The Ministry of Defense assessed the effectiveness of the US strike as “extremely low. Operation "Tomahawks": was the attack on the air base in Syria successful? Why the tomahawk missiles were not shot down
The American brazen attack on a Syrian air base kept the public busy for the whole day with the question: what were our air defense systems doing there? Couldn't they shoot down American Tomahawks? Is what we were told about the completely closed sky of Syria - not true? Or are we abandoning - "draining" - our ally?
No, everything is true, answered one of the sources of Tsargrad, related to international military relations. The S-400 and S-300PMU1 air defense systems currently in Syria are capable of very well thinning out even such a large swarm of missiles as the Americans launched - 59 items. Although the air defense officers 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 consider how many targets they would hit and would 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 slightly more than 100 km.
For this kind of purposes, the divisions in Syria were not without reason given the Pantsir C1 installations for short-range cover with rocket and cannon weapons. And, in addition, the Krasukha-4 electronic warfare complex has also been deployed. This is the main means of combating cruise missiles - because with their high speed and low altitude, the most short-term failure in the operation of electronics is enough, as it is already in the ground or far away from the target.
But everything works, of course, in a complex, the military diplomat explained, adding that he has 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 sake of defending the base.
But here the dog is buried. To defend your base. In this case, it was about the base of the Syrian Air Force. And in order to protect it, we would have to, according to the public, shoot down American missiles. And who gave us such a right?
"The fact,- on condition of anonymity in exchange for frankness, the interlocutor explained, - that we have no treaty of alliance with Syria that obliges us to protect the Syrian sky as well as our own. We are not allies with Syria. Maybe in vain, although I personally think that it is correct. Because an alliance with such a country is not fully usable. And to fit in for her in her conflicts - thank you".
The military diplomat recalled that once we had very close relations with Egypt - in the 1960s and 1970s. We, too, were not full-fledged allies, but it was our anti-aircraft gunners on our installations who defended the sky 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 pay us back? "We set up from ourselves under the back foot, the diplomat said undiplomatically. - As soon as the Americans beckoned them with their fingers.
“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 the war with the United States. Do we need it? " asked a specialist in military law rhetorically.
For the same reason - or, perhaps, for a complex of them, including political ones, but this can not be taken into account for now - the Americans warned us that a strike would be carried out at such and such coordinates and we kindly 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, hopefully, we will not fight further.
And if the Syrians somehow still knocked out 61% of the launched "tomahawks" - then we are very happy for them.
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which include USS Porter and USS Ross, can carry up to 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles simultaneously. According to the Pentagon, on the night of April 6-7, American ships fired 59 cruise missiles at the Syrian airbase. “At the moment, there are five or six ships of the US Sixth Fleet in the region that can use such missiles,” says independent military analyst Anton Lavrov.
The Russian military department strike American missiles as ineffective. “According to Russian means of objective control, only 23 missiles reached the Syrian air base. The crash site of the remaining 36 cruise missiles is unknown,” Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said at a briefing on Friday morning.
This is an extremely low level of implementation for these missiles, says Alexander Khramchikhin, deputy director of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis. According to him, it is not clear where 36 missiles could have gone and who could bring them down.
The statement of the Russian Defense Ministry was denied by the Pentagon. According to the US military, out of 59 missiles, 58 reached their target, one missile did not work.
Cruise missiles of this type have been used by the US Army since 1991. During the Gulf War, the US Army launched 297 of these missiles, 282 hit their target. During Operation Desert Fox against Iraq in 1998, 370 Tomahawk missiles were fired, and another 200 in Libya. Each year, the US Army, according to manufacturers, receives 440 of these cruise missiles.
Why did the air defense systems not work?
After the start of the Russian operation in Syria in October 2015, the Ministry of Defense deployed S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) on the territory of the republic, in addition, the Bastion coast guard system and the Pantsir-S1 missile system were delivered ", covering the air defense system. According to the press secretary of the President of Russia Dmitry Peskov, missile systems are sent to Syria to protect Russian aviation. The representative of the Ministry of Defense Konashenkov previously noted that the range of the S-300 and S-400 systems deployed in the region "may come as a surprise to any unidentified flying objects."
Experts interviewed by RBC disagree on why Russian troops did not shoot down American missiles.
