Military Review

The National Interest: Russia may have the perfect weapon to destroy the attacking “packs”

46
In early January, Russian troops prevented a terrorist attack on Hmeymim airbase. These events clearly showed the potential of the Russian air defense - both its individual components and the system as a whole. As was to be expected, the incident in Syria attracted the attention of domestic and foreign experts who tried to draw conclusions about the current state of affairs and the future of Russian air defense systems.


20 in January, the American edition of The National Interest published in the The Buzz column an ​​article “Russia Just Might Have the Perfect Weapon to Crush 'Swarm' Attacks” (“Russia can have the perfect weapon to destroy the attacking "packs"). Publication by Sebastian Robblin was attributed to the topics “Security” and “Middle East”. As follows from the title, the subject of the article was modern anti-aircraft complexes, which were proposed to be considered in the light of the events of early January in the area of ​​Hamim base.



The author begins his article with a reminder of the events of the recent past. So, on January 6, Russian radar stations in Syrian Latakia discovered at least 13 unmanned aerial vehicles in the air. 10 such drones equipped with a combat load in the form of explosives were sent to aviation base Hmeimim. Three more vehicles were supposed to attack Russian targets in the port of Tartus. Just a week before this, Khmeimim airbase was subjected to mortar fire, which killed two people and possibly damaged planes.

As reported by Moscow, the available means of electronic reconnaissance and electronic warfare took control of six detected drones. The remaining seven vehicles were shot down by the Pantsir-C1 anti-aircraft systems carrying guided missiles and automatic cannons.

S. Robin recalls a poster shown by Russian armed forces during one of last year’s events. It showed the results of Russian air defense operations in Syria from March to July 2017. Among other things, during this period, the Russian Pantsir anti-aircraft missile gun systems were able to shoot down Turkish Bayraktar-type UAVs, one Israeli model Heron and three American-made RQ-21A Integrator. Three cases of missile interception were also indicated. For obvious reasons, the “summer” poster did not include data on the latest shelling of Russian bases.

The author of The National Interest reminds that, according to the popular version, it was the Pantsir-С1 ZRPK in 2012 that the Turkish reconnaissance aircraft RF-4 Phantom shot down in 2015. At the same time, however, a successful attack of the aircraft could be performed by another system, which is distinguished by a large radius of action. According to some sources, the Pantsiri were also seen in the spring of XNUMX of the year in the territories of Donbass controlled by the “pro-Russian separatists”.

Complex "Pantsir" (the author offers versions of translation into English "Armor" and "Carapace") in NATO received the code designation SA-22 Greyhound. This system is a continuation of the line of air defense systems created during the Soviet era. A similar technique was intended to protect tank battalions on the march and on the offensive from air attacks. The first example of this line was the ZSU-23-4 "Shilka" anti-aircraft self-propelled gun, built on the chassis of the PT-76 amphibious tank.

Unlike the previous self-propelled anti-aircraft systems of the Soviet army, the Shilka had an airborne radar for searching for targets and targeting weapons. The armament consisted of four 23 mm automatic cannons capable of attacking low-flying aircraft and helicopters. As an example of the high efficiency of “Shilka”, S. Robin cites one of the episodes of the Arab-Israeli Doomsday War. During one of the battles, the Israeli Phantom aircraft were supposed to suppress Egyptian air defense. She met the enemy with dense fire from the ZSU-23-4 guns. Three low-flying aircraft were shot down, two more were seriously damaged.

The author recalls that the Shilki are still in service with many countries, but the Soviet army began to replace them in the eighties. To replace the existing machines were built more advanced self-propelled 2K11 "Tunguska" (NATO designation - SA-19 Grison). To increase firepower and combat effectiveness, four 23-mm guns were replaced with a pair of 30-mm guns. The combat radius of the machine was increased by the use of ground-to-air guided missiles. During the creation of the Tunguska system, it was believed that such weapons would protect the troops from the attack of American attack aircraft A-10 or attack helicopters AH-64 Apache.

In the nineties, Russian industry began work on a successor for the existing Tunguska. First of all, it was decided to abandon the tracked armored chassis in favor of the wheeled vehicle of high maneuverability. The combat module now had to carry 12 guided missiles. S. Roblin notes the difference in the approaches used in the two projects. Thus, the anti-aircraft self-propelled gun 2K11 "Tunguska" was intended to accompany tanks on rough terrain, including at the front edge. The main idea of ​​the new project was to create a relatively cheap combat vehicle, characterized by greater mobility on the road network. This would allow quick and easy deployment of “point protection” of objects in the rear.

The first prototype ZRPK "Pantsir" was created in the 1995 year, and since then the machine has undergone major changes. Different chassis were used, radio-electronic systems were being developed, etc. The most common at the moment serial version of the complex is built on a four-wheel wheeled chassis "KAMAZ-6560" and is operated by a crew of three people. "Pantsir-С1" is able to work both independently and as part of the battery. Perhaps the centralized management of multiple complexes from a single command post. Also, interacting with more powerful radar, mobile anti-aircraft systems can work with external targeting.

The Pantsir complex is capable of detecting air targets at distances of about 22 miles (35 km), for which search radar with passive phased antenna array is used. Next comes the second locator, designed to accompany the targets. Automatic target tracking starts at distances around 15 miles (24 km). The complex also has a set of optical-electronic equipment, which includes thermal imaging equipment. Optics allows you to find and accompany targets in a difficult jamming environment.

