Military Review

The danger of a complete replacement of the "Dirks" and "Daggers" with the new shipboard M-Tor and Wasps of the 21st century

46

The combat module of the M-Tor complex on a ship of the frigate class (design of the missile defense system for the Naval fleet Russia)



We are all well aware of the long-standing and very successful tradition of Soviet defense design bureaus, which consists in developing ship modifications of anti-aircraft missile and anti-aircraft artillery complexes, which are almost completely unified with their ground-based versions of the anti-aircraft interceptors and, in some cases, multifunctional radar fire control . So, for example, the C-300F “Fort” shipborne long-range anti-aircraft missile system differs from the ground C-300PS ground projectile with the PFAR round structure and the reduced carrying capacity of the naval XRUMX 3 for “ of the land on-load tap-changer 41Н3Е), as well as the modernized 6В30РМ ZUR, which, unlike the 6В5Р version, has specialized radio communication modules with transport-launch containers ВПУ Б-55А on board. By the same principle, anti-aircraft missile and artillery complexes (ZRAK) "Dirk", "Armor-M" and air defense systems "Osa-M", "Dagger", "Gibka" were created, which received a full unification of the missiles with military complexes "Osa" , "Tungusska", "Pantsir-С5", "Wasp" and "Tor-М55" and "Igla-S".

We can confidently say that this has resolved all the issues with the interchangeability between the naval and military arsenals of anti-aircraft guided missiles of the above complexes. At the same time, the totality of these air defense missile systems in a tightly held naval or carrier strike grouping allows you to create a powerful echeloned air defense system, when, for example, at a long-range line, targets are intercepted by the Fort from the Moscow air defense missile, 1 ”with SC 11356“ Admiral Grigorovich ”, and in the near - anti-aircraft artillery complexes AK-630М and SAM“ Osa-M ”and“ Gibka ”(using the example of the Black Sea Fleet CUG). But judging by the latest news, not everything in the construction of ship defense of the 21st century goes as smoothly as we would like.

So, 26 September 2016 of the year, came two very important news from the General Director of JSC "Izhevsk Electromechanical Plant '' Kupol ''" Fanil Ziyatdinov, which can be classified as "good and bad." The good thing is that the Kupol plant, which is part of Concern EKR Almaz-Antey JSC, is launching a program to update the hardware and software of the Tor-M2 / 2KM family of anti-aircraft missile systems to realize the possibility of intercepting small-sized hypersonic high-precision elements weapons. The Tor-M2 family can become the first mobile air defense system capable of shooting down targets at speeds up to 1500 m / s, which was previously available only to systems such as the C-300PS. The military air defense will be endowed with even greater anti-missile qualities of a full-fledged aerospace defense (it is also known that the air defense of the Ground Forces will receive a “Buk-M3” with a target speed range up to 3000 m / s). The second news from the general director of the "Dome" causes very contradictory opinions, and is more likely to be bad.

It is noted that a new naval modification of the Tor-M2KM “M-Tor” air defense system is being developed, which will be gradually replaced in various classes of warships Kortik and the Dagger air defense system. Similar information, February 2 2014, was already reported by the spokesman for Almaz-Antey CEO Yury Baikov. New combat modules (BM) and launchers will begin to be delivered to the fleet from about 2018 year. What does it mean?

From NK such as the patrol ships of the 11540 "Yastreb" Avenue ("Fearless"), as well as large anti-submarine ships of the 1155 / 1155.1 "Udaly / Udali-II" Ave., the combat modules 3СXNNUMX-87 of the TORMS "Kortik-M" will be dismantled as well as the Dagger air defense missile system, including the 1 – 4 vertical octopus revolver launchers and the K-95-12 multi-purpose radar of the light. And instead of them, on special pedestals, autonomous combat control modules will be installed for them with the RPN 1А9МК-331, as well as a certain number of quadruple anti-aircraft missile modules 1М9Д with the 334М9Д missile, depending on the ship’s displacement. There is no doubt that the process of refitting ships with modular M-Tor air defense systems is several times less laborious and costly than installing deeply integrated into the Daggers design, but it’s hard to imagine the level of the combat potential of combat ships upgraded in this way, and even more so after removing the "Kortikov-M". There will be an inevitable decrease in the antimissile potential of the ships, due to the irrational location of the M-Tor antenna post with respect to the superstructures obstructing the view and the lack of protection of the “dead zone”, which was usually carried out by the Kortik-M ZRAK.

Let's start with the question of the irrational location of the autonomous combat module (ABM) 9А331МК-1, and, respectively, the radar control complex "M-Tor". The sketches and graphic images provided in the network show the frigate class warship, which has one ABM 9А331МК-1 stand-alone module on the nasal artillery mount, and 4 vertical built-in launchers on 16 ZUR assembled in 2 anti-aircraft missile launcher module ZRM 9М334Д (8 missiles in each). There are absolutely no questions about the launchers, since the vertical “cold” launch of the 9М331 anti-aircraft missiles, as in the early revolver TLU, provides all-round shooting at aerial targets regardless of the location on the ship’s deck, which cannot be said about the location of the ABM. His presence in the nose of the frigate is expressed by great restrictions on the sector of operation of the multifunctional radar in the rear hemisphere of the ship. The entire review of the M-Torah main firing radar is overlapped by the ship's superstructure and mast devices, which is why, in the course direction, 20 azimuth degrees of the ship’s rear hemisphere is completely unprotected before the impact of even one high-speed and intensively maneuvering anti-ship missile.

This is because the frigate class displacement ships apparently will not have the rear autonomous combat module 9А331МК-1 with the second firing radar to work on the targets attacking the ship from behind, because, first, additional space is needed for the installation of an artillery installation, and secondly, the empty sections of the superstructure are also usually occupied by radars for detecting surface targets within the radio horizon, as well as by radar fire control artillery and SCRC. Antenna posts K-12-1 of the “Dagger” complex have the most optimal location in the upper sections of the settings, due to which the radio horizon is moved further by 4-5 km in terms of detecting approaching anti-ship missiles. Without the CRAF, the Dirk-type cover, which protects the near air boundary of the ship, the new M-Tor will not be able to beat off the “star raid” of several dozen anti-ship missiles, some of which can break into the 1,5-kilometer “dead zone” of the complex, and therefore dismantling them is a completely wrong decision. If such a “modernization” is carried out on “Peter the Great” and “Admiral Kuznetsov”, we will get the 2 flagship with the missing lower echelon of the missile defense system, which can eventually become decisive.