“The Russian military could not help but notice American missiles,” said Anton Lavrov, an independent analyst who regularly collaborates with the Ministry of Defense and the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies. But the detection of cruise missiles does not guarantee repelling the strike, the expert clarifies: “Each complex has a saturation limit (the maximum number of objects that the complex can hit with one ammunition load. — RBC). Even if we fired all the S-300 missiles at the Tomahawks, we would not be able to repel their attack.”
Tomahawk cruise missiles, using the TERCOM terrain tracking system, can fly at an altitude of 100 m, says military expert, reserve colonel Andrey Payusov. “The S-300 anti-aircraft missile divisions simply don’t see a missile at such a height,” the expert sums up. He argues that separate mobile radar systems are needed for this.
The Strela-10 short-range missiles could have responded to the use of such missiles, but there were none at the Shayrat base, Payusov emphasizes. In addition, the S-300 and S-400 complexes, Payusov says, were “too far” from the Shayrat airfield, and even having received data on cruise missiles, they could not hit them at such a distance. According to the technical specifications, the latest modifications of the S-300 and S-400 missiles can shoot down both ballistic and maneuvering high-altitude targets at a distance of 5 to 400 km. In the case of cruise missiles of the Tomahawk type, their range on the march is about 45 km for flat terrain, the military expert explained. The exact launch site for American missiles in the Mediterranean is unknown.
Expert Alexander Khramchikhin disagrees with this. If the missiles approached the Russian S-300 and S-400 complexes at a distance of destruction, they would be shot down, the military analyst believes. “A rocket is not a plane, it does not have a pilot. Therefore, a downed missile could not become a reason for the escalation of the conflict, ”the expert emphasizes. He also points out that the Russian military has Bastion Coast Guard systems at their disposal, which theoretically could hit American ships on their way. “But this is politically impossible, this is a fact of direct aggression, which would lead to grave consequences, a world war,” Khramchikhin sums up. “At the same time, surprisingly, Russia and Syria did not sign a mutual defense treaty,” the expert recalls.
According to a Pentagon spokesman, Navy Captain Jeff Davis, the US military warned Russian colleagues just before the strike. Press Secretary of the President of Russia Dmitry Peskov left without comment the question of journalists about why Russian missile interception systems were not used.
Video: RBC
Operation expansion prospects
“Today, I call on all civilized countries to join us in the quest to end the bloodshed in Syria, as well as to end terrorism of all kinds and all types,” US President after a cruise missile strike.
The actions of the US military have already been supported by representatives of Israel, Great Britain, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other countries. Iran, China and Russia condemned the US actions. Turkey, which, together with Russia, is the guarantor of the ceasefire in Syria, according to the statement of US President Donald Trump, can support the American military operation in Syria, "if such a thing happens."
On March 29, the Turkish army completed the large-scale operation Euphrates Shield in Syria. The operation, which lasted more than seven months, allowed the Turkish side and opposition groups to take control of more than 2 thousand square meters. km of territory and 230 settlements in northern Syria. The operation involved from 4 thousand to 8 thousand Turkish military and up to 10 thousand rebel fighters.
Another regional power that has repeatedly attacked territories controlled by the Syrian government is Israel. According to the Military Balance 2016 report of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), the Israeli army can use 440 aircraft. In addition, Israel also has its own Delilah cruise missiles. The maximum range of such missiles is up to 250 km. “Israeli forces have previously carried out strikes against neighboring Syria with cruise missiles and combat drones,” Lavrov recalls.
Israeli strikes on Syrian territory are fully coordinated along the Jerusalem-Moscow line, Zeev Khanin, a lecturer in the Department of Political Sciences at Bar-Ilan University, believes. In his opinion, Trump's calls will not lead to an increase or decrease in the number of Israeli military strikes on Syrian territory. “Israel will continue to use weapons against terrorist groups like Hezbollah, ad hoc, on occasion,” Khanin said.
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, Sergei Sudakov, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences, 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 asks is why the Russian air defense did not shoot down all these missiles. The townsfolk 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 what is called a “nuclear conflict” could happen today, 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 that has nothing to do with reality, Shurygin notes.
Therefore, Israel and Turkey periodically bomb Syria - we cover our airfield and our facilities. I think that a political decision was also made not to shoot down these missiles, because in the end it would be a conflict between the United States and Russia at the level of anti-aircraft defense,” the expert believes.