After generating the data for firing, the ZRPK Pantsir-С1 can launch up to four missiles at intervals of 1,5 with. These missiles can be aimed at one, two or three targets. The ammunition complex consists of a dozen missiles with a range of up to 12 miles (19 km). The height of the attacked target is from zero to 50 thousand feet (more than 15 km). The 57EX6 missiles do not have their own means of guidance, but they constantly receive commands from the side of the combat vehicle. The rocket reaches a speed of about M = 3. The probability of hitting a target with one rocket is about 70%.



If the missiles fail to hit the target, a complex with a combined weapon can use automatic cannons. Two 30-mm automatic guns of type 2А38М are mounted on the “Pantsir” pivoting tower. Each of them is able to do up to 40 shots per second - many times more than a number of similar systems. With the help of artillery, an anti-aircraft complex can shoot down planes and helicopters at distances up to 2 miles (more than 3 km).

S. Roblin points out that the Pantsir PIRM in Syria attracted less attention than long-range systems such as the C-400. The reasons for this are simple: it is difficult to get into the zone of responsibility of a short-range complex covered by a system with higher characteristics. However, the Pantsiri are the “lowest level” in the integrated air defense system, which also includes long-range and high-altitude complexes. In such a system, the Pantsir is the last line of defense, and is also a defense against low-flying aircraft, missiles, drones, or even missiles.

Such opportunities in the light of the characteristics of modern conflicts are crucial. It was reported that during the tests of the 2012, the Pantsir-C1 complex was able to shoot down a conventional enemy cruise missile. In later tests, the target developed speed at the level of M = 3, but this did not save it from defeat.

The author of The National Interest recalls that integrated air defense systems are not fundamentally invincible; they can be disabled by ensuring the free operation of strike aviation in a given area. For this, in the first place, the coordinated use of high-precision missiles and bombs is necessary. However, to solve this problem requires special planning, a fairly long time and very expensive weapons with its carriers. During a high intensity conflict, the attacking side may not be able to “pierce” the enemy’s air defenses. Cruise missiles can also not give the desired result, since they will become targets for small and near radius complexes.

To date, Pantsir ZRPK has managed to show not the most outstanding export success. According to S. Roblin, the reason for this can be the very high price of combat vehicles - 13-15 million US dollars. Total exported went to fifty complexes. They traveled to Algeria, Iraq, Syria, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. About hundreds of cars received the Russian armed forces. In the future, the naval version of the missile-gun complex will be installed on the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov.

In 2015, a new anti-aircraft complex called “Pantsir-С2” appeared. It differs from the predecessors of a more powerful radar capable of detecting targets at distances up to 25 miles (40 km), and also carries 57-6-E missiles with a range of 18 miles (29 km). The Pantsir-SA complex, adapted to the harsh conditions of the Arctic, was also developed. It is built on the basis of an articulated tracked carrier and is devoid of cannons, instead of which it carries six additional missiles. Such a combat vehicle is capable of operating at temperatures as low as -50 ° C. The development of a promising complex "Pantsir-SM." It is argued that he will be able to intercept even ballistic missiles - outstanding opportunities for a short-range anti-aircraft system.

The author of the American edition is compelled to note that the armed forces of the United States do not have a small radius air defense system, similar to the Russian "Armor". This is due to the fact that the army relies on the actions of the air force. Combat aircraft must gain air superiority and protect ground units from enemy strikes. The Russian command, in turn, believes that its troops will be constantly subjected to air strikes. It is for this reason that the army needs a large number of various air defense systems.

S. Roblin points out that air superiority may not be obtained at the crucial early stage of a full-scale conflict. In addition, the importance of near-air defense is vividly illustrated by recent events in Syria. During the current conflict, American fighters had to shoot down enemy's UAVs several times, but their fuel and missiles were likely to be much more expensive than the targets destroyed. To counter the massive attack of the “flock” of drones, you will need several aircraft, which will lead to a clear increase in fuel and ammunition consumption.

The recent mass attack of unmanned aerial vehicles on the Russian bases in Syria is currently the largest event of this kind. In addition, as the American author believes, it can be a harbinger of new massive strikes using remotely controlled or autonomous equipment.


The article "Russia Just Might Have The Perfect Weapon To Crush 'Swarm' Attacks":
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-just-might-have-the-perfect-weapon-crush-swarm-24144
Author:
46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. andrewkor
    andrewkor 23 January 2018 06: 55 New
    +2
    Yes, Syria is not the Astrakhan region!
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 23 January 2018 09: 46 New
      0
      Quote: andrewkor
      Yes, Syria is not the Astrakhan region!

      And not the Voronezh or Irkutsk region. and not even the Komi-Permyatsky okrug
    2. Vasya Vassin
      Vasya Vassin 23 January 2018 11: 28 New
      0
      They shoot at the shooting range! But also a necessary thing.
      1. arkadiyssk
        arkadiyssk 23 January 2018 13: 24 New
        +3
        So the video is quite laid out, as the shell of the cannons can not shoot down even slow UAVs in the exercises, only missiles help. Still, it’s not for nothing that the fresh Arctic version has no guns at all, but with twice the number of missiles. The gun was apparently planned only for large targets such as a helicopter.
  2. Winnie76
    Winnie76 23 January 2018 09: 33 New
    +2
    Group attacks drones apparently the near future. So the circulation of the Shell will be large.
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 23 January 2018 09: 50 New
      +2
      Quote: Winnie76
      Group drone attacks apparently the near future

