Зенитный ракетный комплекс С-400 "Триумф"

[FeoFUN]

Морские ЗРК будут, когда их будет на что ставить.

Ахаха, как раз таки на что ставить - есть, 22350 называется, а ЗРК - нету. Ты кажется опять соврамши - упс. :D

[ViK]

Ну раз кроме красноречия от тебя ничего не услышишь. Иных данных, кроме тех, которые не устраивают твоё желание, ты дать не можешь, добавляя лишь смайлики.

Добавим что нить не с мурзилок , раз годы не нравятся, тогда лет этак 7-8 назад.

 

The Patriot Missile Defense System in Iraq: Newly-released Army History Raises Serious Questions

 

 

The military is still finishing up its analysis of the Patriot missile defense system’s performance in Iraq this past spring. Also coming soon are the results from investigations into the three friendly fire incidents the Patriot was involved in, which killed one American and two British pilots. However, these studies have been delayed time and again, although they reportedly have long been completed and are waiting for sign-offs by higher-ups. Reading the unofficial yet highly illuminating "Operation Iraqi Freedom Theater Air and Missile Defense History," written by the 32d Army Air and Missile Defense Command (32d AAMDC, the command responsible for the Patriot), the delay in releasing the reports mentioned above becomes obvious. The Patriot may have made nine intercepts but it almost certainly did not bat 100 percent, as officials have been claiming from the start of the war. This history shows that when the Army claims nine hits, they are only counting their successes. There were many challenges, technical and logistical, which detracted from the Patriot’s performance. And the 32d AAMDC describes many areas where the Patriot needs significant improvement.

 

 

 

To begin, the 32d AAMDC claims that the Patriot made nine intercepts out of nine engagements, allowing it a 100 percent success rate. This seems to be the result of a rather tortuous portrayal of the facts given in their own history. Reading through it, 23 Iraqi missile launches are documented (9 Ababil-100s, 4 Al Samouds, 4 CSSC-3s, 4 FROG-7s, and 2 unknowns). Of these, indeed, 9 apparently were intercepted by U.S. or Kuwaiti Patriot batteries, thanks to the at least 24 Patriot-type missiles (PAC-2, GEM, GEM+, and PAC-3) that were fired. However, that leaves 14 Iraqi missiles which were not intercepted. Excluding the one Ababil-100 which malfunctioned and blew up shortly after launch and the four FROG-7s which were outside of the Patriot’s range, leaves 9 Iraqi missiles which were not destroyed by the Patriot. The fact that they landed “harmlessly” in the desert or the Persian Gulf, in the words of the authors of the report, does not change the fact that they were not intercepted. In the CENTCOM area of responsibility at the time of the war, there were 1069 Patriot missiles (54 of which were PAC-3 missiles), and 29 U.S. and 5 Kuwaiti Patriot batteries, so there should have been ample assets on the U.S. side to counter these Iraqi threats. Claiming that the Patriot had a 100 percent interception rate seems disingenuous at best and an outright manipulation of events at worst. Also surprising is that after 12 years of criticism, following the dismal performance of Patriot in the first Persian Gulf War, the Army is still calling an "engagement" an interception, when by their own descriptions sometimes "engaged" Iraqi missiles were not intercepted. For example, the history for March 21, 2003, reports six Iraqi TBMs "successfully engaged and destroyed by Patriot systems to date." But that counts an Ababil-100 and an Al Samoud that were NOT intercepted on March 20th. This calls into question what evidence the Army has for the nine intercepts it does claim.

 

 

 

The final chapter of the history gives the 32d AAMDC’s recommendations on possible changes for future usage of the Patriot. The first is the limited time available to detect, decide and engage the Iraqi missiles and rockets. The engagement time shrunk from 4.5 minutes in 1991 to about 1.5 minutes in 2003, due to the use of shorter-range missiles and rockets (like the FROG-7, an old Soviet-type system with a range of roughly 70 kilometers). The history points out that the shorter engagement time translates into the need for quicker decisions and a greater change of friendly fire incidents. Thus it suggests that “the Army may want to examine changing the rank structure of firing elements, while ensuring the necessary experiences and education are provided to those who may have to make launch decisions in the future.”

 

A second warning is given about the dangers of electromagnetic interference. The history paints a telling picture of the problem around Karbala on April 2 where electronic clutter may have contributed to three fratricides: “in the space of a single hour an F-18 was mistakenly engaged and destroyed by Patriot missiles, an Air Force attack aircraft mistakenly bombed a friendly field artillery unit and an Army helicopter crashed.”