According to Sudakov, Donald Trump has approached a state called "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 the 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 sediment 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 attacked by the Israeli Air Force, and there are parallels between these attacks, they are not yet paid attention to, but they are significant, says Viktor Olevich, a leading expert at the Center for Current Policy.
Israel, a key ally of the United States in the Middle East, takes a position on the Syrian issue close to the American one, and these strikes that it has dealt partly resemble today's history. They can be seen, if not as a kind of training, then as a test of reaction, and Russia in this case preferred to leave the response to 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 overcome the Syrian crisis, then today's missile attack put an end to Moscow's hopes for an early normalization of relations with Washington, continues Olevich.
According to the political scientist, a number of personnel changes leading up to today's military aggression against Syria (for example, the removal of Michael Flynn, who took a moderate position on Syria), "show that Trump is not able to resist the American establishment": replacing the main figures of his administration, who did not suit the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties, the president is now taking steps that the establishment, like the special services, are satisfied with.
Misstep
Trump needs to take some steps in foreign policy that would make him respected in the domestic. I believe that the step that he took, he took absolutely in vain. This is not his decision, but the decision of his advisers, and it was a big mistake. The number of times the United States violated UN articles, invaded and destroyed someone else's sovereignty is uncountable. But what we are seeing now is another aggression that was carried out against an ally of two rather serious adversaries - Russia and Iran, - explains Sudakov from the Russian Academy of Military Sciences.
By such an act of aggression, the United States is rejecting the possibility of full-fledged negotiations even within the framework of the G20, which was supposed to host a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, the expert continues: instead of building normal relations with Russia, Trump immediately crossed out these relations, now the countries are not even become sworn friends.
This is a big blow to Russian-American relations, to what was beginning to build up, 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 a single action, then this is a big problem, but nevertheless, the negotiation process can continue. If the United States intends to continue to make some strikes, this is a different story and the consequences could be even more serious, Smagin does not exclude.
switch attention
Trump played another scenario with this attack, Sergey Sudakov is sure.
The fact is that the situation in Mosul is now catastrophic - heavy losses, a huge number of civilian casualties, and Trump was advised to divert the situation, including from Mosul, by this bombing, the expert notes.
The hypothesis that the strike was an attempt to divert attention from the situation in Mosul is quite valid, supports Smagin.
I think that this factor almost certainly influenced the decision making, but I don't think it was the only one, it's one of the factors. When you need to divert attention, this is an additional incentive - to hold some kind of demonstration 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 20th century, Sudakov continues.
We see the return of the “world gendarme”, who imposes his will with the help of force, the political scientist concludes.
After the American destroyers Ross and Porter launched a strike with Tomahawk cruise missiles on the Syrian Shayrat air base in the province of Homs on April 7, and the Russian anti-aircraft missile systems did not repel the attack, doubts arose about their effectiveness - as previously stated, they tightly close the sky over Syria from outside interference. The Nasha Versiya correspondent found out why Russia did not even try to prevent the Tomahawk attack.
Back in 2013, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that modern S-400 Triumph systems were deployed to Syria, which are capable of protecting the country's airspace from any possible attacks. The statements 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 aircraft, 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 a height of 5 meters.
And so the Americans provided an opportunity to test the effectiveness of Russian S-400s 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 strikes. Moreover, American destroyers defiantly fired through the 400-kilometer zone of operation of Russian anti-missile systems located in Khmeimim. But as a result, 59 American Tomahawks flew unscathed past the Russian air defense systems deployed in Tartus and Khmeimim without any damage to themselves. In addition, according to the statements of the American side, not a single Tomahawk was intercepted.
Didn't want to or couldn't?
Now experts are giving different reasons why Russia did not shoot down the Tomahawk. At the forefront are military-political arguments - 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 unacceptably high level. Assuming that Russian air defense systems or fighters would shoot down all American Tomahawks on approach, the Pentagon, according to military logic, should have responded by deploying an arsenal of suppression of these air defense systems, and so on incrementally. Where such an escalation could lead is almost impossible to predict, so the silence of the air defense systems in Syria is most easily explained by Russia's unwillingness to bring the situation to a nuclear war. An alternative version that only 23 out of 59 flew, and in order not to humiliate the United States, we discussed in the last issue in the material "Staging war ..."