      Rather, even today. And what pleases, the Russian Armed Forces are ready for this
  3. tchoni
    tchoni 23 January 2018 09: 37 New
    0
    Well, apparently the shell is not doing very well with ballistic targets. In any case, New Year's mines flew ...
    1. abrikos_45
      abrikos_45 23 January 2018 09: 45 New
      0
      But does mine have a ballistic trajectory?
      1. alexmach
        alexmach 23 January 2018 10: 12 New
        +4
        Uh ... and which one?
    2. alexmach
      alexmach 23 January 2018 10: 14 New
      +2
      Perhaps the point here is not in the trajectory, but in the small size of the mines?
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 23 January 2018 10: 30 New
        +2
        Combined with its durability.
        And of course, the author joked about the small export successes. For several years - 5 export orders.
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 23 January 2018 14: 25 New
        +2
        Quote: alexmach
        Perhaps the point here is not in the trajectory, but in the small size of the mines?

        Invented the "Nail" for the Shell, and apparently to intercept such purposes. But this is not what puzzles me ... but where did the articles on the Torah disappear? Or are they not developing anything for this purpose, including economy rockets to intercept such rubbish as self-made mines?
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 23 January 2018 17: 35 New
          0
          Do he need them? Do I need 2 different rockets against the craft of aviation circles? In my opinion, Torah is more suitable for more complex products against the Kyrgyz Republic.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 23 January 2018 17: 38 New
            +2
            Quote: alexmach
            Do he need them? Do I need 2 different rockets against the craft of aviation circles? In my opinion, Torah is more suitable for more complex products against the Kyrgyz Republic.

            But does the Shell need rockets against crafts, when its main task is to cover the Triumphs and fight against the Kyrgyz Republic on the near approaches? Or did you forget why the Shell was developed at all?
            The fact that the Shell is capable of shooting down mines with Grad rockets is certainly great, but I do not think it's cheap.
            1. alexmach
              alexmach 23 January 2018 18: 02 New
              0
              So the cover of the near zone it is a cover including from crafts.
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 23 January 2018 18: 03 New
                +2
                Quote: alexmach
                So the cover of the near zone it is a cover including from crafts.

                Is the TOP not a complex of the near air defense zone?
                1. alexmach
                  alexmach 23 January 2018 18: 06 New
                  0
                  Hmm .. so we come to the question of whether 2 different complexes of covering the near zone are needed? And this is even if there is a prospective near missile 9m100 to the S-350 .. and as I understand it, not only to it.

                  I’ll make a reservation right away - I don’t know the answer :)
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 23 January 2018 18: 15 New
                    +2
                    Quote: alexmach
                    Hmm .. so we come to the question of whether 2 different complexes of covering the near zone are needed?

                    We need ... the missiles of these systems are different, the radars are different, the price is also different. Yes, and the operating time is also different. TORAS faithfully serve us more than a year and have been tested more than once. In this case, the TOP is a complex of military air defense, and the Shell is a missile defense. Very different carriages. The platforms are different and the possibilities of modernizing both the complex itself and the arsenal are also different.
                    Quote: alexmach
                    And this is even with the prospect of a near missile 9m100 to the S-350.

                    What year is this prospect looming? Where is Vityaz at least in state trials? And where is Morpheus, who promised to quickly nullify and equip our MRK?
                    A TOP with a new arsenal is already approaching a medium-range complex, that is, a beech. At the same time, he is on a tracked platform. And I suspect it is also cheaper than the Shell.
                    1. alexmach
                      alexmach 23 January 2018 18: 19 New
                      0
                      What year is this prospect looming? Where is Vityaz at least in state trials?

                      Here, of course, while everything is sad.
                      And where is Morpheus, who promised to quickly nullify and equip our MRK?

                      And with Morpheus, in my opinion, that's all. It didn’t work out.
                      And I suspect it is also cheaper than the Shell.

                      But with what a fright Thor will be cheaper then Shell? what is it that could make it cheaper? In my opinion, on the contrary, it has always been more expensive than the Shell.
                      1. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 23 January 2018 18: 30 New
                        +2
                        Quote: alexmach
                        But with what a fright Thor will be cheaper then Shell?

                        With this ... what is the production of the TOP? Its price has been formatted more than once.
                        According to well-known contracts, the price of one Pantsir-C1 air defense missile defense system for export supplies is from 13,15 to 14,67 million US dollars.

                        Under the terms of the contract, the Armed Forces of Russia will receive, by the end of 2013, a set of Tor-M1-2U air defense systems for the anti-aircraft missile battalion of the new organization of the motorized rifle brigade - 12 9A331MU combat vehicles with a price of 394,3 million rubles. each, three battery-powered maintenance vehicles 9V887M2U and one regimental - 9V887-1M2U with a price of about 79 million rubles. each, six transport-loading vehicles 9T244-1 and 9T245-1 with a cost of 26,1 and 12,3 million rubles. accordingly, one machine of a group set of spare parts 9F399-1M2U for 45 million rubles, one set of ground equipment 9F116 for 3,8 million rubles.

                        To ensure the operation of the air defense command centers, five planning modules will be supplied that are part of the Barnaul-T automation kit of the ESU TK - one brigade 9S931-1 for 50,3 million rubles, one divisional 9S931 for 64 million rubles and three battery control units 9S932- 1 with a price of 86,7 million rubles each.