 

Cruise missiles continue to be a serious threat to U.S. forces, as seen by the complete failure by the Patriot to defend against the CSSC-3 Seersuckers Iraqi used against Coalition forces. The history points out that “the ability of these older cruise missiles to penetrate friendly airspace and reach their targets should serve as a warning to joint and Army leaders that the emerging cruise missile threat must be addressed.” The Patriot’s radar did not even pick up the four CSSC-3s launched during the war, much less notice them in time for them to be engaged. Moreover, after the first cruise missile was lobbed against Kuwait City’s harbor early in the morning on March 29, Coalition forces took active steps to prevent the possibility of a repeat: Kuwait deployed Amoun batteries around its capital to create a Missile Engagement Zone, coalition forces were sent to the Al Faw peninsula in attack operations mode to seek out and prevent future cruise missile launches, and the United Kingdom sent the HMS York to reside off of Kuwait City so that it could attempt to intercept any more cruise missile attacks. Even with all these preventative measures in place, Iraq was still able to launch three CSSC-3s on April 1, prompting U.S. authorities to order the local Patriot batteries “to execute cruise missile simulation tests to find better ways of intercepting the Seersucker cruise missiles due to their low flight elevations.”

 

 

 

According to the 32d AAMDC’s history, “Another challenge is maneuvering Patriot in support of offensive operations. The Patriot system is mobile in that it can move from place to place on its organic wheeled vehicles. However, it was not originally designed to maneuver cross-country as part of a combined arms team.” There were several instances of the lumbering Patriot trucks getting bogged down in soft sand and either stopping their teams’ forward movement while they got dug out or causing the supply lines to stretch out for miles as the stuck vehicles lagged behind others in their batteries. Also at times, the Patriot’s early warning capability could not keep up with divisions’ movements.

 

The 32d AAMDC’s history notes the need for redundant detection and warning systems. According to the authors of the report, “During OIF [Operation Iraqi Freedom] two effective means of warning were the Patriot radars and the Aegis cruisers. While these were effective, it must be noted that most Iraqi launch sites were within range of the ocean. The same may not be true in future conflicts, and no commander wants to rely on a single detection and warning system.” This may be giving too much credit to the Patriot’s radar, which apparently was undergoing grave maintenance problems prior to the war. At times, five to eight of the Patriot radars on a daily basis were not mission capable. By the time hostilities started, all the radars were reported to be up and running, but that does leave them open to the question of how effectively they actually were working through the figurative fog and literal dust of war. Additionally, in October 2002, a simulation support exercise was held by the 32d AAMDC in Ft. Bliss, Texas, in which it became clear that the Patriot needed to work on its ability to provide early warning of short-range ballistic missiles. The Patriot operators had the chance to improve on this area and did not; one hopes that they will act differently this time around.

 

There were many other technical or logistical problems not listed as an area of improvement but which were glaringly obvious. Communications across the widely-stretched Patriot batteries were difficult. At times, the UHF line of sight capabilities which they had were insufficient and there were communications gaps. Adding to that were compatibility issues between difference versions of the Patriot: at one point, some Patriot Configuration-2 batteries could not communicate with their Configuration-3 commanders, leaving them in autonomous operation mode with no positive contact for a brief while. The Patriot’s patchy communications came into play several times when multiple batteries attempted to intercept the same Iraqi ballistic missile. If they had stronger communications between themselves, they probably would not all have acted simultaneously and resources would have been used more effectively.

 

Logistics cannot be underplayed as a challenge to the 32d AAMDC. At one point, the Patriot’s supply chain was 400 kilometers long. As could be expected, there were serious snafus in distributing the equipment. In one striking instance, a battery quickly brought over from Germany was given battle dress uniforms to wear instead of the desert fatigues that everyone else was kitted with. And that was for batteries fortunate enough to actually receive their equipment or sufficient manpower. Despite the long lead time (the first deployment order for additional air defense to the region was issued on Sept. 30, 2002, nearly six months before fighting began), many batteries were short of needed supplies or operators. This resulted in the creation of “shortstop” batteries, or pulling Patriot operators in-theater but without their equipment to man for short periods of time – maybe 48 to 72 hours – PAC-2 configuration equipment that could be shaved away from larger battalions to allow for a minimum engagement package. These shortstops were a creative way of providing Patriot coverage; however, they placed additional maintenance strain on and stretched already-thin communications assets further for their supporting battalions. At one point, the 2-1 ADA was in charge of 1150 soldiers, instead of the 450 personnel it normally supported, but it had no increase in its battalion staff to correspond with its augmented responsibilities.

