Military Review

SIRS "Pine": obvious advantages and noticeable disadvantages

72
Work continues on the advanced Pine anti-aircraft missile system for air defense of ground forces. Not so long ago, the developers of this air defense system showed a prototype that matches the expected standard equipment. Unlike the previous prototype, built on the MT-LB transporter chassis, the new model is based on the BMP-3 machine. This gives the complex a number of well-known advantages, which are advantageously combined with other positive qualities.




Serial appearance


Serial samples of "Pines" in their appearance will correspond to the recently shown prototype. The air defense missile system is proposed to be built on the chassis of an infantry fighting vehicle BMP-3 and equipped with a new launcher with the target equipment. On this module, made in the form of a turning tower, two packages are installed with six missiles each.

The launcher is made on the basis of a gyro-stabilized platform. It has an optical and thermal imaging camera, a laser rangefinder with a rocket control function, a system of state recognition and control equipment. Search and maintenance of targets are carried out by optical-electronic means. Rocket guidance is performed using a laser beam guided by automatics. ZRK equipment can operate in fully automatic or semi-automatic modes.

The destruction of targets is carried out using the 9М340 Sosna-R anti-aircraft missile. This 30 kg product is made according to a bicalyber scheme and can reach speeds of up to 900 m / s, as well as maneuver with overloads up to 40. Destruction of targets at distances up to 10 km and altitudes up to 5 km. Used two combat units - armor-piercing and fragmentation. Guidance of missiles is provided by automatic ground-based air defense systems with control using a laser beam.

The Pine air defense missile system is operated by a crew of two people - a driver and an operator. The complex can interact with third-party air defense systems, receiving or transmitting data on the air situation. The task of "Pines" is to escort troops on the march or in positions with simultaneous cover from an air attack. In this role, the new air defense system will replace outdated systems of the Strela family.

Obvious advantages


The serial appearance provides the Strela air defense system with a number of characteristic advantages. One of the main ones is the possibility of mounting the launcher on different chassis with a lifting capacity of at least 4 t. This capability has already been demonstrated using prototypes made on the MT-LB and BMP-3 chassis. The last option received approval and will soon go into the series.

According to some information, in the near future, the Pine will become the basis for the Ptitselov air defense missile system, intended for the airborne troops. In this case, the unified launcher will be mounted on the BMD-4M chassis. Regardless of the specific type of base chassis, the result of the design becomes a combat vehicle that most fully meets the requirements of a specific kind of troops.

All proposed for use of the chassis are in service with different types of troops, which simplifies the introduction and operation of new air defense systems. There is no need to establish the supply of new components. In addition, ready-made complexes can move and work in the same combat formations with other armored vehicles of the army. The unified chassis provides both the required mobility characteristics and a comparable level of crew and equipment protection.

The Pine air defense missile system uses a passive method for detecting and tracking targets. The radiation source is only a laser rangefinder, also controlling the rocket. Such principles of work provide the required efficiency, and also allow solving combat missions at any time of the day and in different weather conditions. At the same time, the probability of detecting air defense missile systems by means of electronic reconnaissance is reduced, and its complete suppression by electronic warfare systems becomes impossible.

The Pine is capable of shooting from a standstill, from a short stop and in motion. In all cases, automation steadily accompanies the selected target and provides guidance of the rocket. Effective control devices allow you to attack both air and ground targets, provided the line of sight. Depending on the type of target, automatic tracking begins at distances up to 25-30 km (airplane type target).

The rocket "Sosna-R" provides a high probability of hitting various targets within the zone of responsibility of the system. High flight speed and the ability to maneuver with overloads allow you to fight a wide range of aircraft and weapons. The used laser beam guidance system virtually eliminates the suppression of the control channel, which increases the probability of hitting the target.

With relatively high performance, the SOSNA-P SAM is characterized by small dimensions and weight. The transport and launch container weighing 42 kg does not require special means of loading. As a result, they did not include a transport-loading machine in the anti-aircraft complex. Ammunition can be delivered by any suitable transport, and its loading onto the launcher by the ZRK crew takes no more than 10-12 min.



From the point of view of certain features and features, the newest “Pine” air defense missile system resembles its predecessors from the Strela family. At the same time, similar ideas are implemented using modern components and technologies. All this leads to an obvious increase in tactical, technical and operational characteristics.

Noticeable flaws


Naturally, the newest complex is not without ambiguous features or obvious flaws. Such features of "Pines" can adversely affect the performance of the equipment or crew and, as a result, affect the practical results.

It is easy to see that the use of the BMP-3 chassis leads to a significant increase in the combat weight of the entire SAM system. The resulting machine should weigh about 18-20 tons, which in a known manner complicates the transfer of military transport aviation and imposes some other restrictions. The Pine variant on the MT-LB chassis is several tons lighter, but loses in the level of protection and some technical characteristics. For all this, the BMP-3 and MT-LB chassis cannot be used for parachute landing, which is why the Airborne Forces needed their own Ptitselov air defense system on the unified BMD-4M chassis.