                        So we consider ...
        2. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 24 January 2018 05: 15 New
          +2
          Quote: NEXUS
          where did articles about the Torah disappear

          And I paid attention to it. I “dislike” the “Shell”, but “sympathize” with the Tor-M air defense systems I am sure that the modernization potential of the Torah is far from exhausted ... I have long been expecting the appearance of missiles with the GSN. I am sorry that the “Shell” has pushed the “Tor” -M .. "to the" background ".
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 24 January 2018 09: 19 New
            +1
            I do not like the Shell, but I sympathize with the Tor-M air defense system
            -----------------------------------------
            that's noticeable .
            even pulled out the 2013 footcloth of the year, which has already been discussed in all forums.
            Meanwhile, as a means of air defense of a short-range country (but not air defense of the NE), the Carapace is clearly preferable.
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 24 January 2018 12: 26 New
              +2
              Quote: sivuch
              that's noticeable .

              Well .... a person may have "small weaknesses"
              Quote: sivuch
              even pulled out the 2013 footcloth of the year, which has already been discussed in all forums.

              You never know what was once discussed! But anyway .... some men don’t know!
              Quote: sivuch
              Meanwhile, as a means of air defense of a short-range country (but not air defense of the NE), the Carapace is clearly preferable.

              Maybe .... maybe ... When the information about the Pantsir-S air defense system first appeared, I drew attention to the design features of the 57E6 missiles ... Having "coughed" them, I came to the conclusion that the declared effectiveness may not correspond to reality , precisely because of these "design features" ... When did you get this report ("footcloth" wink ), I saw that my "suspicions" were reflected in the report ... By the way, I sent to the editorial office of one military-technical journal my "doubts-suspicions" and suggestions for eliminating some of the shortcomings ... As I expected, there was no answer .a I didn’t "get upset" - I "crowed" and okay .. But since then, I have been suspicious of this complex. They write that a serious work is underway to improve the "Shell". All new modifications are mentioned (C, С1, С2, СМ, СМ2) ... Maybe the shortcomings have been eliminated (or a significant part ...) But without a serious modernization of 57Е6, the creation of new missiles (including those with GOS) it is unlikely that all design flaws can be eliminated, but existing missiles can successfully deal with certain types of targets.
              small-sized missiles "sharpened" to fight drones, ereses, artillery shells (I hope!) The designers and the military, of course, know best. Argue, do not argue, but life (or war) will put "dots over i" We must wait .. ..
    3. BAI
      BAI 23 January 2018 11: 15 New
      +1
      No need to demand from the complex the impossible. So you can get to the requirement of protection from shells, bullets and fragments. You can do it, but the price will be absolutely prohibitive.
  4. Old26
    Old26 23 January 2018 10: 34 New
    +3
    Quote: tchoni
    Well, apparently the shell is not doing very well with ballistic targets. In any case, New Year's mines flew ...

    It is not necessary to demand super tasks from even a very good system. Yet this air defense system. Even the current radar systems for counterbattery fighting, such as the Zoo, are designed to determine the location from which they are fired, and not to destroy mines in flight.
    For the destruction of mines, a reaction of a different level is required, then completely different location means capable of fixing targets with a very small EOC and kmk are somewhat different weapons. It’s good that missile targets are being destroyed.
  5. BAI
    BAI 23 January 2018 11: 13 New
    0
    the price of military vehicles - 13-15 million US dollars

    On the one hand - to go nuts, on the other - security costs more than money.
  6. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 23 January 2018 12: 50 New
    +5
    M-d-ah, again, "slobber" ,, Carapace! And why did you get the idea that the Carapace is an ideal means of object-based air defense? They put everything on this air defense system: here you have airplanes, helicopters, UAVs , eres and, even, BR warheads ... it’s good that the satellites weren’t instructed to shoot! That is, they are trying to get the “universal three-inch” of the 30's in a “new way”! But you need a specialized (!!!) short-range air defense system, imprisoned mainly to protect the object from ammunition "air-to-surface", "surface-to-surface" ... Here questions arise: 1.And did Morpheus go to bed and die? 2. And how is Tunguska doing? I’m interested in the sense that it seems that a “strong-willed decision” has been made to replace the Tungusks with Carapace, but why the Tunguska’s ammunition? that is, it is necessary to “train” the “Shell” to fire ammunition from the “Tunguska.” You can put in a word about “Sosna-R” ..., all the more so because it somehow “flashed” infa (though not confirmed further), that originally Sosna-R was intended for the modernized Tunguska.
    Most recently, there was news that a small-sized short-range missile was created for the “Shell”, specifically to combat ammunition attacking the protected object (“anti-aircraft nail”) ... this changes in a certain way the “look” at the “Shell” —well, specialized and cheap (hopefully!) anti-aircraft missiles appeared! Well, what is the cost of the most “fully packaged” Pantsir air defense system? Maybe you should think about a cheaper “trimmed” version of this air defense system, focused on the use of “anti-aircraft nails”, 9М311,9М311М, 9М311-1э, 9М340. antenna array, OEC with a low-level television camera, thermal imager, laser rangefinder, target designator; programmable fragmentation-beam projectiles, light anti-aircraft missiles with PAL-GSN (upgraded Strela-3, Igla missiles), upgraded IR + Verba missiles UV contrast HS H) with increased warhead
    And here is the data from the report on the identified shortcomings of the Pantsir-S / S1 air defense system:
    However, to date, the developer has not eliminated the following main problems and disadvantages:

    1) real results of firing tests showed a low possibility of a complex for firing targets that maneuver and fly with a heading parameter of more than 2-3 km
    2) the possibility of firing at targets flying at speeds greater than 400 m / s has not been confirmed, although a speed equal to 1000 m / s is given in the technical characteristics of the complex
    3) the maximum firing range of 20 km is provided for aerial targets flying at a speed of no more than 80 m / s (on the E-95 target), since the available overloads of SAMs at this range do not exceed 5 units.
    4) the main disadvantage of a bicaliber missile ***** is the lack of an engine in the march stage of the SAM, as a result of which, within the declared damage range, the rocket will move with negative acceleration of the order of 50-30 m / s 2, which leads to the appearance of such non-linearities in the input signal missile control loop, which lead to an increase in errors of its guidance on actively maneuvering target
    5) the capabilities of the complex to defeat the TBR, OTR and their warheads when using a hypersonic missile with a warhead weighing 4 kg have not been confirmed
    6) the presence of only two methods of pointing missiles ***** (according to the three-point method; according to the half-straightening method) limits the capabilities of the complex to defeat various types of air-defense systems with difficult environmental conditions (maneuver, interference, NLC, a hovering helicopter, UAV, etc. d.).
    7) The system for controlling the detonation of the warhead of a hypersonic SAM, functioning according to the signal from the SAM system in accordance with the established range difference between the target and the missile, can be effective only when the SAM is guided ****** by the full straightening method, and when the SAM is guided by the "three points ”and half straightening only works when the target moves directly to the firing combat vehicle ZPRK
    8) in the aforementioned last case, the effectiveness of hitting a target may turn out to be low due to the phenomenon of ricocheting of the striking elements of the combat chat, since in this case their velocity vector will be directed at a small angle to the target’s surface
    9), effective coordination of missile defense missile equipment (the area of ​​operation of the non-contact target sensor, NDC and the area of ​​the strike of striking elements of warheads), as well as the prevention of the operation of NDC SAM missiles from the underlying surface when firing at the NLC, is not ensured
    10) the influence of weather conditions (rain, fog, hydrometeors) on the decrease in target detection range for the millimeter wave range developed by the RLSSSR in the 10-50 times is stronger than on the version of an air defense system with a centimeter wave radar, and this drawback cannot be compensated for by the presence of Patsir-S1 "optoelectronic kaal for supporting the CC, due to the negative dependence of the latter on weather conditions
    11) the large overall dimensions of BM ZRPK on a wheelbase, especially in height (in combat position 5,65 m), as well as the lack of armor protection of the fire set, equipment compartment (SOTs, SSSR, SUO) do not allow the use of air defense systems at the leading edge in combat and pre-battle formation covered forces
    12) dimensions of BM ZPRK in the stowed position on the wheelbase (4, 374 m) do not allow transporting it by rail
    Now the media is "sucking up" a message from an American source that the "Shell" is the best! E-mine, the enemy praises your weapon! Is there no reason to think?
    1. Dmitriy75
      Dmitriy75 23 January 2018 13: 59 New
      0
      Something that you wrote nonsense, the Carapace refers to a comprehensive defense, like any other weapon. But one shell was enough to destroy the brainless air force dill. And they praise in order to solicit as much money as possible, they competently create hype exclusively for their tasks.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 23 January 2018 14: 33 New
        +1
        Quote: Dmitriy75
        Something that you wrote nonsense, the Shell is related to comprehensive protection, like any other

        If the analytical capabilities of your "reasoning" are not enough. To comprehend what I have said. Then you do not need to declare this nonsense!
        Quote: Dmitriy75
        one shell was enough to destroy the brainless air force dill

        How did such nonsense appear in your “head”? belay You "exaggerate" the rumors: ,, "Shell" in the Donbass ,,? Again, your “thinker” does not want to work! They could confuse Tor-M with the “Shell”, which they “found” in the warehouses of the Lugansk anti-aircraft missile regiment (a couple of “pieces”) in a disassembled state and then “restored”!
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 23 January 2018 23: 19 New
          0
          You "exaggerate" the rumors: ,, "Shell" in the Donbass ,,? Again, your “thinker” does not want to work! They could confuse Tor-M with the “Shell”

          Sorry, but how can you confuse them? The carapace then has a very characteristic appearance. There was a video of how a shell on a wheeled chassis travels around the city, in the city Lugansk was fairly reliably recognized. It looked very realistic. Whether he was alone there was not clear, but the fact that the Ukrainian Air Force at some point simply stopped flying over the Donbass says a lot.

          And about “why they want all this from the shell”, simply because it is closest to the “drone fighter” of all that is in service. He has a cheap rocket (now its super-cheap version), and cannon weapons, and a radar and an optical guidance channel. There is simply no better candidate for fighting drones, but already standing in service. So to speak, he became a victim of his own universality in this regard.

          Thanks for the test data - it was interesting.

          And as for the modernization of the "shilka" using the rocket from the "pine" or "needle" - I do not agree with you here. First of all, this rocket with thermal GOS - should accordingly be more expensive than the Shell rocket. Secondly, more than once they talked about the insufficiency of fragmentation of anti-aircraft fragmentation of ammunition even 30 mm, and you propose to equip 23 mm shells with a radio fuse.
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 24 January 2018 04: 58 New
            +1
            Quote: alexmach
            but how can they be confused then? The carapace then has a very characteristic appearance.