 

Again, the 32d AAMDC’s history is not the official assessment of the Patriot’s performance and it barely touches upon the three friendly fire incidents that the Patriot was involved with. However, it provides much-needed context on how the Patriot operated. It shows that, contrary to what proponents of the system have been asserting, the Patriot was used sometimes in a chaotic manner. In other times the Patriot appeared to have done what it was set out to do, but the truth is much muddier than a crystal clear 100 percent interception rate. The danger lies in believing that there is no room for improvement. Only by figuring out where the Patriot faltered in combat and where there were gaps in coverage can we take steps to ensure that our military will be adequately defended in the future.

 

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?documentid=1798&programID=6&from_page=../friendlyversion/printversion.cfm

Edited February 21, 2011 by ViK

[ViK]

 

Ты можешь в 2011ом привести хотя бы отдаленно похожие боевые страницы из службы С-300/400? У тебя ж на руках, кроме мурзилок и урашливых всхлипов и нет ничего...смешной ты, ей Богу.

 

Ты знаешь, я очень рад что С-300 не пришлось воевать на войне.

[ViK]

забегая вперёд -

Зато пэтриот попробовал реальность.

Можешь больше ни чего не писать.

[FeoFUN]

The fact that they landed “harmlessly” in the desert or the Persian Gulf, in the words of the authors of the report, does not change the fact that they were not intercepted.

 

Наводящий вопрос: А траектории полета неперехваченных и места их падения - не приведешь? И заодно зоны и рубежи перехвата развернутых батарей ПРО. :D

 

Черт, они упали в безлюдной пустыне и убили семью тушканчиков. УБИЙЦЫ! ПОЧЕМУ ЖЕ ОНИ ИХ НЕ ПЕРЕХВАТИЛИ?!! :megalol:

 

Конспирологи - такие конспирологи. Зато смотри как недостатки вскрывают, видимо нам то еще это предстоит, а то ты думал у нас всё гладко будет? Обычно - наоборот, потом что до последнего щеки раздуваем и про поездатость своих поездов поём. А они - честны и критичны к самим себе - и это залог всех их успехов.

[FeoFUN]

забегая вперёд -

Зато пэтриот попробовал реальность.

Можешь больше ни чего не писать.

Именно. А ты думал всё будет так, как в ваши ура-сказках и на учениях? Да щазззз.

[ViK]

Наводящий вопрос: А траектории полета неперехваченных и места их падения - не приведешь? И заодно зоны и рубежи перехвата развернутых батарей ПРО. :D

 

Черт, они упали в безлюдной пустыне и убили семью тушканчиков. УБИЙЦЫ! ПОЧЕМУ ЖЕ ОНИ ИХ НЕ ПЕРЕХВАТИЛИ?!! :megalol:

 

Конспирологи - такие конспирологи. .

 

Черт, а ты подробностей не подскажешь? Чтобы не быть в строю конспирологов, напевая свои ура-сказки. :D

Наверное "они убили кенни." (С) :D

 

Именно. А ты думал всё будет так, как в ваши ура-сказках и на учениях? Да щазззз.

 

"Ваших" это чьих? Сказки читаешь? Ура-сказки до этого момента я слышал от другого.

Но если что щаззз закажу какую нить у производителя США. Раз "наши" не нравятся.

[FeoFUN]

Черт, а ты подробностей не подскажешь? Чтобы не быть в строю конспирологов, напевая свои ура-сказки. :D

Наверное "они убили кенни." (С) :D

Слушай, ты определнный талант - высечь себя же самого четырежды за сутки, из них три раза с помощью собственных же источников, это надо постараться. А я ведь намекал, намекал тебе, но ты меня не услышал - квасной угар видимо логику и вдумчивость притупляет. Ты хоть ссылку то свою последнюю - изучал? Видимо, нет.

24 March, 1342Z

Ababil-100

 

The missile fell short and landed in the Kuwaiti desert without being intercepted, “causing no damage.”