A much more accurate solution would be to replace the “Dirks” with more advanced anti-aircraft artillery complexes “Pantsir-M”, with the subsequent upgrading of the latter to expand the speed range of the intercepted targets, since even deeply modernized “M-Torah” capable of intercepting hypersonic targets will have a “dead zone” with a length of about 800 - 1000 m from the carrier ship. Also, a very interesting option would be to upgrade the radar elements of the ship-based air defense system "Dagger" in service while maintaining the revolver 4C95 launcher.

It consists in the development of a promising 4-sided multifunctional radar guidance based on active or passive HEADLIGHTS that can be installed in 4-s rotary antenna posts located on the upper corners of the superstructure of a combat ship to provide the most productive overview of the airspace. Each antenna post should have a constructive opportunity to rotate by +/- 90 degrees in the azimuthal plane: in the end, this will allow 3 antenna arrays to be simultaneously accompanied and captured a large number of targets in a small area of ​​airspace. As you know, all existing MRLS, including “Polyment” and AN / SPY-1A / D, have fixed canvases of FAR on each side of the superstructure, because of which only 2 of them can work in the same direction of missile, which reduces the overall performance of the ship ZRK. A version with mobile radars would radically change the situation. Based on the modular concept of the M-Tor complex, it is possible to carry out such modernization by placing four autonomous combat modules 9А331МК-1 at the corners of the superstructure, but the whole point is that they are large enough for ships with a displacement of up to 6000 tons, and therefore it will be necessary to develop a small antenna post.

The ship’s Dagger SAM and the 9М331МКМ Tor-М2КМ anti-aircraft missiles are 4-channel, and therefore, for example, for any configuration of the sea Torah with four multifunction radars, the number of targets to be fired will be 16 units, from 12, 18, 2013 of which can be simultaneously fired on the same direction. At the MAKS-2 air show, Tactical Missile Weapons Corporation presented a new missile defense system for the Tor-M9 family of complexes - 338М3 (Р9В-МД). This interceptor missile, unlike 331М9 and 331М1,2Д missiles, has 1000 times greater maximum speed (16 m / s), 12 km (with previous versions of 15-9 km), better maneuverability, as well as more advanced Aviation Aviation Radiomandnoy control system. The aerodynamic design and geometrical dimensions of the 338МXNUMX have undergone significant changes: from the “weft” scheme, the specialists of the Vympel design bureau came to a normal aerodynamic configuration with a tail arrangement of aerodynamic control surfaces and stabilizers.

The most important advantage of this rocket is the considerably smaller dimensions with folded planes, which made it possible to reduce the transverse size of the new cylindrical transport and launch container 35М9К by approximately 338% compared to the modular square TPK 9Я281 of the Tor-M1 complex. Due to this, it is planned to increase the total ammunition of missiles in the launch modules of all the latest modifications of the Tor-М2 air defense system almost 2 times. Smaller, “packed” in TPK, the span of the rudders and stabilizers was achieved not only by reducing their size, but also by placing the folding mechanism: if the 9М331 had a folding mechanism in the middle of the planes, then it was located at the root of the 9М338.

In addition, according to the statements of the Deputy General Director of the Almaz-Antey Air Defense Concern, Sergey Druzin, who commented earlier on the training interceptions of the WTO elements of the conditional enemy, RZV-MD demonstrated the highest accuracy: out of five targets that were destroyed by the 9X338 guided missiles, three were hit by a direct hit (kinet interception, - "hit-to-kill"). As is well known, the usual radio command control can only in rare cases provide a direct hit of a “rocket into a rocket”; for this, either an active or semi-active radar homing head is needed, and the method of radio correction from an optical-electronic TV / IR scanner mounted on a BM can also be used. family "Thor". The 9М338 rocket, as is known, possesses only the latter, and therefore the complex also owes its high precision radar guidance with a low-level HEADLIGHT operating in a centimeter X-band with a beam width of not more than 1 degrees. The first modifications of the 9М331 SAM also had a large compartment for a radio-fuse, and later on the 9М338 a compact high-energy ARGSN can be placed, capable of a direct hit to destroy hypersonic targets even with the strongest electronic countermeasures from the enemy.
It is not excluded that the further work of Almaz-Antey on the modernization of Tor-M2KM and M-Tor in terms of developing new methods of homing (including active radar) will lead to the emergence of more multi-channel maritime and military variants capable of intercepting 6 and more air targets. And at the moment, it is very early to talk about the complete replacement of the M-Torah combat modules of the universal and combat-unique anti-aircraft guns of the Daggers and optimized for the all-round interception of Daggers, which have proven themselves well over a couple of decades of use.

"SECOND BREATH" FOR ZENIT-ROCKET COMPLEX 9K33M3 "OCA-AKM": REACH TO "STYLE"

With all the intensity of modernization work on projects of promising ship and land versions of the Tor-M2U family, the Kupol plant does not forget about the earlier military short-range anti-aircraft missile complexes of the Osa family. Despite the fact that single-channel Osa-AK / AKM ZRSKs are practically unsuitable for repelling the strikes of modern low-profile means of air attack, their modernization potential still remains at a high enough level, which led to the development of various advanced Osa concepts by Russian, Belarusian and Polish design offices. In a statement to the media, F. Ziyatdinov noted the modernization of the OSA “Osa-AKM” to the level of “Osa-AKM1”, which will extend their operational life for another 15 years.

9K33 Osa 4 October 2016 self-propelled military air defense system 45K9 marks exactly 33 years since the adoption of the USSR Ground Forces, and for this “hot” and complex, from a geostrategic point of view, the complex had to prove a high technical level and prestige more than once Russian defense products in numerous military conflicts in the Middle East, in Africa, and also in Iraq. The baptism of the first Osa complexes took place in the First Lebanese War, where several attack fighters Hel Khaavir (Israeli Air Force) were shot down, and the optical pilotage for the first time used on self-propelled air defense systems caused the incredible fear of Israeli pilots TV-optical sightings, which is why the Phantom radiation warning system was often silent, and it was only possible to prepare for an anti-aircraft maneuver after detecting a smoke strip from a TRD for an XN anti-aircraft missile launching missile. UMXMXNUMX, often at this moment the plane was already doomed.

Later, for the Iraqi air defense system 9K33М2 Osa-AK, during the start of the massive US Navy air and missile attack before the operation Desert Storm, they were able to intercept several Tomahawk strategic cruise missiles. This modification was developed on the basis of the Osa complex as early as 1975, and even it confirmed the ability to cover troops and strategic targets from single strikes of modern high-precision weapons. Now several captured Osa-AK complexes captured during the battles of the Ukrainian military formations formed the basis of the middle line of the air defense of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. In Novorossia, they cover the largest transport interchanges, machine-building and coke-chemical enterprises, as well as military warehouses of the High-Level Military Council in the Donetsk-Makeevka agglomeration from attacks by Su-25 attack aircraft of the Ukrainian Air Force.