            That's what I’m talking about ... Personally, I have not seen photographs of the “Shell” on the “background of Lugansk (Donetsk), but I’m familiar with the“ rumors ”! 1. Moreover, the“ rumors ”are often of this kind: either the“ Shell ”, whether "TOR" ... 2. You cannot exclude photo montage at 100% ... 3. You cannot exclude a situation, like the one that was connected with the "Malaysian" Buk ": Ukrainians said that in the photo: the militias display Buk to Russia, and network users noticed in the photo (in the "background") a billboard with pointers to us points, from which it became clear that this is a city under the control of the Armed Forces of Ukraine ... Otherwise, this provocation is difficult it would be to expose ..... this is something in the "model" cities built in the Soviet years!
            4. Think for yourself: why should Russia “shine” with “Carapace” in the Donbass, give an “awesome” trump card to the ukro-junta, USA, when it is possible to “attract” completely “capable” “Osa-AK / AKM”, “Tor-M” air defense systems ??? (The argument about the need for combat tests of the "Shell" does not stand up to criticism ... Is this a necessity in the Donbass? Against outdated modifications of aircraft?)
            5.And here about the Tor-M air defense system .... Once, a Russian correspondent was talking to a militia who “saw ,, Carapace ,, ...” During a conversation, the correspondent began to show pictures of various air defense systems, and the militia recognized his “SAM” in the image of the Tor-M air defense system. When the correspondent began to “dig evenly”, he found out something like this: There was a Tor-M battery in the APU ... Due to the careless operation of the systems and the lack of spare parts, problems arose using the Tor-M air defense system and the systems were removed from service ... A couple of systems were "stuck" in the warehouses of the Lugansk Itno missile regiment, where they found the militia ....
            Quote: alexmach
            And as for the modernization of the "shilka" using the rocket from the "pine" or "needle" - I do not agree with you here. First, the rocket is this one with a thermal GOS - accordingly, it should be more expensive than the rocket

            It’s not necessary at all! Pricing depends on several factors: the technological level of production, on the volume of the order, productivity, design features of the guidance system, etc. What makes you think that the ammunition of the "Shell" is cheap? In addition, you did not pay attention to the fact that I suggested using the "old" anti-aircraft missiles from the Strela-3, Igla-1, Igla MANPADS, including after replacing the thermal seeker with semi-active laser ones.
            I do not propose to install radio fuses on 23-mm shells, but 23-mm shells with a programmable timer fuse are already being developed ... (these are fragmentation-beam (shrapnel) shells for use against UAVs, for example, “zushki” (ZU-23-2 )
            By the way, I have already come to the conclusion that I got excited with Shilka! I "dislike" the Pantsir air defense system (because, analyzing the design features of the complex and, especially, anti-aircraft missiles, I concluded that the declared effectiveness may not correspond to reality ... my "suspicions" were "reflected" in my report), but the appearance of the so-called "anti-aircraft nails" "reconciled" me, in a sense, with the "Shell", because. I considered the 57E6 missiles previously available too expensive and excessive to destroy small-sized drones of low-cost models and Eres ... often, home-made. The appearance of light anti-aircraft missiles (and cheap, I hope!), As if "sharpened" to combat drones, ereses, in the air defense system "allows" me "to easily abandon" the idea to upgrade the "Shilka".
            Now, to protect the S-300, S-400 air defense systems, the Pantsir air defense systems are used in the form of attached complexes. It would be nice to consider the idea of ​​integrating the Pansyr components directly into the base, for example, S-400, S-500 I also consider the "support" on the radio command guidance system is insufficient ... I'm sure that there will be samples with other guidance systems
            1. sd68
              sd68 24 January 2018 09: 44 New
              0
              [Quote] [/ quote]
            2. sd68
              sd68 24 January 2018 10: 40 New
              0
              3. It is impossible to exclude a situation, like the one that was connected with the Malaysian Buk: the Ukrainians said that in the photo: the militias take Buk to Russia, and network users noticed a shield in the photo (in the background) pointers to us. points, from which it became clear that this is a city under the control of the Armed Forces of Ukraine ... Otherwise, this provocation would be difficult to expose ..... it’s in the “typical” cities built in the Soviet years!

              This "exposure" is a long-exposed fake. on the video there is a trolleybus network, which is not and never was in Krasnoarmeysk, but which is in Lugansk
              1. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I 25 January 2018 14: 14 New
                +2
                Quote: sd68
                This "exposure" is a long-exposed fake. on the video there is a trolleybus network, which is not and never was in Krasnoarmeysk, but which is in Lugansk

                Well, that "long exposed ..." is debatable! There are a lot of things on the Internet ... there are counter-arguments for the arguments against Krasnoarmeysk. For example, the "images" of the elements of the "trolleybus lines" are very blurry (maybe there is something else (?) Or the tram tracks?) Tram in Krasnoarmeysk e?
                There should be logic in everything! And in the stay of "Russian Buka ,, in the Donbass," I do not see the logic! Especially a single car! Why send the bulky Buk to Donbass if the more compact and mobile Strela-10 air defense missile systems and, especially, the Osa-AK / AKM, are enough for the eyes to fight the outdated modifications of the Ukrainian Air Force available and in the APU! Why is it so “awesome”, to light up, “Buk” (as well as “Shell” (!). Moreover, for the Normal “Work” of the air defense system ,, Buk ,, you need Complex (!), And not a single car! And another “fad”: an outdated (!) zur was launched ... this modification is not in service with the RF Armed Forces .... and the air defense system of this modification is in service with the APU, and not Russia.
                In extreme cases (!), I had the following assumption before: On the territory of the Lugansk air defense missile system, the Buk air defense missile system was thrown ..... Faulty !!! When the incident happened with the "Malaysian", the militia, fearing that because of this "scrap metal" they would "hang all the dogs" ... could move this installation somewhere! Only baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ... belay request On “you can’t put a scarf on every mouth!” Exactly the same opinion about the version: The beech was delivered from Russia ...
                PSA what about the release of Sharia’s video blog, where the former anti-aircraft gunner "recognized" his "original" setting?
              2. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I 26 January 2018 05: 36 New
                +1
                The time was later, and I missed another argument ... As you know, the Russian Ministry of Defense suggested organizing a "party" where it promised to answer all the "questions" with convincing evidence ... But it asked the United States to provide satellite images of the event area at the appropriate time and from Ukraine dispatchers ... It would seem, here it is a "wonderful moment"! The opportunity for Russia to “bring clean water” to the whole world with the help of journalists! Ask “questions” that Russia could not answer! So no! request Renouncement! But why not provide snapshots .... not show dispatchers? Everything is "muddy and foggy"!
            3. alexmach
              alexmach 24 January 2018 10: 55 New
              0
              I’m talking about this ... Personally, I have not seen photos with the image of the "Shell" on the "background of Lugansk (Donetsk), but I am familiar with the" rumors "!