However, some foreign commentators believe that the destruction of the Tomahawk could hardly be the 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 actually a myth and Russian air defense systems are simply not able to shoot down difficult 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 was inflated, which happened on March 17.
In principle, there are reasons 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 that imitates an enemy object. In a combat situation, these complexes were not used, especially in relation to American cruise missiles, so the effectiveness of their firing at the 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 have generally affected the reputation of Russian weapons that are planned to be supplied, including for export. However, in the Pentagon, as it turns out, they took the capabilities of the Russian air defense system very seriously.
An indirect confirmation of this is the fact that the simultaneous launch of 59 cruise missiles at once became an unprecedented event. The experts also determined that the debris found at the attacked airfield makes it possible to identify the missiles as the most modern Tactical Tomahawk (RGM / UGM-109E Block 4) missiles in the arsenal of the US fleet, which have the greatest ability 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 also looks 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 1200 kilometers, and almost the entire flight of the Tomahawk took place over the sea and only 75-80 kilometers - over land. Experts suggest that the Americans have not in vain significantly complicated the flight path of cruise missiles. The Pentagon did not officially report information about their trajectory, but, presumably, the Tomahawk from the Mediterranean Sea first entered Lebanese airspace, and then moved along the Jordanian-Syrian border, where there are practically no radars capable of fixing the passage of missiles. Then the missiles made a turn to the north and entered the combat course. In this case, the Russian S-300V4 and S-400 were located at a distance of 200–300 kilometers from the Tomahawk. Why wasn't there an interception?
Anatoly Tsyganok, director of the Center for Military Forecasting:
- Judging by the pictures, 59 missiles definitely did not reach the Shayrat airbase, the destruction in the photo clearly does not correspond to the power of the strike. 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 injuring about 20 people. The rest of the Tomahawks crashed into the sea before reaching the shore. The inaccuracy of the hit may be due to the fact that the missiles were guided using satellite means without additional reconnaissance of targets. According to another version, many American missiles had expired and were out of order. There is also speculation 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 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 amounted to about $ 90 million, about the same amount the American media estimate 59 launched cruise missiles. At the same time, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation did not spend a penny on the unique experience. Never before, at any exercises and ranges, Russian air defense forces had 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. Given the fact that all Russian components of the surveillance system are currently deployed in Syria, I have no doubt that the most important information will be extracted from this missile attack. In particular, very useful experience was gained in tracking groups of cruise missiles in a real combat situation, which can be 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 objects of the RF Armed Forces, and the troops of Bashar al-Assad are responsible for the air defense of Syrian objects. Thus, the air defense systems located in the region of the Khmeimim airbase, in principle, would not be able to contain a massive strike, since the distance to the Syrian Shayrat airbase is about 100 kilometers. It should be noted that although formally the maximum range of destruction 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 targets - aircraft and helicopters. Another thing is cruise missiles that fly at altitudes of 30-50 meters, which makes them difficult to detect, because the terrain interferes. SAM radars at a long distance do not see missiles that 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 remote target. However, experts emphasize, this does not mean at all that Russian air defense systems are not adapted 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 small an air defense force in Syria, 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 impairs the performance of this advanced air defense system. Recall that for this system for several years they could not create a new extended-range missile that would allow achieving the declared performance characteristics of the S-400. Recently, official sources have made statements that tests of a new long-range missile have been completed. Currently, it is reported that the new missile is completely ready, but the production rate of missiles for the S-400 and these air defense systems themselves is rather low, respectively, the re-equipment of air defense is proceeding at a slow pace.
Against this background, it is worth paying attention that almost immediately after the attack by the American Tomahawk, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced the imminent adoption of the new S-500 Prometheus anti-aircraft missile system. The military hopes that the new air defense system will be significantly superior to the S-300V4 and S-400 and will make it possible to reliably prevent massive attacks by cruise missiles. This complex, according to the developer represented by Almaz-Antey Concern VKO, is a new generation of surface-to-air anti-aircraft missile systems and is designed to intercept ballistic missiles with a range of up to 3,500 kilometers at medium and close distances. According to the design documentation, Prometheus is capable of destroying medium-range missiles, operational-tactical missiles, as well as missiles in near space and, thus, will be an element of strategic missile defense. However, according to experts, the timing of its adoption into service is constantly being postponed. It is possible that there are again problems with missiles for the S-500, since only recently they began 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 anti-missile system for almost 25 years, but it still fails to create a workable system.