 

The Iraqi missile came from north of Al Basrah. (p. 63)

 

27 March, 2056Z

Either an Ababil-100 or a FROG-7

 

No Patriots were within range of the missile. It landed in a “deserted area and did no damage.”

 

This missile was launched from southwest of Kirkuk in northern Iraq and marked the first time a TBM was used against a target inside of Iraq . (p. 69)

 

28 March, 2250Z

1 CSSC-3 Seersucker cruise missile

No Patriots engaged the missile.

 

The cruise missile was launched from the Al Faw peninsula and struck a pier outside Kuwait City , killing two civilians. Responses were immediate: “coalition forces moved aggressively into likely launch sites on the Al Faw peninsula to prevent their use for launches, and Kuwait deployed Amoun batteries within their country to interdict any further missiles launched from the Al Faw [this was now a Missile Engagement Zone]… Great Britain also positioned the HMS York in shallow waters off Kuwait City with the task of intercepting cruise missiles.” (p.72)

 

29 March, 1500Z

FROG-7

 

“[T]his rocket was not intercepted and did no damage when it landed in empty desert.”

No Patriot engaged the rocket.

 

This rocket launch was preceded by the launch of five weather balloons. The rocket came from northwest Al Basrah and was aimed toward northern Kuwait . (p. 72)

 

1 April

Unknown

No Patriot engaged the missile.

 

The missile launch came early in the morning. It was from north of Karbala and apparently was headed east; however, no impact site could be definitively found. (p. 78)

 

3 April, 0020Z

FROG-7

 

Outside of the Patriot coverage area and not engaged by the system. No damage reported from the rocket.

 

1 April 3 CSSC-3 Seersuckers

No Patriots engaged the missiles.

 

These Seersuckers were fired from the Al Faw peninsula. Two of them landed near the border between Iraq and Kuwait ; the third landed in Kuwait in an area recently occupied by the I MEF units. After this, the brigade “directed B/2-43 ADA to execute cruise missile simulation tests to find better ways of intercepting the Seersucker cruise missiles due to their low flight elevations.” (p. 78)

Впредь, прежде чем бездумно повторять хрень за другими - подбей для начала факты, а то поговорка есть - "глупей дурака лишь тот, кто за ним следует".

"Ваших" это чьих? Сказки читаешь? Ура-сказки до этого момента я слышал от другого.

Но если что щаззз закажу какую нить у производителя США. Раз "наши" не нравятся.

Сказки лишь у тебя - причем ты в них так запутался, что уже четырежды прокололся, запутался и заврался на них. Я же ссылаюсь на систему, у которой 20 лет опыта эксплуатации, две войны за плечами и десятки перехваченных ОТБР.

 

В общем, ты слил - сам себя и по полной, с тобой - всё.

[ViK]

В диалоге использовался материал:

Я привел -

 

1 Статья из «техника и вооружение»

 

2 Отчет о стрельбах С-300ПМУ2 в Китае.

 

3 Публикуемые в открытой печати общие данные ТТХ пэтриота, с-400

 

4 Отчёт о применении пэтриота в Ираке

 

Твои аргументы -

 

1 Цитата из globalsecurity.org о пэтриоте.

 

2 Ха-ха это сказка :)

 

3 ЛОЛ это ура-сказка наркотик.

 

4 Хахаха, мне смешно, реклама врет

 

5 Я всё знаю у США всё отлично

 

6 :D

 

7 В общем, ты слил - сам себя и поп полной, с тобой - всё.

 

Да, у тебя перевес.

[FeoFUN]

В диалоге использовался материал:

Я сам высек себя при помощи -

 

1 Статья из «техника и вооружение»

 

2 Отчет о стрельбах С-300ПМУ2 в Китае.

 

3 Публикуемые в открытой печати общие данные ТТХ пэтриота, с-400

 

4 Отчёт о применении пэтриота в Ираке

fixed for ya

[ViK]

24 March, 1342Z

Ababil-100

 

The missile fell short and landed in the Kuwaiti desert without being intercepted, “causing no damage.”

 

The Iraqi missile came from north of Al Basrah. (p. 63)

 

27 March, 2056Z

Either an Ababil-100 or a FROG-7

 

No Patriots were within range of the missile. It landed in a “deserted area and did no damage.”

 

This missile was launched from southwest of Kirkuk in northern Iraq and marked the first time a TBM was used against a target inside of Iraq . (p. 69)

 

28 March, 2250Z

1 CSSC-3 Seersucker cruise missile

No Patriots engaged the missile.

