Ukrainian drones have chosen Moscow City because of the railway: it’s easy to fly by unnoticed
The next attempt to attack the center of Moscow was made by the enemy on the night of August 1. The impact of the drone fall again hit the Moscow City building, where a number of ministries are located. “MK” talked with a military expert, director of the Air Defense Museum Yuri Knutov, who told why Ukraine managed to attack a strategically important facility for the second time, how the enemy could use the railway near the City and how to protect yourself when meeting with a drone.
Early in the morning of August 1, the Moscow City building complex was again attacked by drones. This time, the facade of the 21st floor of the same tower that was damaged on July 30 was damaged - this is a building in the “IQ-quarter”, where the government complex is located (the Ministry of Digital Development, the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Industry and Trade and a number of other departments). 150 square meters of glazing in the building were destroyed.
MK turned to military expert Yuri Knutov for comments.
- Yuri Albertovich, why did the enemy choose this particular complex of buildings? Is it only because of the ministries located there?
- If we look carefully, we will see that the attacked tower is located next to the Third Transport Ring, next to the railway. Train tracks are a good reference point for a drone.
Even in Soviet times, the enemy periodically used the railway to cover the flight of aircraft. In particular, Rust (a German amateur pilot who flew on a light aircraft from Hamburg to Moscow, freely flying more than a thousand kilometers in 1987 - “MK” ) flew, among other things, over the railway.
Why? Because the wire through which electricity is transmitted and which is connected to the pantograph of electric locomotives and electric trains creates a certain amount of illumination. And the old, still Soviet location stations did not see any target in this zone at a certain distance.
Of course, modern location stations are more sensitive. But if we assume that the drone is completely made of radio-transparent materials, and this is the case (with the exception of the engine), then it is practically invisible, and this, of course, complicates its detection. In addition, as I have said more than once, there is a possibility that radio beacons may be used to highlight the route and target.
- Does this mean that the enemy had people who prepared the ground for committing a terrorist act in advance?
- Yes. Some visitor could enter the building and leave a beacon, and then activate it shortly before the drone strike. And the drone was then guided to this beacon with high accuracy. And it is almost impossible to jam its work, its orientation using the GPS system. I do not rule out that the enemy could have used this scheme.
- Can this particular drone, or rather its fragments, help the investigation?
- Of course, it is necessary to study all the video recordings, establish how this drone flew, collect its parts as much as possible, and see where it was assembled. And if this drone is launched from Russian territory, then, of course, it is necessary to find the location of the sabotage group and neutralize it.
- What if from the territory of Ukraine?
- Then we need to continue the systematic fight against drones, or rather against their production in Ukraine. The Kiev regime has now allocated $1.1 billion for the purchase of drones. Moreover, these drones will only be made in Ukraine.
In addition, there will be NATO drones, which are included in military assistance packages. Ukraine claims that it produces more than a dozen different models, but I doubt it, most likely they just assemble them. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the places where drones are assembled and destroy them on the territory of Ukraine. This is also the task of our Aerospace Forces and Missile Forces.
- This is the second time a drone has flown into the same building. Can't we really fight such a threat?
- Not just us. If, for example, the Ukrainian Armed Forces had means of effective protection against drones, then our Geraniums would not cause such serious damage to military facilities on the territory of Ukraine. Despite the fact that NATO is transferring ultra-modern air defense systems there. Such as Patriot, NASAMS, Iris-T and the French SAMP-T.
They also turn out to be ineffective. Because today the problem of combating drones is acute for absolutely all states. One of the Pentagon generals once directly said that perhaps some developments in the United States will appear only by 2030.
- In what direction should we move and what exactly should we develop?
- It is necessary to engage in different types of defense, in my opinion. On the one hand, it is necessary to develop weapons on new physical principles - these are laser weapons and beam weapons capable of burning out microcircuits from drones. Not to suppress, as electromagnetic weapons do now, but to burn out electronics.
- What should we do now?
- This, of course, is a debatable topic, but we may have to return to the times of the Great Patriotic War, as well as to the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1970. At that time, we were helping Egypt, and our fighter pilots were on Egyptian territory, protecting the airspace of this country from Israeli air strikes.
The airfields were then covered by barrage balloons. But balloons have a peculiarity - due to the cables they can prevent the flight of aircraft. Drones can easily bypass these cables. However, if networks are installed, then, of course, drones will have to rise to a higher altitude, where they will be more visible to radars and visual surveillance.
Thus, it will be possible to destroy them. Perhaps such a system will be used. It is expensive and time-consuming, but most likely there is no other way out. And we will have to create it not just in some separate areas of Moscow, but around the capital, some important objects, until more modern and powerful systems appear that will be able to burn out the electronics of drones.
- Many began to accuse the electronic warfare system of ineffectiveness. Is it so?
- Of course not. Understand that to improve a drone you need, relatively speaking, only a thousand dollars. For this money you can change parts, software and everything - this drone will no longer be “taken” by existing electronic warfare systems.
But to improve an electronic warfare station, you need at least one hundred thousand dollars, and to improve an anti-aircraft missile system - even more. Therefore, drones are a very flexible tool that can be constantly changed and improved almost every day. And information that we have developed one or another new electronic warfare station appears to us once every three to six months.
Recently there was information that we have a Sapphire electronic warfare station specifically for combating drones. This is precisely due to the fact that the enemy is constantly improving the guidance system of drones and increasing their noise immunity.
- By some external signs you can determine whether a drone is dangerous?
- Actually, there is now a no-fly zone over Moscow. There shouldn't be any drones in the sky. If it flies, then it is already an intruder drone. So if we see a drone in the sky, it means 90% it is an enemy drone. And he is always dangerous.
- What to do? How to protect yourself?
- If you see a drone at a low altitude, or it is just starting to circle, then it is better to hide in a pedestrian crossing, run into a stairwell, or into the subway. Well, if it just flies by, then you urgently need to inform the emergency services by calling 112.
️Iranin uusi Shahed-238 drone tulee olemaan nopeampi ja todennäköisesti vähemmän tutkahavainnoitavissa kuin edellinen versio.