Alexander Gorkov, former head of the anti-aircraft missile forces of the Russian Air Force:
- The flight route of the Tomahawk was carefully planned and lined up in such a way as to remove the missiles from air defense systems and radars as much as possible, and therefore the route passed outside the combat zones of the Russian air defense systems, carefully bypassing the fire zones. And this is not surprising - a similar tactic, which completely eliminates risks, was used in Yugoslavia and earlier in the Middle East. This, perhaps, was a double reinsurance, because the S-400 is able to detect cruise missiles only at a line-of-sight range. It is also difficult to say why such a large number of missiles were used simultaneously. Since there is no objective control data, there is no reason to say that such a quantity was launched to guarantee a breakthrough of the Russian air defense system.
If the Ministry of Defense has information that 36 missiles did not reach the target, I see no reason not to trust this. In any case, such failures are theoretically quite possible and explainable. For example, a hardware failure occurred or data for the guidance program was entered with errors. Before launch, a map of the area is entered into the on-board devices, the flight route is determined, and devices such as a parametric altimeter that reads the distance relative to the sea surface and a radio altimeter also work on board - the difference between these values \u200b\u200bis talking about the relief. The Tomahawk flew at extremely low altitudes from 50 to 100 meters with terrain envelope, due to which any error in entering data or a failure in the radio altimeter could lead to the loss of the rocket.
In addition, the Americans use an inertial guidance system, when in the final section, either a radar or an optical guidance head can be triggered to increase the accuracy of hitting a specific target - errors are also possible at this stage. Most likely, exclusively technical methods of guiding missiles were used, data from satellites were used, which could also lead to incorrect aiming. Therefore, the preparation of such operations requires a long time, it is necessary to determine in advance objects, terrain, enter these data and "sew" 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 accuracy. The coordinates of the ship are incorrectly determined, which means that the entire route and correction areas will be calculated incorrectly. I suppose the whole point is that the operation was prepared in a hurry. The massive launch order must have come as a surprise even to the command of the US 6th Fleet, and the American sailors did not have time for thorough preparation.
On the night of Friday, April 7, two US Navy ships in the Mediterranean launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Syrian Shayrat airfield in Homs province. According to American intelligence, it was from this base that official Damascus organized attacks using chemical weapons, including the bombing of Idlib.
The Syrian Armed Forces Command said six Syrian soldiers were killed in the strike. The Pentagon does not know if Russian troops were at the Shayrat air base, but say they did everything possible to avoid casualties. “We spoke with the Russians, we notified them to remove their forces from there,” Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon told Interfax.
But even if there are no dead among the Russian military, it is quite clear that the risk that we will face the United States in an armed conflict in Syria has increased many times over.
I must say that the Americans are well aware of this. Here is how US national security adviser General Herbert McMaster spoke about the process of Donald Trump's decision to strike an air base in Syria.
“We have weighed the risks associated with any military action, but we have weighed them against the risk of inaction. We held a meeting of the National Security Council to consider options for action. We discussed three options with the president and he asked us to focus on two of them and asked us a series of questions,” McMaster said. According to him, "the answers were presented to the president at a briefing on Thursday with the participation of the leadership of the National Security Council in Florida, via video link with Washington." “After a lengthy deliberation and in-depth discussion, the president decided to act,” Herbert McMaster added.
In other words, the US has decided that in Syria we will not climb into the bottle. But perhaps Trump miscalculated. According to the press secretary of the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Peskov, Vladimir Putin considered the US missile strike an aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law, "moreover, under a far-fetched pretext."
Peskov added that Washington's actions "cause significant damage to Russian-American relations, which are already in a deplorable state." “And most importantly, according to Putin, this step does not bring us closer to the final goal in the fight against international terrorism, but rather creates a serious obstacle to creating an international coalition to fight it,” the spokesman said.
For its part, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement calling the US strike a “reckless approach”, called on the UN Security Council to hold an emergency meeting, and also notified that Moscow was suspending the Memorandum on preventing incidents and ensuring aviation safety during operations in Syria, concluded with the USA.