Means of search and targeting of the Sosna air defense missile system are built on optical-electronic systems. This means that the detection, tracking and destruction of the target are possible only under the condition of direct optical visibility and depend on current conditions. Fog, precipitation and other meteorological phenomena can affect the operation of optics in real combat conditions. In addition, the optoelectronic station has a limited field of view, and the features of its installation on the launcher make it difficult to circular view.

The Sosna-R missile defense system has limited range and altitude characteristics, which is why, in order to ensure a full-fledged air defense system, the Sosna complex must work together with other systems with a larger affected area. In addition, the reduction in mass and dimensions of the rocket affected the weight of the missile warheads, and this may limit its combat effectiveness.

The absence of a TZM complex can be considered an ambiguous feature. On the one hand, it simplifies the rearmament and organization of combat work. On the other hand, the reloading of the launcher rests with the driver and the operator, who after such physical work should return to their direct duties. It cannot be excluded that carrying an 12 TPK with a total weight of about 500 kg can tire the crew and make it difficult to further combat work.

The “Pine” air defense missile system has significant advantages over the Strela family systems, however, in some characteristics it is not very large. For example, the mobility of two complexes is comparable. SAM Pine carries 7-kg warhead against 5-kg in the latest modifications of the Arrows, etc.

Weighted score


It is obvious that the Pine air defense missile system - like any other military equipment - has both strengths and weaknesses. In addition, as his work may reveal various shortcomings and flaws. It is for this purpose that multi-stage tests are carried out, the results of which decide on the future of the new development.

At the end of March this year, the leadership of CB Tochmash, which developed the Pine, announced the successful completion of state trials. By the time such News measures were launched to prepare for the adoption of air defense systems for the arsenal of Russian ground forces. Prototypes confirmed the specified characteristics and were highly appreciated, as a result of which the Sosna air defense system was recommended for operation and mass production.

This fact best of all shows the real balance of advantages and disadvantages of “Pines”. It turns out that the promising air defense missile system has fulfilled all the requirements of the customer, and his appearance corresponds to the desired one. In the presented form, "Pine" will go into service, which will happen in the near future. In addition, in the coming days, the public will be able to see this complex for the first time in serial configuration at the upcoming Army-2019 exhibition.
Author:
Photos used:
TRC "Star", KB Tochmash / kbtochmash.ru
72 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. knn54
    knn54 20 June 2019 06: 48 New
    +6
    In rainy weather, a good commander "pine" from the hangar will not "drive" ...
    1. Horse, people and soul
      Horse, people and soul 20 June 2019 07: 10 New
      0
      Not every "bird" reaches the middle ... "Pine".

      laughing

      Almost (C) Gogol
      1. Tiksi-3
        Tiksi-3 20 June 2019 08: 20 New
        -1
        Quote: Horse, people and soul
        Not every "bird" reaches the middle ... "Pine".

        we have the river "Pine" - 20 meters wide)))
        1. Horse, people and soul
          Horse, people and soul 20 June 2019 11: 29 New
          -3
          Not every NATO aircraft will reach the middle of the Pine!

          good
    2. Civil
      Civil 20 June 2019 07: 22 New
      -1
      Eh, it would be washed down with a PFAR, but expensive, but cloudy and aviation tight.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 20 June 2019 07: 47 New
        -1
        The machine is universal, therefore it will be inferior to something more specialized!
        You can, you need, just a big assortment of missiles is not good, for many objective reasons!
        Still .... you would not chase POP for cheapness.
        1. snerg7520
          snerg7520 20 June 2019 17: 08 New
          -1
          This product weighing 30 kg is made according to the bicaliber scheme

          What is this bicaliber scheme in an anti-aircraft missile? Could it be a tandem scheme of warheads? Especially
          Two warheads were used - armor-piercing and fragmentation.

          If at the same time, then the missile turns out to be universal - anti-aircraft anti-tank?
          Effective control devices allow you to attack both air and ground targets subject to direct visibility.

          But did not our cheap (in price, but not in efficiency) similarity to ADATSa blind?
          1. Old Skeptic
            Old Skeptic 24 June 2019 12: 50 New
            0
            Quote: snerg7520
            What is this bicaliber scheme in an anti-aircraft missile? Could it be a tandem scheme of warheads? Especially

            This is like the "Tunguska" and "Shell". Acceleration block + rocket.
      2. venik
        venik 20 June 2019 08: 27 New
        +3
        Quote: Civil
        Eh, it would be washed down with a PFAR, but expensive, but cloudy and aviation tight.

        =======
        Well, as for PFAR - I won’t say (the guidance is all the same on the laser beam!). But the electron-optical circular viewing station like "Phoenix" seems to me "Pine" would not hurt! (In addition, the cost of the “Phoenix” is not so huge).
      3. hydrox
        hydrox 21 June 2019 19: 17 New
        -1
        The operation will show whether the device took place or not: if it took place and has a modernization reserve, then I think that we can still enjoy the autonomous work of the Pine in automatic mode - here the anti-aircraft gunners will say their word when they master the collective work of the Pine in the network-centric system and in the mode swarm.
    3. Gray brother
      Gray brother 20 June 2019 08: 26 New
      +1
      Quote: knn54
      In rainy weather, a good commander "pine" from the hangar will not "drive" ...