The Polish modification of Osa-AK - SA-8 “Sting” is, at first glance, a licensed counterpart of the Russian complex, but apparently has improved display equipment for automated combat work stations based on the LCD MFI, as well as a radio station for exchanging tactical information with other BM 9А33БМ “Osa-AK” at the battery level and obtaining information about the air situation from the radar-DRLO and radar detectors of long-range SAM systems such as C-300PS, “Buk-M1 / 2”. The shape of the radar detection and tracking, as well as the missile part remained the same. On the "stuffing" SA-8 "Sting" is virtually unknown, because the media and fans of this information was not disclosed. It is obvious that the update was carried out in approximately the same way as in the development of the Russian version of Osa-AKM.

Upgrading the Osa-AKM air defense system to the Osa-AKM1 level at the Kupol plant is no longer simply the integration of network-centric data-exchange equipment with other air defense units and the installation of multifunctional liquid-crystal indicators to display data from radar and guidance radars, but also full digitization of the entire element base in the paths of the transmitter and receiver of the radar signal, as well as in the television-optical image converter for passive operation of the anti-aircraft missile system. Fanil Ziyatdinov noted that the immunity of “Wasps-AKM1” will be significantly higher than that of the previous modification. After the upgrade, AKM1 will maintain confident competitiveness in the African and Asian arms markets. In which vector will the improvement of one of the most famous military self-propelled anti-aircraft missile systems move?

As an example of the most advanced versions of the OSA “Osa-AKM”, one can consider projects of the Belarusian research and production enterprise “Tetrahedr”, which is also known for upgrading the air defense system with the Strela-10М2 infrared guidance system, as well as Strela-10T, as well as C 125 Pechora to C-125-2TM Pechora-2TM. These projects include an intermediate modification of "Wasps" - 9K33-1T "Wasp-1T", as well as the most advanced version of the T38 "Stiletto". In terms of hardware, these complexes are almost the same, the main differences are observed in the missile part.
The OSA-1T air defense system, which is a deep modernization of the Osa-AK complex, received a completely new three-axle under-terrain MZKT-69222 chassis with the 420-powerful diesel engine YMZ-7513.10, the Toron anti-aircraft self-propelled complex is based on a similar undercarriage M2E. Due to this, the fuel reserve without refueling (at the two-hour combat duty at the position) at Osa-1T is 500 km, which is 2 times more than in previous Osa complexes based on the BAZ-5937 three-axle chassis with a diesel engine BD20K300 horsepower 300
Even though MZKT-69222 is not a floating platform, its best tensile strength gives additional advantages in the European theater of operations with wet and soft ground. The speed parameters in the traveling position remained at the same level - on the order of 75 km / h on the highway.

As for the air defense potential of the new “Osa-1T”, it is much higher than that of the “Osa-AK / AKM”. So, thanks to the new hardware and software with advanced radio command control algorithms for the standard 9М33М2 / 3 SAMs, the probability of hitting a fighter-type target increased from about 0,7 to 0,85. Increasing the sensitivity of the receiver and converter of the reflected signal made it possible to work on ultra-small targets with an effective 0,02 m2 scattering surface (the complex can intercept F-35A type fighters, as well as AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missiles and other high-precision weapons). Compared to Osa-AKM, the range of aerial targets increased from 10 to 12 km, and the height from 5 to 7 km.

According to the graphs shown on the Tetrahedron product advertising page, Osa-1T is able to intercept targets flying at speeds in 500 m / s at an altitude of 6 km in the range of distances from 3500 to 8000 m (“Osa-AKM” intercepts such targets at an altitude of just 5 km and with a small range of distances from 5 to 6 km). If we talk about the destruction of the AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missile at a speed of 700 m / s (2200 km / h), then Osa-AKM will not be able to perform this task, since HARM speed will exceed the speed limit of the complex. “Osa-1T” will intercept a similar target at an altitude of 5 km and in the range of 4 to 7 km. The updated two-channel counter-resolving device СРП-1 also makes a contribution to the increase of the speed limit and the accuracy of interception, which allows the launch of two SAM at once on one target.



In addition to the standard single-stage 9М33М3 anti-aircraft missiles developing 500 m / s speed, the Osa-1T family of ammunition can also include high-speed bicaliber two-stage 382 SAMs developed by the Kyiv State Committee for Design and Construction of Luch. After equipping such missiles, as well as minor software upgrades and hardware, the complex turns into a radically modernized version of the T-38 Stilet. The ammunition of new missiles is located in the 2-x quad slant launchers with cylindrical transport and launch containers (TLC). The T381 T38 Stilett combat vehicle can also carry mixed ammunition in the form of a standard triple launcher with 9М33М2 (3) missiles on one side of a combat module and a PU with Т382 missiles on the other side.

The combat characteristics of the Stiletto with T382 missiles are approximately 35% higher than with 9M33M2 missiles. Strategic cruise missiles such as Tomahawk or AGM-86C ALCM are intercepted by a new anti-aircraft missile at a distance of 12 km, attack helicopters and tactical aviation enemy - up to 20 km, high-precision means of air attack (PRLR, guided bombs, etc.) can be hit at a distance of 7 km. If you carefully compare the range graphs for the "Stiletto" with 9M33M3 and T382 missiles, you can notice that the range of destruction of cruise missiles in the T382 is much larger, and the range of work on small-sized elements of the WTO is identical for both missiles. Here the whole point is that the weaker 9M33M3 rocket engine does not allow to realize sufficient speed and range to destroy remote low-altitude TFRs at a distance of more than 8 km, and for a two-stage T382 this is achievable. At the same time, the previous parameters of the target tracking and guidance station (SSC) do not allow either 9M33M3 or T382 to capture the inconspicuous WTO at ranges exceeding 7 km. This confirms the difference between the Osa-1T and the Stiletto only on the rocket. We proceed directly to the review of T382 missiles.



The first stage of the ZUR-interceptor has a diameter of 209,6 mm, and is represented by a powerful solid-propellant launch accelerator, which accelerates the rocket to 3100 km / h (for 9М33М3 - 1800 km / h). After acceleration to the required speed and burnout of the accelerator, the latter is separated, and the main engine of the combat stage comes into operation with the 20 running time, retaining a high supersonic flight speed even at the final segment of the interception. The combat stage has a diameter of 108 mm and is equipped with a 61% heavier warhead (23 kg versus 14,27 kg) than the 9М33М3: a reliable target destruction is achieved even with a strong missile guidance error, in the case of active electronic countermeasures. The compact marching stage with large stabilizers and aerodynamic rudders can maneuver with overloads of more than 40 units, due to which aircraft cannot be dodged from it making anti-aircraft maneuvers with overloads up to 15 units.

