciences.

With such an act of aggression, the United States throws away the possibility of full-fledged negotiations even within the framework of “ G20", at which Vladimir Putin was supposed to meet with Donald Trump, the expert continues: instead of building normal relations with Russia, Trump overnight crossed out these relations; now the countries cannot even become “sworn friends.”

This is a big blow to Russian-American relations, to what was beginning to take shape, and it is clear that there were hopes for the new president that relations with him would be better than with the previous one. In addition, this is a blow to the peace process in Syria, which is already proceeding with great difficulty. Now this is also under threat,” Nikita Smagin, a political scientist and editor-in-chief of Iran Today, agrees with Sudakov.

According to the expert, now we need to look at the further reaction of the United States: if this is an isolated action, then this is a big problem, but nevertheless the negotiation process can continue. If the United States intends to continue to carry out some strikes, this is a different story and the consequences could be even more serious, Smagin does not rule out.

Switch attention

Trump played out another scenario with this attack, Sergei Sudakov is sure.

The fact is that the situation in Mosul is now catastrophic - heavy losses, great amount casualties among the civilian population, and Trump was advised to distract the situation, including from Mosul, with this bombing,” the expert notes.

The hypothesis that the strike was an attempt to divert attention from the situation in Mosul is quite workable, supported by Smagin.

I think that this factor almost certainly influenced the decision-making, but I do not think that it was the only one, it was one of the factors. When you need to divert attention, this is an additional incentive to carry out some kind of demonstrative action,” the expert clarifies.

In any case, what happened threw away all relations from the point of view of world standards of law at the beginning of the twentieth century, Sudakov continues.

We see the return of the “world gendarme”, who imposes his will with the help of force, the political scientist concludes.

Illustration copyright Reuters Image caption Footage taken at the base shows burnt out hangars with planes in them.

The United States used 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles to strike the Syrian Shayrat airbase. These precision-guided munitions can penetrate missile defense enemy is an expensive weapon: each missile costs the American budget about a million dollars.

Thus, the Americans decided to punish the regime of Bashar al-Assad, which they accuse of using chemical weapons against residents of the small village of Khan Sheikhoun, resulting in the death of more than 70 people, many of them children.

It is difficult to judge what damage was caused to the airbase - conflicting information is coming from Syrian sources on the ground, from official Damascus and from the Russian military.

However, it can be assumed that the missiles destroyed several aircraft, warehouses and other buildings at the airfield.

How did this happen?

On the night of April 7, the US Navy destroyers Ross and Porter fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Mediterranean Sea at the Syrian airbase of Shayrat in Homs province.

The airbase belonged to Syrian government forces, but the planes Russian Air Force They used it as a “jump airfield” during combat missions.

Information about casualties of Russian military personnel or damage to Russian military property was not officially reported.

The United States warned Russia about the upcoming strike, and perhaps if there were Russian specialists, then they managed to evacuate. A Pentagon spokesman said that during the planning of the operation, the US military did everything to avoid the deaths of Russian and Syrian troops.

The US airstrike killed 10 military personnel, the report said. Syrian army. The Syrian state news agency SANA reports the deaths of nine civilians, including four children. According to the agency, the deceased lived in a village near the air base. Many houses in the base area were seriously damaged.

On Friday morning, after the attack on the airfield, it became known that Russia was suspending the memorandum with the United States on preventing incidents and ensuring the safety of aviation flights during the operation in Syria.

It was this mechanism that the Americans used to warn about shelling of a base where Russians could be located. Communication channels remain between the two countries, but this one, closed after the shelling, was created specifically for the rapid exchange of operational information.

Is there a missile defense system in Syria?

Russian missile defense systems S-200, S-300, S-400 and Buk-M2 are deployed at the Khmeimim airbase in Syrian Latakia. the main task These complexes provide air cover for Russian military installations.

In addition, the missile cruisers "Moskva" and "Varyag" are periodically stationed off the coast, which are also equipped with the naval version of the S-300 - the Fort air defense system, although now these ships, judging by open sources, are not there.

Finally, the air base also houses short-range systems that protect, among other things, long-range air defense systems, including from cruise missiles.

The Syrian air defense forces are equipped with long-range S-200VE complexes, medium-sized Buk-M2E, as well as various short-range systems.

The S-200VE systems were deployed in mid-March to intercept Israeli fighters that were carrying out strikes in Syria, but not a single missile hit the target. One interceptor missile.

Why weren't the Tomahawks shot down?

Russian complexes located in Latakia are capable of fighting cruise missiles, including the Tomahawk class, but only those that are heading towards an object in their immediate vicinity.

The Shayrat airfield is located at a great distance from Latakia (about 100 kilometers), and cruise missiles flying at low altitude are simply impossible to track with radar.

The interception was also complicated by the short approach time of the missiles, as well as their large number - a total of 59 Tomahawks were fired.

The airbase itself, apparently, was not covered from the air by systems capable of shooting down cruise missiles.

On Friday afternoon, a representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense, Igor Konashenkov, said that “in the near future, a set of measures will be implemented to strengthen and increase the effectiveness of the air defense system of the Syrian armed forces in order to cover the most sensitive objects of the Syrian infrastructure.”

He did not say which complexes would be deployed. It is also unknown which facilities Russia will strengthen the defense of.

What is the damage?

Information about the damage to the air base is very contradictory.

The Russian Ministry of Defense said the strike destroyed a logistics warehouse, a training building, a canteen, six Mig-23 aircraft in repair hangars, and a radar station.