 

The cruise missile was launched from the Al Faw peninsula and struck a pier outside Kuwait City , killing two civilians. Responses were immediate: “coalition forces moved aggressively into likely launch sites on the Al Faw peninsula to prevent their use for launches, and Kuwait deployed Amoun batteries within their country to interdict any further missiles launched from the Al Faw [this was now a Missile Engagement Zone]… Great Britain also positioned the HMS York in shallow waters off Kuwait City with the task of intercepting cruise missiles.” (p.72)

 

29 March, 1500Z

FROG-7

 

“[T]his rocket was not intercepted and did no damage when it landed in empty desert.”

No Patriot engaged the rocket.

 

This rocket launch was preceded by the launch of five weather balloons. The rocket came from northwest Al Basrah and was aimed toward northern Kuwait . (p. 72)

 

1 April

Unknown

No Patriot engaged the missile.

 

The missile launch came early in the morning. It was from north of Karbala and apparently was headed east; however, no impact site could be definitively found. (p. 7

 

3 April, 0020Z

FROG-7

 

Outside of the Patriot coverage area and not engaged by the system. No damage reported from the rocket.

 

1 April 3 CSSC-3 Seersuckers

No Patriots engaged the missiles.

 

These Seersuckers were fired from the Al Faw peninsula. Two of them landed near the border between Iraq and Kuwait ; the third landed in Kuwait in an area recently occupied by the I MEF units. After this, the brigade “directed B/2-43 ADA to execute cruise missile simulation tests to find better ways of intercepting the Seersucker cruise missiles due to their low flight elevations.” (p. 7

 

Впредь, прежде чем бездумно повторять хрень за другими - подбей для начала факты, а то поговорка есть - "глупей дурака лишь тот, кто за ним следует".

 

 

Тоесть имея раздвоение личности высек сам себя, споря с автром статьи,

 

To begin, the 32d AAMDC claims that the Patriot made nine intercepts out of nine engagements, allowing it a 100 percent success rate. This seems to be the result of a rather tortuous portrayal of the facts given in their own history. Reading through it, 23 Iraqi missile launches are documented (9 Ababil-100s, 4 Al Samouds, 4 CSSC-3s, 4 FROG-7s, and 2 unknowns). Of these, indeed, 9 apparently were intercepted by U.S. or Kuwaiti Patriot batteries, thanks to the at least 24 Patriot-type missiles (PAC-2, GEM, GEM+, and PAC-3) that were fired. However, that leaves 14 Iraqi missiles which were not intercepted. Excluding the one Ababil-100 which malfunctioned and blew up shortly after launch and the four FROG-7s which were outside of the Patriot’s range, leaves 9 Iraqi missiles which were not destroyed by the Patriot. ...

 

"Тихо сам с собою я веду беседу" (С) :)

[FeoFUN]

Ну и что ты нового там узрел? То, что оставшиеся 9 никто даже не пытался перехватывать и все они не причинили никакого вреда, упав в безлюдной местности? Черт, какое фантастическое везение. :D

 

Продолжаешь себя сечь? Ну-ну.

[pabel89]

http://pro-spe-ro.livejournal.com/

вот вам ещё:D

[FeoFUN]

http://pro-spe-ro.livejournal.com/

вот вам ещё:D

Да, читали. Ай, пусть их - коль у народа мозгов нет, то не остается ничего другого, как исконно русский путь через жаренного петуха и *опу.

[pabel89]

Да, читали. Ай, пусть их - коль у народа мозгов нет, то не остается ничего другого, как исконно русский путь через жаренного петуха и *опу.

Однако я больше доверяю информации по ссылке на сухой выше. Ну не люблю я пафосных и эмоциональных заявлений. Edited February 21, 2011 by pabel89

[Chizh]

Ашурбейли уже поста лишился.

[FeoFUN]

Однако я больше доверяю информации по ссылке на сухой выше.

Это какой ссылке? Где Скаем, и не только, рассказывается как ПВОшники РЭБовикам поляны накрывают, дабы "помеховую обстановку" облегчить? :)

[pabel89]

Ашурбейли уже поста лишился.

И?

Это какой сылке? Где Скаем, и не только, рассказывается как ПВОшники РЭБовикам поляны накрывают, дабы "помеховую обстановку" облегчить? :)

Ну это смотря как читать:) я имел ввиду посты участника spiritus

[Chizh]

И?