The speed of the target to be hit when the T38 Stilette complex is equipped with the T382 rocket reaches 900 m / s (3240 km / h), which takes the updated Belarusian Osu to an intermediate level between Tor-M2E and Pantsir-C1; Of course, this applies solely to the speed of intercepted objects, as well as work on targets after, because when reflecting a massive air strike "Stiletto" with 2 target channels has superiority only over ZRSK "Tor-M1" - it is also 2-x-channel. In terms of the height of the destroyed air strikes, component 10000 m, Stilet also does not lag behind Tor-MXNUME: it is the altitude range from 2 to 5 km that most future air battles will take place between multipurpose fighters of the 12 ++ and 4 generation, and here both the new “OsaKM5” and the “Stilettos” are able to support our fighter aircraft well over their own territory, possessing the possibility of covert work using television-optical sights of the type 1Ш9-38 or ОЭС-2Т.


ZRSK T38 "Stilet" with a mixed set of weapons (on the left TPK with ZNR 9М33М3, on the right TPK with high-speed ZUR T382)


If the modernization of the Russian Osa-AKM air defense missile system is aimed at updating the missile part according to the Belarusian methodology, Kupol will need to develop its own high-speed missile defense system, similar in characteristics to the Ukrainian Т382, because cooperation with the LKKKB Luch has now completely stopped. Its development does not require a long period of time, as well as significant and costly research, since our missilemen have long had a project for a two-stage bicalyber high-speed interceptor missile interceptor. This is the 9М335 (57E6) SAM, which is the basis of the Pantsir-С1 anti-aircraft missile systems. The ballistic qualities of the compact marching stage of this rocket considerably exceed those of the Ukrainian Т382: the initial speed 57E6 reaches 1300 m / s (4680 km / h), and the rate of slowdown of the marching stage (40 m / s on the 1 km of trajectory) is much lower than the Ukrainian version . Despite the smaller overall dimensions of the 57E6 (the launch stage diameter is 90 mm and the sustainer stage 76 mm), the missile carries a similar heavy rod warhead weighing 20 kg. The launch time of the 57EX6 is 2,4 with (Т382 - 1,5 with) for which the rocket accelerates to maximum speed, thanks to which it can hit targets at altitudes of 15000. The rocket’s compactness, with unique TTX, was maintained due to the absence of a rocket engine of the sustainer stage with simultaneous giving significant qualities to the starting accelerator.

The 9М335 missiles used by the Pantsir-С1 complex also have radio command guidance based on the fully digital element base of the on-board computers and data exchange equipment, and therefore their integration into the weapons control system of the new Osa-AKM1 is realizable. The details of the modernization so far are not very much known, but its potential for Osa-AKM remains very, very large, which is noticeable in the example of the Belarusian Stiletto. A huge number of armies of the countries-operators of the Osa family of complexes, whose “club” includes the armed forces of Russia, India, Greece and Armenia, continue to harbor high hopes for updating the complexes in service to the indicators that allow them to defend the sky of the 21st century as “Top-М1” and “Armor-С1”, and therefore the financing of the ambitious program will continue for more than one year.

Information sources:
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/stilet/stilet.shtml
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/osa_akm/osa_akm.shtml
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/tor-m2km/tor-m2km.shtml
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/kinzgal/kinzgal.shtml
Author:
46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. sergeyzzz
    sergeyzzz 5 October 2016 07: 20
    +12
    It’s good when projects have opponents - they reveal the flaws that the developer hides. But it is not practical to use the developments of Belarus, because with them everything is not clear: are they friends or enemies? In my opinion, it is better to use ship's antennas, and even better to modernize and integrate them into one, so that there is no division into radar for air defense and anti-ship, let the computer deal with this, select in automatic mode what should be used for detection, illumination and how to shoot.
    1. Yarik
      Yarik 5 October 2016 10: 39
      +11
      About Belarus, he even realized that he said ???
      1. seos
        seos 5 October 2016 13: 04
        +13
        He understood perfectly well that in Bellarussia, the Nazis and Russophobes were fucked. We must develop import substitution at home, and not at our neighbors. The same Stylet is no better than Thor, only Thor is made with us. We must work for our defense industry and reduce the cost of defense products, and with this we have huge, if even fatal problems.
      2. KaPToC
        KaPToC 9 December 2016 10: 19
        0
        All rightly said, Belarus is a foreign country, who wants tasty orders from the Russian Ministry of Defense, welcome to the Russian Federation.
        1. Brs2
          Brs2 6 March 2018 08: 59
          0
          In principle, the existence of separate Ukraine and Belarus is a big mistake for us all. And it was criminally implemented. It still comes back.
    2. just exp
      just exp 5 October 2016 12: 51
      +8
      only I am not completely sure of the competence of the aftir, the fact is that the Dagger is the sea Thor.
      only M1. the new M2 will be better and its missiles more perfect.
      therefore, in my article, truth and fiction are mixed.
      1. Inok10
        Inok10 5 October 2016 16: 23
        +24
        Quote: just explo
        therefore, in my article, truth and fiction are mixed.