              There is a video on YouTube located on the phrase "Shell in Lugansk." There is an unedited version of it. It shows not Soviet buildings but modern stalls-warehouses. The address in Lugansk with the same "architecture" is also indicated there. Unconditional proof may not be, but I don’t see the catch in this video. Why is it burning with the shell? I don’t understand this myself.

              I do not propose to install radio fuses on 23-mm shells, but 23-mm shells with a programmable timer fuse are already being developed ... (these are fragmentation-beam (shrapnel) shells for use against UAVs, for example, “zushki” (ZU-23-2 )

              Well, in general, the topic of fighting UAVs is interesting, let's see what the effective solution will be.

              I "dislike" the Shell "air defense system" (because, analyzing the design features of the complex and, especially, the anti-aircraft missiles, I concluded that the claimed effectiveness may not correspond to reality

              This is the price of versatility.

              What makes you think that the ammunition of the "Shell" is cheap?

              Shipunov himself told, although God knows him, maybe he compared with the S-300, maybe measured in prices and made a start from the technological level of the 80s. Maybe "every sandpiper praises its swamp." The basis of his argument was actually the absence of the GOS and radio command guidance.

              For example, on the contrary, I like the “Shell” and it is precisely because of the bicaliber missile. This is an interesting technical solution, but it is clear that both the low cost and the declared versatility bring their own shortcomings. All "generalists" are generally worse in each particular situation than highly specialized complexes.
              1. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I 25 January 2018 11: 18 New
                +1
                Quote: alexmach
                because of the bicaliber missile. This is an interesting technical solution.

                The technical solution itself, I will not argue, is interesting ... But there is an equally interesting solution that is suitable specifically for bicaliber missiles and allows you to eliminate, if not all, then some significant shortcomings ....
                (I explain: this is an idea; because practical development has not yet begun ..... in my opinion)
                Quote: alexmach
                Why is it burning with the shell? I don’t understand this myself

                So I do not understand! Why "glows" ??? belay fool Why give an "o ... x ... garbage" reason? You need to be "worse than a steam locomotive"! I do not think so! Well, there are “oaks” in the Russian army, but not to the same extent! And what is "amusing" .... this "device" goes unaccompanied (!) And even without a tarpaulin-cape! Isn’t it strange, too? And yet ....: I have already speculated about photomontage:

                “At one forum, I read with trustworthy people that this was a fake of medium quality crafts. The basis is taken for a truck really going ahead, to which allegedly missile launchers are painted. They point to the following obvious inconsistencies.
                1) Pay attention to the shadow of the truck. Nothing else, including lampposts of shadows NO. Explicitly spotted spot.
                2) The carapace itself looks like a dark, blurry spot. No clear contours. Only a slick truck and rockets sticking out of the hull. As if the light source is in front of the machine. Then the shadow is obvious fake because it’s painted in the wrong place. All objects in the video, including houses, cars, etc., look clear, have well-visible contours and colors. Everything is well lit and visible. And only the "shell" is blurred, dark, unclear in the contours. People conclude that this is another crest-stuffing of fake shit. Natives of Usrains do not want to fight for their homeland in the trenches, therefore expose the "Russian aggressors" on the Internet. The urge to dill require so to speak.
                1. alexmach
                  alexmach 25 January 2018 13: 50 New
                  0
                  So I do not understand! Why "glows" ???

                  And with 16 “lost” 60 km paratroopers, why was there a light? Yes, and lost just once at the very moment when there was a turning point in the confrontation. They just waited until the last thing to happen, and then when they realized that they were about to take Donetsk, they sent what was at hand.

                  At one forum, with trustworthy people, I read that this is a fake of average quality crafts. As a basis, the truck really going ahead is taken to which allegedly missile installations are painted. Indicate the following apparent inconsistencies.
                  1) Pay attention to the shadow of the truck. Nothing else, including lampposts of shadows NO. Explicitly spotted spot.


                  I look with my own profane eyes and see, in addition to the shadow of the Shell and the shadow of the car driving in front. And besides, you try to realistic draw these rockets on video. If this is a fake, then it’s not of average quality.

                  The shell itself looks like a dark, blurry spot. No clear contours. Only a slick truck and rockets sticking out of the hull. As if the light source is in front of the machine.


                  In my opinion, it looks normal and the outline is quite clear for both missiles and cannons, and the shadow shows that the light source is on the right and slightly in front - that is, it does not illuminate the end part and this is enough to make it look like a dark spot.