Previously, Russian state media reported that nine aircraft were destroyed in the airstrike. Syrian journalist Thabet Salem told the BBC, citing activists in northern Syria, that 14 aircraft were destroyed, as well as runways and warehouses.

Finally, a short time after the strike, the Syrian military reported that the base had suffered "severe damage."

Correspondent of the Russian state TV channel Vesti 24 Evgeny Poddubny, who is in Syria, visited the base on the morning of April 7.

The footage he shot showed damaged hangars, some of which were empty of aircraft, as well as several burnt-out fighter jets.

In one of the frames, the silhouette of a dilapidated aircraft is clearly visible, and it does not look like the MiG-23 reported Russian ministry defense The aircraft is more similar to the Su-22 heavy strike fighter.

Such aircraft are in service with the Syrian Air Force, and footage taken by Poddubny shows the same undamaged fighters at the same airfield.

What remains of Syrian aviation?

It is very difficult to judge how serious this blow is for the Syrian Air Force. Firstly, it is not known exactly how many and which fighters were destroyed, and secondly, exact data on how many aircraft are in the Air Force as of April 2017 is also not publicly available. Finally, there is even less information about how many aircraft are in airworthy condition.

The website globalsecurity.org writes that in 2017 the Syrian Air Force had strike fighters of the following modifications: 53-70 MiG-21 units; 30-41 - MiG-23; 20 - MiG-29; 36-42 - Su-22; 11-20 - Su-24 (last - frontline bombers). In addition, according to the same source, Bashar al-Assad’s troops also have fighters for air combat: 20-30 - MiG-29; 2 - MiG-25; 39-50 - MiG-23.

Thus, even if we take the largest loss figure of 14 aircraft, then even in this case, the combat effectiveness of the Air Force after the attack by cruise missiles did not decrease critically.

In addition, the Russian aviation group, which was reduced in the spring of 2016, continues to operate in Syria. According to last year's data, it included at least a Su-24 squadron, as well as Su-30SM and Su-35S fighters and helicopters.

How much did the airstrike cost the US?

The cost of Tomahawk cruise missiles varies depending on how advanced the ammunition is.

It is unknown what kind of missiles the destroyers fired on Friday morning, and therefore, according to open sources, the cost of a salvo of 59 missiles could range from $30 million to $100 million.

The most approximate cost of the MiG-23 and Su-22 fighters ranges from one to three million dollars.

The American brazen attack on a Syrian air base occupied the public for the whole day with the question: what were our air defense systems doing there? Couldn't they have shot down American tomahawks? Is it not true what we were told about the completely closed sky of Syria? Or do we abandon - “leave” - our ally?

No, it’s all true, answered one of the Constantinople sources related to international military relations. The S-400 and S-300PMU1 air defense systems, currently located in Syria, are capable of very well thinning out even such a large swarm of missiles as the one launched by the Americans - 59 products. Although the air defense specialists may have their own reasons, the interlocutor added, because it is irrational to spend expensive 9M96E missiles on tomahawks. One installation has 4 missiles, in a division there are 8 installations - so count how many they would hit targets and have time to fire a second salvo if the Tomahawk has a speed of 880 km/h, and the distance from the coast to the base is a little more than 100 km.

For this kind of purpose, it is not without reason that the divisions in Syria were given close-cover Pantsir S1 installations with missile and cannon weapons. And, in addition, the Krasukha-4 electronic warfare complex has been deployed. This is the main means of combating cruise missiles - because with them high speed and the low altitude of movement, a very short failure in the operation of the electronics is enough, as it is already in the ground or far away from the target.

But everything works, of course, as a whole, the military diplomat explained, making the reservation that he owns only the most general information on the operation of air defense systems. And, of course, he added, no one would spare any missiles for the defense of the base.

But this is where the dog is buried. For the sake of defending your base. In this case, we were talking about a Syrian Air Force base. And in order to protect it, we would have to, in the opinion of the public, shoot down American missiles. Who gave us this right?

"The thing is,- the interlocutor explained on condition of anonymity in exchange for frankness, - that we have no treaty of alliance with Syria that would oblige us to defend the Syrian skies as well as our own. We are not allies with Syria. Maybe in vain, although I personally think it’s right. Because we cannot fully achieve a union with such a country. And to fit into her conflicts for her - excuse me.".

The military diplomat recalled that we once had very close relations with Egypt - in the 1960-1970s. We, too, were not full-fledged allies, but it was our anti-aircraft gunners on our installations that protected the skies of Egypt from the Israelis. In both wars - in 1967 and 1973. And our guys died there, even though they shot down Israeli planes. How did the Egyptians repay us? "They kicked me in the ass,- the diplomat expressed himself undiplomatically. - As soon as the Americans beckoned them with their finger."

“Of course, the situation is different now, but from the point of view of international law, we are not a party to the Syrian-American conflict. Therefore, our intervention on the side of Syria by attacking American targets would formally mean our entry into a war with the United States. Do we need it? "- a specialist in military law asked a rhetorical question.

For the same reason - or, perhaps, for a complex of them, including political ones, but this can be ignored for now - the Americans warned us that a blow would be struck at such and such coordinates and we earnestly ask you to evacuate your military and civilian personnel from there. Because now we will punish the Syrians a little, but we have no questions for you.

That, in fact, is all, the lawyer emphasized. We are not at war with the Americans, they are not at war with us. And, let's hope, we won't fight further.

And if the Syrians somehow knocked out 61% of the launched tomahawks, then we are very happy for them.