        ... everything is much worse ... illiteracy and ambitions of an "ekshpert" are mixed to attract by the ears the conclusion "the mustache disappeared, the station departed, the plaster was removed for the client" ... the author has long been fond of such "statements on a free theme" ... enough to make out competently the first paragraph:
        Quote: "article" Damantsev
        So, for example, the S-300F Fort long-range naval anti-aircraft missile system differs from the S-300PS ground-based anti-aircraft missile system in the round design of PFAR and the reduced throughput of the 3R41 Volna marine radar systems (3 simultaneously “captured” targets versus 6 targets for land RPN 30N6E), as well as the upgraded 5V55RM missile system, which, unlike the 5V55R version, has on board specialized radio communication modules with transport and launch containers VPU B-204A.
        ... then you can not read ...
        - Firstly: ... Damantsev compares the S-300PS SAM, i.e. anti-aircraft missile division with radar 3P41 "Wave", with multifunctional radar ... that is, RPN30N6 + radar76N6 and / or radar 36D6 is equal to 3R41 “Wave” radar ... neighing for the first time ...
        - Secondly: ... Damantsev claims that the difference is in the form of PFAR ... they say it is round on the sea, and on the land it is rectangular ... the difference here is not in shape, but in a completely different one, but about this it will be lower ... neighing second time ...
        - third: ... MRLS 3R41 "Volna" is Damantsev's fantasy, there is not any "Volna" ... and the 3R41 index is something else, but more about that will be lower ... but what he called MRLS is AP F1M (in common people "boob" weighing 27 tons) ... its task is missile guidance and target illumination ... detecting the case of the Flag radar or the Forum radar ...
        - fourthly: ... 3P41 is the entire electronic component of the S-300F, including 3Ts41 which is the actual MSA, APA KA, VVI, PMO equipment and a bunch of different creatures in pairs ...
        - in the fifth: ... there is no "reduced bandwidth" ... there are different conditions of use ... land and sea ... on land except the azimuth of other body movements ... eh, at sea? ... as much as you like in all planes ... longitudinal, transverse and vertical displacements, side roll and pitching, all this with different speeds and accelerations and on irregular waves, the movement of the ship - speed, course changes - maneuvering of the ship since it came to the use of air defense systems ... andestend Damantsev? ... according to this, the 27-ton "boob" (AP F1M) was stabilized, two-plane mechanical stabilization was applied both in the heading angle +/- 170 degrees, and at the pitching angles +/- 15 degrees, for this purpose, electric power are built into the AP F1M actuators that continuously rotate 27 tons, keeping the averaged line of sight, and then keep the beam on the target and on the rocket in the "solid angle" - this is the business of electronics and PMO in 3Ts41 ... from this, the S-300F has 3 target channels, three targets / six missiles ... physically then they could no longer provide in the above-mentioned conditions of use at sea ... but, not because "the sturgeon was cut down" ... then they could, but more on that below ...
        - At sixth: ... neither does the VPU B-204A have any relation to the S-300F from the next S-300FM series and there are other missiles and everything else, albeit terribly similar in appearance ...
        - in the seventh: ... back to the AP F1M form ... and look at the Peter the Great TARK and see two different APs ... the F1M AP at the stern and the F1MA AP in the bow with a flat antenna (like in the landings) ... what's the difference? ... in beam stabilization, about what I have expanded ... for AP F1MA - stabilization electronic ... and, accordingly, a different number of targets and guided missiles, as well as the weight of the APs, no longer 27 tons ... it’s not about the author’s babin ... wink
        1. just exp
          just exp 5 October 2016 18: 44
          +1
          here is the post of a knowledgeable person.
        2. Fulcrumxnumx
          5 October 2016 22: 03
          +2
          Firstly, any knowledgeable person, unlike you "Inok10", understands that in operation the S-300PS and S-300F "Fort" complexes are compared exclusively in terms of the capabilities of multifunctional radars, and you dragged the 76Н6 low-altitude detector out of some fright. , you would still have 64N6 with the possibility of detecting the BC here !!! laughing .

          At the same time, it is the 30N6E MRLS of the ground-based air defense system that is more productive and multi-channel than the 3R41. The latter in all specialized literature has the name "Wave" (or "Boob"). Naturally, the F1MA (with electronic stabilization) has much better energy qualities and electronic stabilization, because it controls the modernized "Fort-M" with the new 48N6E missiles. F1MA - and there is the only frozen 30N6E with characteristics equivalent to the land version.

          You just specified some parameters and compared the surveillance radars and NVOs from the terrestrial versions of the "Three Hundred" .. wink
          1. Inok10
            Inok10 6 October 2016 03: 10
            +8
            Quote: Fulcrum29
            First, any knowledgeable person, unlike you "Inok10"

            ... and, here, Evgeny Batkovich Damantsev granted .... anyone at least interested in the materiel ... knows that the S-300PS air defense missile systems / ZRDN does not control 30N6 radar systems, as you say, but KP 5N63S consisting of two F1S cabs (the same 30N6 receiving and transmitting cabin with an interrogator) and a KBU cabin (combat control cabin) F2K mounted on one MAZ -543M chassis ... this is for starters ... wink
            Quote: Fulcrum29
            understands that in operation the S-300PS and S-300F "Fort" complexes are compared exclusively in terms of the capabilities of multifunctional radars

            ... there’s no multifunctional radar multi-functional radar for target illumination and missile guidance (RPN) 30N6 ... there is a difference, isn't it? ... the CP 5N63S receives target designation from the 83M6E controls, the RTV detection means assigned to it, the RTR / RER means, and if the 5N63S CP has moved more than 83 km from the 6M20E. there is such a thing as AMU FL-95 "Sosna" for the implementation of a stable exchange of information about the air situation and the conduct of hostilities ... and, even higher is the ACS "Baikal" ... in exceptional cases, 30N6 can perform the function of SOC (detection station goals), but this is the same as hammering nails with a microscope, that is, an exception to the rule, which only confirms the rule ... that is, the F1S (S-300PS) cabin, like the F1M (S-300F), is just an RPN antenna post, and not SOC or LMS ... in general, when you roam in three pines on land, there is nothing to do at sea ... wink
            1. Fulcrumxnumx
              7 October 2016 00: 06
              +1
              Well, in addition to "Baikal", there is also a more advanced "Polyana-D4M1", which can provide target designation of both the S-300 family air defense systems and the self-defense air defense systems ("blind zone" barrier) of the "Tor", "Tungusska-M1" and etc. It is she who provides the most optimal echeloned aerospace defense of a mixed air defense brigade in comparison with "Baikal", but with regard to the multifunctional radar (MRS), this is often called the RPN and RPC of the 30N6E, 92N6 or AN / MPQ-53 type, you just jest to abbreviations and abbreviations)
        3. asr55
          asr55 21 May 2020 18: 22
          0
          Collective and collective work in the image of one pseudo-expert of Damantsev always sins not only with a terrible syllable, but also with many not technical connections. This suggests that information is simply collected from various obscure sources, without preliminary analysis, it is edited in haste and the opus is ready. And if you subtract from it an abbreviated abbreviation of abbreviated names, nothing remains of the article.
      2. asr55
        asr55 21 May 2020 18: 29
        0
        Damantsev and Andrey from Chelyabinsk are two haters of Russian weapons.
    3. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 23 October 2016 00: 01
      0
      "England has no permanent friends or enemies, but there are permanent interests!"
      If Belarusians do better and are ready to transfer technologies to us, as well as organize our full production cycle, THEN THE FLAG IS HAND!
  2. Alex_59
    Alex_59 5 October 2016 07: 40
    +14
    In general, when I first saw the news about the "new" sea air defense missile system "Thor" to replace the "Dagger" I was very surprised, because the Dagger is originally the chilled Thor. What is the actual innovation? Has the range increased significantly? Channeling on target? Has the mass of the complex decreased? It turns out that the key change was the replacement of the antenna post and launcher with terribly unified with the land version. Fuck, a breakthrough into the 21st century !!! I understand that the Kupol plant is a hostage of the Soviet legacy, it does nothing except Thor and somehow it is necessary to survive. But sucking out absolutely unnecessary "modifications" for the sake of getting a share of the GOZ is too much. No "supposedly new" Thor in the navy is needed in this form, the existing Daggers are enough, and new ships need the Shell, or, speaking of the long term, an absolutely new air defense system based on the 9M100.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 5 October 2016 08: 37
      +10
      In my opinion, the article is not about anything! A bunch of buzzwords, gorgeous graphics, the abbreviation given to anyone in a stupor can also introduce fashionable expressions now ... probably, perhaps we think so! So what's the point of the article?
      Quote: Alex_59
      The Kupol plant is a hostage of the Soviet legacy, it does nothing except Thor and somehow it is necessary to survive. But to suck completely unnecessary "modifications" from a finger in order to get a share of the GOZ is too much