How events can develop in Syria has been clearly demonstrated by the Russian military. On April 7, at the Telemba training ground in Buryatia, the crews of the S-400 and S-300PS anti-aircraft missile systems repelled a mock attack of air-to-surface missiles fired from Tu-95MS long-range aircraft. This was reported by the representative of the Eastern Military District (VVO) Alexander Gordeev. Recall that it is the S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems that are used to protect the Russian military base in Syria.
How will we realistically respond to the Americans, how will the situation in the Damascus-Moscow-Washington triangle develop?
Our S-400 air defense system, which is deployed in Syria, at the Khmeimim air base, technically could not shoot down American Tomahawks, - said Victor Murakhovsky, retired colonel, member of the Expert Council of the Board of the Military Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation. - To the Syrian airbase Shayrat, which was attacked by the Americans, about 100 km from Khmeimim. However, for air defense systems there is a restrictive concept of the radio horizon.
Yes, the maximum range of the S-400 is 400 km. But you need to understand: this is the reach of air targets that operate at medium and high altitudes. Cruise missiles that operate at altitudes of 30-50 meters are not visible from such a distance simply because the Earth is “curved” - spherical. In a word, the American Tomahawks were outside the S-400 radio horizon.
I note: no air defense system - either Russian or American - is physically unable to see cruise missiles at such a range.
Various measures are used to increase the radio horizon. In particular, in air defense systems, the radar is raised on towers. There is such a tower in Khmeimim, however, it does not allow increasing the detection range so much - up to 100 km.
"SP": - How is the situation from a military-political point of view, are we obliged to provide military assistance to Damascus?
Russia is in Syria solely to fight terrorism. We have neither an agreement with the Syrian government on the defense of Syria from third countries, nor any allied obligations to each other. And Moscow is not going to sign such agreements.
Let me remind you that during the period when the Russian Aerospace Forces group was in Syria, Israel launched several missile strikes on Syrian air bases. Including - at the air base near Damascus. But we did not interfere in these situations in any way, and did not counteract such blows.
"SP": - Is there any reason, in this case, to say that now the risk of a military clash in Syria between the United States and the Russian Federation has increased?
The risk has increased because our military personnel in Syria are present not only at the Khmeimim airbase and at the Tartus logistics point. Our demining teams and our military advisers are also present in other parts of Syria. In Homs, for example, which is located near the Shayrat air base, we have opened a demining center where we train Syrians in engineering and sapper work.
If the United States unilaterally strikes against government forces in Syria, there is a risk of death of Russian military personnel. Naturally, in this case, a corresponding reaction from Russia will follow. No one will undertake to predict it, since it will be an act of direct aggression by the US Armed Forces against representatives of the Russian Armed Forces.
So the risk has really increased significantly. Yes, the United States has warned us through incident prevention in Syria that the Shayrat air base is under attack. But still, this does not guarantee against extremely dangerous incidents. It may happen that the Americans do not give a warning in time, or the Tomahawk deviates from the assigned route, which will lead to the death of Russian military personnel.
In fact, the US decision to launch a missile attack sharply aggravated the conflict. It put an end to the possibility of interaction between the Russian Federation and the United States in the fight against terrorism in the Middle East, as well as on the hope for the revival of the role of the UN Security Council and other international structures that deal with issues of war and peace. And this role today, I note, is reduced to the level of a smoking room, in which they discuss, but do not decide anything.
SP: The US missile attack on an air base in Syria was a "single operation," an unnamed US military official told Reuters. If this is not the case, can the US missile strikes undermine the military power of Damascus?
The power of Damascus is determined mainly by the ground forces and militias, as well as artillery - those who work "on the ground." In this scenario, an attempt by cruise missiles to defeat Syrian government forces is doomed to failure. Such a task cannot be accomplished solely by air or missile strikes. It can only be solved by bringing in a ground contingent - we have seen this in the example of Iraq.
Theoretically, nothing can be ruled out: the Americans may decide to continue missile strikes, but they have no decisive military significance. Another thing is that, under the cover of US strikes, terrorist groups can launch a general counteroffensive.
However, let's not forget that Russian Aerospace Forces are present in Syria, and they just have the potential to more actively smash terrorists. True, for this we may have to increase the Syrian grouping again. And this is one of the answers that we can give the Americans.