Надеюсь что с С-500 будет меньше фальсификаций и проблем.

[FeoFUN]

И?

Ну это смотря как читать:) я имел ввиду посты участника spiritus

Можешь ссылкой на его посты кинуть? Не припоминаю такого, хотя конечно на фоне Великого и Ужасного Ская - любой померкнет. :D

[pabel89]

Надеюсь что с С-500 будет меньше фальсификаций и проблем.

В общем все остались при своих мнениях:).

Можешь ссылкой на его посты кинуть? Не припоминаю такого, хотя конечно на фоне Великого и Ужасного Ская - любой померкнет. :D

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=48621&page=6 с конца страницы Edited February 21, 2011 by pabel89

[FeoFUN]

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=48621&page=6 с конца страницы

Даже если хоть половина правды в этом есть - это просто улёт! Гм, и как я такое пропустить мог? Или я просто забыл, что читал это? Хотя, забыть такое - сложно.

[pabel89]

Даже если хоть половина правды в этом есть - это просто улёт! Гм, и как я такое пропустить мог? Или я просто забыл, что читал это? Хотя, забыть такое - сложно.

особенно резюме:

Что касается С-400, то там уже реализованы очень серьёзные способы ПХЗ. Из зарубежных аналогов я не видел ещё ни одного конкурента

Прицельные по частоте,кстати, он обходит на ура

:P

ПХЗ я так понял - ПомеХоЗащита

А теперь хотелось бы тоже самое, только про Пэтриот;), т.е. результаты его работы в помеховой обстановке.

[FeoFUN]

Ну а вот тут остается лишь надеяться на то, что эта Смальта, как верно еще тогда сказал Чиж - суперглушилка. А вообще, каким бы сказочником я Дядю Мишу не считал, но в вопросах РЭБ и РТР я с ним согласен - ЗАпад и США сильно впереди нас, во всяком случае в средствах нападения и глушения.

 

Что до помехозащищенности Пэтриота, то навскидку ничего не припоминаю по ней - надо копать.

[pabel89]

http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/news/dva-raketnyh-polka-pod-peterburgom-usilyat-sistemoy-pvo-s-300/

Два зенитных ракетных полка ПВО в Ленинградской области получат на свое вооружение зенитные ракетные системы большой дальности действия С-300 "Фаворит". Как передает агентство "Интерфакс", об этом сообщил начальник зенитных ракетных войск ВВС России генерал-майор Сергей Попов.

 

По его словам, полки, дислоцированные в подмосковных Электростали и Дмитрове, которые получили новый комплект C-400 "Триумф", передадут свое прежнее вооружение — зенитные ракетные системы С-300 "Фаворит" двум полкам ПВО в Ленинградской области.

 

Источник: http://www.ng.ru

Ракеты 48Н6ДМ совместимы с ЗРК С-300ПМ1(ПМ2) или очередной косяк журналистов?

 

 

http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/news/tretiy-polk-s-400-budet-razmeshchen-na-dalnem-vostoke/

Войска на Дальнем Востоке первыми после Подмосковья получат на вооружение комплексы C-400 "Триумф", сообщил журналистам в пятницу на полигоне Капустин Яр (Астраханская область) командующий оперативно-стратегическим командованием воздушно-космической обороны (ОСК ВКО) генерал-лейтенант Валерий Иванов.

 

Сейчас один полк зенитной ракетной системы С-400 дислоцирован в подмосковной Электростали, второй - в марте этого года заступит на боевое дежурство в Дмитров.

 

"Эти системы (С-400) уже готовятся по плану для перевооружения и поступления на Дальний Восток. Там это новейшее оружие будет заменять устаревшие образцы техники и вооружения", - сказал Иванов.

 

По его словам, целесообразность нахождения третьего полка зенитно-ракетных войск С-400 на Дальнем Востоке продиктована сложной военно-политической ситуацией, которая складывается в этом регионе.

 

"Система ПВО С-400 - это оружие обороны, не нападения, она гарантирует оборону нашей территории с восточных рубежей", - сказал генерал-лейтенант.

 

Где именно будет размещен полк, не сообщается.

 

Ранее руководство РФ заявило о перевооружении одного из регионов России - Курильских островов, что вызвало негативную реакцию Японии, которая считает эту территорию своей

 

Источник: http://www.rian.ru

Edited February 22, 2011 by pabel89