      No Alexei - this is not busting, this is the desire for a feeding trough.
      1. 2 0
        2 0 5 October 2016 09: 38
        +4
        Serg65! I absolutely agree with you. Given the illogical jumps from complex to complex - in general it is not clear ...
        The main message comes either from the layout, or from the drawing - no one really knows how it will be there.
    2. venik
      venik 5 October 2016 09: 46
      +4
      Quote: Alex_59
      after all, the Dagger is originally a tormented Thor.

      ====
      But this is just DEEP MISLEADING !!!
      "Dagger" is not a "chilled" "Thor" - it is a completely DIFFERENT design! Only the missiles are ALMOST the same.
      Actually, the Navy initially offered a modified version of the land-based air defense system for naval requirements. But the naval ones resisted: "We want exactly the same one but without wings and with mother-of-pearl buttons !!!" "Dome" made "Dagger". And then 7 years it had to be brought to mind! So was it worth it ?? It was during the Soviet era that one could afford "variety and herbs" (from which, by the way, the naval logistics suffered greatly). And now the times are not the same ...
      By the way, "Tor-M2", a deep modernization of "Tor" and with brilliant x-kami and new missiles! So is it worth the "fence" or money in the country too much divorced ???
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 5 October 2016 10: 30
        +4
        Quote: venik
        And then 7 years it had to be brought to mind! So was it worth it ??

        Worth it or not is a matter of history. And we, as a given initial condition, have a ready-made and already perfected Dagger on ships built in the 80-90s. And what is the point of picking it out from these ships by changing it to an almost identical in performance characteristics, but completely different in architecture, the sea "TOP"? What, money has nowhere to go? Give it to me, I will build kindergartens, or invest them in bringing Redoubt-Polyment to mind.
        Quote: venik
        By the way, "Tor-M2", a deep modernization of the "Tor" and with shiny x-kami and new missiles!

        Maybe I don’t know something. If you know tell, then we'll see. If there is channel, range, etc., is not increased at least 2 times - the game is not worth the candle.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 5 October 2016 12: 02
          +4
          Quote: Alex_59
          And we, as a given initial condition, have a ready-made and already finished Dagger on ships built in the 80-90s. And what is the point of picking it out from these ships by changing it to an almost identical in performance characteristics, but completely different in architecture, the sea "TOP"?

          And the production of "daggers" remains? Precisely "daggers", not "Thors"?

          Why am I asking the question: it is known that the Soviet military-industrial complex failed to produce "daggers" - and therefore part of 1155 was accepted by the fleet with only one air defense system instead of two. So, when the VPK "Vice-Admiral Kulakov" was already being modernized in the Russian Federation, then instead of the regular second "Dagger" (the place for which was reserved), a non-standard "Gibka" was stuck on it. This is roughly how to arm an air defense missile system instead of a "torus" with conventional MANPADS. smile

          A similar situation was with the "broadsword": why, they say, do we need a new buggy ZRAK with its problems with missiles, when there are old proven "daggers"? And then it turned out that the new "daggers" are actually being completed from the reserve - and when it ends, the "daggers" will also run out.

          And second: how much will it cost the Navy to release a small batch of "daggers", which are not unified as much as possible with the serially produced "tori"? Will it not turn out that the Navy simply will not pull these "gold" complexes? As a result, the ships will remain without air defense systems at all - with only parodies of them (I'm talking about "bending").
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 5 October 2016 14: 08
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And the production of "daggers" remains? Precisely "daggers", not "Thors"?

            Those. You want to say that the previously installed Daggers have exhausted the resource so much that they are not subject to current repair, but they certainly require replacement with newly released ones? Well, maybe. Although this is strange - did the C-300 on the 1164 not wear out to zero, but on the 1155 do they wear out right? Well, let's say that the dagger’s resource is such that it’s already a mustache, the khan to them. In this situation, overhaul with modernization breaks down. Is it not better then to cram the same Armor instead of Daggers, in which there is more range and altitude and trunks? And it’s even better to stick the Calm there with such a major overhaul - it somehow more closely corresponds to the status of the BOD. There, of course, something will have to be cut under Calm, but still 90% of the cost of such work is the filling. So I point blank do not see the need for such a sea Torah. Cut in pure form ...
            1. venik
              venik 5 October 2016 18: 07
              +3
              Quote: Alex_59
              Well, let's say that the dagger’s resource is such that it’s already a mustache, the khan to them. In this situation, overhaul with modernization breaks down.

              =====
              And where do you get the accessories? I warn you - there is an elemental base - a sample of the 70s of the last century! Many of this is no longer being produced! Re-design all electronic stuffing? This is for physically worn out complexes ??? Will it be a little expensive?
              ====
              Quote: Alex_59
              Is it not better then to cram the same Armor instead of Daggers, in which there is more range and altitude and trunks?

              ====
              Oh, and you love "Armor". But many who know both complexes just think that "Thor" is much more successful development, at least, devoid of some of the shortcomings of "Shell" ...
        2. spravochnik
          spravochnik 5 October 2016 14: 46
          +2
          Namely, the channel of the new "Thor" is 2 times more.
        3. venik
          venik 5 October 2016 16: 56
          +3
          Quote: Alex_59
          And what is the point of picking it out from these ships by changing it to an almost identical in performance characteristics, but completely different in architecture, the sea "TOP"?