                  I repeat once again - as for me everything looks quite realistic
                  1. Nikolaevich I
                    Nikolaevich I 26 January 2018 05: 20 New
                    +1
                    As they say, flies separately, cutlets separately .... I’m now “lazy” to discuss paratroopers as well ... although even in this case it’s very “foggy” (by all indications it was not visible that they participated in the battle ... yes and the high school students didn’t say anything about this, but would there be a reason, unless they would be silent? I say this from the “old memory” -based on the information that appeared then)
                    Let's go back to the "Shell" .... I confess that I did not see the shadows in the video ... I did not count the pillars, etc. I quoted this fragment as a “refutation” only because I wanted to show that I was not the only one who suggested “photo montage” or some other kind of fake. I rely more on logic. This video, in my opinion, has its own oddities: “The car” travels alone without an escort (!) ... (this is in the city. Where the DRG APU are in full swing!) .. There is not the slightest sign of an attempt disguise! (somehow such a way of masking the “Grad” by the militia was mentioned: arcs, like on trucks. and tarpaulin top) What prevented riveting the arcs and covering it with tarpaulin in this case too? If it didn’t go down to 100% for a truck, then at least you’ll figure out the figures! Why does the complex move so openly during the day. And not at night? Why did the car (where the shooting was taken from) take off only from behind, why didn’t it overtake and did not stop ahead in order to better “see” it? Do you answer convincingly to these questions?
                    I remember that I talked about "fake" ... is it possible to suppose such a version: the militia themselves built a "copy" (model) of the air defense systems to: a). "Scare" the APU; b). "Inspire" the local population; c) . Provoke the DRU APU to an active action in order to "neutralize" it (fishing for "live bait") Then the appearance of the "Shell" in the afternoon, without masking, without accompaniment is simply explained ...
                    1. alexmach
                      alexmach 26 January 2018 09: 02 New
                      +1
                      I agree that there is a lot of strange things, starting with what you already wrote about, why did you have to send a guy there. Moreover, if I am not mistaken it was February 2015 - there was time to prepare.

                      Why did the car (where the shooting was taken from) take off only from behind, why didn’t it overtake and did not stop ahead in order to better “see” it?

                      Maybe just scared? In the front line, I would hesitate to scout and take a military convoy (?) From different angles. Maybe there was some kind of accompaniment.

                      ... is it possible to assume such a version: a "copy" (layout) of the air defense systems was built by the militias themselves

                      It does not seem to me that such an assumption is realistic, it seems to me at that time that they should give in addition to collecting models of the Shell (by the way, why exactly the Shell) to collect.
                      1. Nikolaevich I
                        Nikolaevich I 26 January 2018 10: 02 New
                        +2
                        Quote: alexmach
                        This assumption does not seem realistic to me,

                        Yes, I’m not going to “insist” on it. But this assumption is at least somehow trying to explain: why in the afternoon, without masking and, possibly, without accompaniment ...
                        Quote: alexmach
                        layouts of the Shell (by the way why exactly the Shell) to collect.

                        Duc ... "fashion brand"! About the "Shell", probably in Africa have long been heard! In addition, the "Shell" is a symbol of Russia. And some militias might want to show the population "explicit support for Russia"

                        Quote: alexmach
                        to take a military convoy (?) from different angles would be shy. Maybe there was some kind of accompaniment.

                        Well, to shoot it was possible to get used to and secretly .... in the internet you can find a description of such methods. But the accompaniment, indeed, could have been!
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 23 January 2018 16: 10 New
      0
      "is the absence of the engine in the march stage of missiles, resulting in" ////

      I didn’t catch something ...
      The Shell shell, although simplified, without a seeker, is 2-speed.
      Should there be a 2nd stage sustainer engine? Or not??
      1. alexmach
        alexmach 23 January 2018 22: 52 New
        0
        Should there be a 2nd stage sustainer engine? Or not??

        No, it should not. He has almost nothing in this marching stage. This is the same for the old rocket, as for the Tunguzka rocket. The "hypersonic" one, if there really is one, probably should have
  7. SergF123
    SergF123 23 January 2018 14: 05 New
    0
    Is he really that good ?!
  8. A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 23 January 2018 15: 32 New
    +1
    Such articles confuse me with perfect statements without any allegations. No, the quality of the complex is all right. For those tasks for which it was created - an excellent system. It may well cope with the "flock", and all sorts of UAVs and some kind of "missiles". You should not demand from him the impracticable, and so, neither add nor subtract. I'm about a friend.
    When suddenly, referring to the source of the credibility level of the Zimbabwean Bulletin, or even without any references, a statement appears like “For 2017 year” The shell ”shot down three Heron UAVs worth 10 million dollars each in Syria,” I will allow myself to join the blessed memory Konstantin Sergeevich and his sacramental "I DO NOT TRUST!". Rummaged in the network. There are the same allegations without reference to serious sources. No photo fragments, no authoritative statements from stakeholders ...
    In fact that "shell" could shoot down three such UAVs, I believe. Not even three, but fifteen, and why not? Each of us could to win the 5 lottery, or 10 there, something, but the difference between "could" and "won" is exactly the same as between "could" and "shot down." hi
  9. alexmach
    alexmach 23 January 2018 19: 42 New
    0
    NEXUS,
    What do we think then? Do you compare the export price of 2017 with the domestic 2013? By the way, I calculated, and taking into account the ruble exchange rate in 2013. It turns out about the same figure of 14 million ... And this is for domestic use, not for export.