          ====
          Yes, where did you get the idea that someone is going to pick up the "Dagger" from somewhere and replace it with something ???? These are generally the author's "fabrications" (absolutely not supported by anything except his own imagination!), Which for some reason raised a commotion and "pulling hair out of a bald head" among some forum participants ...
          And in general, the way I understood "sea Thor" should change (note "change", not "replace") "Daggers". Those. the complex is designed for ADVANCED ships of small and medium displacement. Or do you propose to put the development complex of the 70s on new ships ??? Yes, there is an element base that is no longer produced! Means what? Change the entire filling. And what is easier and cheaper - to completely rework the "Dagger" or "adapt" an already finished design (to the question of "where to put the money?"
    3. venik
      venik 5 October 2016 17: 18
      +2
      Quote: Alex_59
      and new ships need Shell, or if we talk about the distant future, then a completely new air defense system based on 9M100.

      ====
      First of all! "Shell" has its drawbacks compared to "Thor". Here is one of them - the 2nd stage has no engine, i.e. rapidly loses its kinetic energy during sharp maneuvering. So - for highly maneuverable targets - not "oh"! "Thor works great for them!
      Secondly! Who actually told you that Thor basically cannot use 9M100 ?? In terms of dimensions, it quite "fits" (even a little more compact than the 9M338 (R3V-MD)). The starting principle is the same: a vertical start with a turn on the target and keeping on the course by radio commands until the target is captured by the IR seeker. And she will capture her quickly! At such distances, 15-20 km - almost instantly (I know what I'm talking about). Of course, either the complex or the rocket will have to be finalized, but "titanic efforts" will hardly be required.
      By the way, I am sure, and on "Armor" it can also be imbedded without any problems, there would be a desire ...
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 6 October 2016 00: 26
        +2
        Quote: venik
        First of all! "Shell" has its drawbacks compared to "Thor". Here is one of them - the 2nd stage has no engine, i.e. rapidly loses its kinetic energy during sharp maneuvering. So - for highly maneuverable targets - not "oh"! "Thor works great for them!

        I do not pretend to be true, but debatable. At a distance of 10 km from the start point in the SAM, the Torah no longer has a marching engine (approximately the 15 second of flight) and has V = 550m / s. At the same distance, the Shell armor also does not have a marching engine, but its speed is approximately 980m / s. At ranges less than 8 km Torr in this parameter has an advantage due to the marching mode of the engine. And then 8 km without question - Shell.
        Quote: venik
        And in general, the way I understood "sea Thor" should change (note "change", not "replace") "Daggers". Those. The complex is designed for ADVANCED ships of small and medium displacement.

        Well, if so. Then still wherever it went. Although there are doubts too. In Soviet years, the Dagger was barely shoved into the IPC 1124 and then not fully equipped. And this is 900 tons of displacement! If it is better with Thor in this sense, then it’s wonderful.
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 7 October 2016 16: 39
          0
          Regarding the shortcomings of the Shell:
          - the guidance algorithms of the new versions of Thor were "spied" from the Shell with the help of the MO.
          - in the Shell-SM, which is 40 km long and 35 km high, there is an engine in the second stage.
          - the speed of the Shell-SM rocket is hypersonic.
          Yes, the Shell is not all-aspect, but as it develops, it is no longer a self-defense complex. So instead of competition, they may well complement each other. It is necessary to shoot down anti-ship missiles based on SM-6. Thor is unlikely to be able to, but the Shell is yes IMHO. hi
    4. alexmach
      alexmach 9 October 2016 16: 38
      +1
      Well, actually, it's not a fact that these "funny pictures" are actually a proposed project and not a figment of someone's imagination
  3. Engineer
    Engineer 5 October 2016 08: 24
    0
    Not convinced ...
  4. venik
    venik 5 October 2016 09: 01
    +2
    Eugene! I always read your articles with pleasure (although I do not always agree with everything). But this time you just hit me, and UNFASTLY hit me !!!
    ===
    Quote:
    "Let's start with the question of the irrational location of the 9A331MK-1 autonomous combat module (ABM), and, accordingly, the M-Tor complex control radar."
    ====
    From what "hangover" did you decide that the location of the complex will be EXACTLY as shown in the picture ??? Yes, there is just a picture of a certain ABSTACT boat with the ABSTRACT location of the new complex! Just to demonstrate HOW it will look roughly. AND NOT MORE THAN !!!
    But you built a whole theory of criticism and on what? Yes, nothing! On the empty place!!! With the same success, an autonomous combat module can be placed on the roof of the cabin, hangar, and even on the mast, finally !! And VPU blocks can be not 2, but 4, 6 or 8! Sorry, I did not expect from you !!!
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 5 October 2016 14: 33
      +1
      Absolutely agree. While reading the article, the same thoughts arose. At 1155, they will most likely simply dismantle the Kinzhalov antenna posts and install the M-Tora antenna posts on the same foundations (namely, the antenna posts, the rocket modules are absent in them), and the rocket modules will be installed instead of the cut out Dagger rocket modules. The amount of work is minimal. And the hysteria of many commentators about this is completely incomprehensible. Most likely they misunderstood the picture. On it, if you look closely, you can see two rocket modules installed behind the antenna. In the naval version of the "Torah", they are separated and can be installed in accordance with the ship's layout.
  5. venik
    venik 5 October 2016 09: 13
    +2
    Quote:
    "The Polish modification of" Osa-AK "- SA-8" Sting ", at first glance, is a licensed analogue of the Russian complex, but apparently has improved display equipment for automated workstations of a combat crew based on LCD MFI, as well as a radio station for exchanging tactical information with other BM 9A33BM "Osa-AK" at the battery level and receiving information about the air situation from the radar-AWACS and radar detectors of long-range air defense systems of the S-300PS, "Buk-M1 / 2" type. "
    =====
    And what about Poland's S-300PS and Buk M1 / ​​2? That's really news, so NEW !!!!
    1. Monarchist
      Monarchist 5 October 2016 10: 00
      +1
      Eugene provided them so that they could wander more
    2. Fulcrumxnumx
      5 October 2016 13: 03
      0
      Regarding the SA-8 "Sting": Poland does not have "Three hundredths" for system coordination at the brigade level, but Slovakia, a NATO member, does, remember that! Regarding the difficult-to-implement rational arrangement of combat modules on ships of the corvette-frigate class, the opinion is also absolutely correct: on all surface ships, including small displacement NK, almost all the space on the deck and superstructures is occupied by an artillery installation, target designation radars for AU, RER and communications antennas a helicopter hangar, etc., and therefore there is nowhere to place large M-Torah combat modules here, and compact antenna posts (fixed or rotary) on the upper corners of the superstructure are more logical. Regarding the replacement of "Dirks" with "M-Tori", this is generally a dangerous action.
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 5 October 2016 14: 41
        +2
        Do not write nonsense, I repeat, in the naval "Thor" antenna and rocket modules are separated (carefully look at the figure, rocket modules are two bollards behind the antenna module) and can be installed as you like. Antenna module "Torah" is not at all larger and not heavier than the antenna post "Dagger". And "Dirks", at least for 1155, will be replaced with "Pantsiri-M".
        1. Fulcrumxnumx
          5 October 2016 22: 18
          0
          Firstly, no one claimed that the M-Tora VPU was made in a single module with the MRLS, as in the land version! Even the article describes it! And secondly, can you just estimate how many M-Tor antenna modules are needed for one frigate to outperform the Dagger in the target channel? That's right - more than 2 smile Here are just more than two units on ships of small displacement and will not be placed, and from this the question is, is there a rizon in the replacement of "Daggers"? hi
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 6 October 2016 11: 53
            0
            Where did you get it from. At "Tor-m2", like at "Dagger" four target channel, and "M-Tor" is created on its basis.
  6. Old26
    Old26 5 October 2016 09: 40
    0
    I read the article fluently, so I didn’t really understand what the danger was (I’ll read it more thoughtfully in the evening, after work), but the article is good. A definite plus
  7. Phosgene
    Phosgene 5 October 2016 09: 40
    +2
    Reading these lines, I come to the conclusion that the FSB and the GRU of the Russian Federation are working worse than ever. Enemy spies and saboteurs are in the Russian government. SAM "Redoubt" useless junk, which cannot be called a workable system and this junk, are going to equip warships, practically depriving them of workable air defense systems. Frigate 22350 built under the SAM "Redoubt" is useless, ineffective junk, with which the fleet does not know what to do. Now many large ships of the Russian Federation want to turn into the same trash. This is lawlessness and sabotage. In addition, the rejection of the main caliber guns, in favor of the installation of an inoperative Redut air defense system, finally puts an end to these combat units, depriving them of the opportunity to support the landing of the Marines with artillery fire.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 5 October 2016 14: 24
      0
      Come on you joke - still taken seriously
  8. gallville
    gallville 5 October 2016 14: 37
    +1
    In fact, the idea of ​​a stained torus is the most reasonable.
    1. Price due to unification with CB.
    2. Dimensions radar and missiles.
    3. The price of this particular complex.
    Its most rational use on ships of the corvette and MRK class (wasps used to be there).
    Since the installation of a polymer-redoubt (lower on the furc) on this type of ship is not rational because of:
    1. Prices of the complex itself, even under the condition of a huge series.
    2. The very need for such a complex on the corvette.
    Well, a separate factor is the state of this complex. Ships needed yesterday, and the complex will be the day after tomorrow.
    The decision on 20380 in terms of installing a furcock (it is also a radar from the shell) does not lend itself at all to any criticism.

    Regarding the author’s fears about the refusal of daggers, they are quite justified. On the other hand, they are not logical. The Navy has traditionally ordered short-range defense equipment such as the AK-630m. I would like a broadsword, I would like a dirk. But fishlessness, as they say, is also a cancer. Although replacing furcé / polymer, the redoubt on the torus will be denier and on the broadsword / shell / dagger. Not so much they take up a lot of space, but the thing is necessary and reliable, and even the torus will significantly free up finances.

    In general, if you look at it all from the side. There is a feeling of a silent hint at the failure of the idea of ​​a polymer redoubt.
    And a return to the classical air defense scheme where each complex occupies its own echelon, rather than plugging each hole with one complex. As a result, the return looks rational:
    1. Corvette, MrK - torus (nee wasp and dagger);
    2. Frigate (bpk) - calm (here we see obvious progress) or the polymer is stuffed;
    3. Destroyers, but will they? But most likely, again, calm / polymer and s-X00f something like that.
    Separately on each ship there will be shells (similar to them) most likely guided by financial considerations. At 11356 ak-630m, and the Indians put broadswords (palm trees) on the Talvar, so the question of these complexes is purely financial.
    In such reasoning, the polymer redoubt in its current state and the price looks like a suitcase without a handle. And throw out a pity and bear hard.

    We need a strong-willed decision as it happened with diesel-electric submarines. Abandoned lad made a bet on 636.3
    Abandon the polymer redoubt and furque redoubt in favor of calm and torus. Or not worth it? The difficult decision.
    1. venik
      venik 5 October 2016 18: 32
      +1
      Quote: gallville
      Abandon the polymer redoubt and furque redoubt in favor of calm and torus. Or not worth it? The difficult decision.

      ====
      Generally, I heard "out of the corner of my eye" that one of the main problems of Polyment-Reduta is the coordination of the operation of the antenna arrays in the "extreme" side zones (when the target and the missile are "seen" by 2 different arrays, or both at the same time). Then it "fails". If this is true, then the problem is more of a software problem than a hardware problem (although both are possible at once), but it will have to be solved in any way. The time for rotating gratings is passing. Everyone is gradually moving to fixed plates. To lag behind is not a trace!
      1. gallville
        gallville 5 October 2016 20: 28
        0
        "So far, the Poliment-Redoubt topic has not received a positive result from the use of anti-aircraft guided missiles, the development of the Fakel enterprise, designed to equip project 20380 corvettes and 22350 frigates," Gulyaev said.

        http://vpk.name/news/159645_u_almazanteya_valyats
        ya_raketyi.html
        We are talking about long-range missiles.
        1. venik
          venik 6 October 2016 14: 39
          0
          I honestly don’t know which of the problems is more critical? Not enough information! Probably, it should be so ....
          There are also problems with missiles. But I am ABSOLUTELY convinced (call at least "hurray-patriot"!) That ALL of them are SOLVABLE! There is the problem of "time", "import substitution" (somewhat more acute), and "financing" (the same is not simple). I think all this will be resolved.

          To do this, you need to stock up on a good-quality officer's belt (preferably with a buckle) - to educate "effective managers" (through an EFFECTIVE "mechanical" effect on a certain part of the body (I forgot what it is called in Latin))
  9. Zomanus
    Zomanus 9 October 2016 13: 51
    0
    As for me, so the author has let in too much horror.
    There are a number of means of ship air defense / missile defense.
    And this series is very wide. And already from this series will be recruited
    air defense / missile defense for each individual project,
    and perhaps each task.
  10. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 21 December 2016 08: 31
    0
    without us they won’t choose, of course ....