      Debatable. Everything is decided by the software settings.
      In rain and snow, for example, a thermal imager sees better than optics. In addition, the enemy always has the same weather conditions)))
      Here, for example, are the Teplonadzor photos - they certainly have the equipment for measuring temperature, but still quite clearly.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  3. sen
    sen 20 June 2019 07: 48 New
    +1
    And how will it work in fully automatic mode? It is necessary to install a separate intelligence module and a target recognition computer.
    1. dvina71
      dvina71 20 June 2019 08: 04 New
      +1
      Surely in the memory of the control machine of protection images of all the "partner" aircraft. That's automatic mode .. knock down everything that looks like ...
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 20 June 2019 09: 15 New
      0
      So the primary control center is from the accordion, where there is an SSS
    3. LastPS
      LastPS 20 June 2019 23: 49 New
      0
      And what about your friend or foe system?
    4. hydrox
      hydrox 21 June 2019 19: 26 New
      0
      Do not!
      All installations will work under the supervision of a single BIUS, which will supply the same picture for ALL modules forming a swarm and each target will be accompanied by a marker taking into account the relative coordinates of each module (installation) - this will be the concern of the BIOS central processor
  4. Mik13
    Mik13 20 June 2019 08: 01 New
    +3
    It is easy to see that the use of the BMP-3 chassis leads to a substantial increase in the combat mass of the entire air defense system. The resulting machine should weigh on the order of 18-20 t, which in a known way complicates the transfer of military transport aircraft and imposes some other restrictions. The “Pines” variant on the MT-LB chassis is several tons lighter, but it loses in the level of protection and some technical characteristics. With all this, the BMP-3 and MT-LB chassis cannot be used during parachute landing, which is why the Airborne Forces needed their own Ptitselov air defense system on the BMD-4M unified chassis.

    In fact, having MTLB-based equipment in the BMP-3 division is a very dubious pleasure. Unification VERY simplifies life, and not only to engineers and rear personnel.
    As for the transfer - and BMP-3 units also need to somehow be transferred.

    Accordingly, the Airborne Forces also want to get the car on the "native" chassis - which is quite natural. For their complete happiness, only MTLB is not enough ...

    By the way, we can confidently predict that if they want to adapt the Pine for tank units, the product can easily appear on the T-72 (T-90) or T-14 (T-15) chassis, respectively.
    1. Tamer
      Tamer 20 June 2019 13: 11 New
      +3
      The BMP-3 division has no full-time vehicles on the MTLB chassis.
      Translate to the BMP-3, T-72 (90) chassis, Armata ... In what reality will the economy pull all this?
      Divisions on infantry fighting vehicles, on armored personnel carriers. There are tank divisions on the T-72, T-80, in the future on Armata - do you offer three chassis under the Pine? In Moscow on what to hang the Pine? Do you transfer all other division technology to these chassis? And what about parts of the army and / or front? Is the platform of Almaty and t-72 redundant for Pine? Once again, see how many different chassis in the division. It’s impossible to unify everything. Do we have at least one division staffed with state-of-the-art / modernized equipment? Yes, and on a single unified chassis? Only then can preliminary conclusions be drawn about simplifying the lives of “engineers and rear personnel”.
      When discussing the reinforcement of the unit with some kind of "unification", then you immediately hear "great!", "Super!" etc. This is good for a specifically invented case justifying unification. But for example, the BMP-3 battalion was reinforced with Pine on the BMP-3 chassis - air defense, and the anti-tank component of the gain - the Rapier battery and ..?! or on the Sturm, or on the Corneto Tigers?
      The country's economy will fly into the pipe with such a unification of the chassis. But the defense industry is violet. And so, cool, beautiful, smart, smart - once a year on Red Square ride.
      Of course, I understand that "there", "upstairs", people are more understanding on which chassis to release the Pine - the issue of upgrading the Arrows to Pines, as I understand it, is no longer worth it - right on the BMP-3 chassis.

      And it is necessary to discuss not the chassis, but the SAM itself.
      The article indicates the existence of a state recognition system. I don’t understand how this system and the “passive method of detecting and tracking targets” are combined, if only through “The complex can interact with third-party air defense systems”, and who then will transmit something to Sosna, for example, on a march.
      The detection range "up to 25-30 km (target like an airplane)" is in the steppe and in the case of a target flying at an altitude of several thousand meters? Suitable target for Pine .....
      The mammoth tusk is being sucked up at the KBP, that at Nudelman, as it seems to me, and these are marine themes of the end of the USSR
  5. Whowhy
    Whowhy 20 June 2019 08: 13 New
    +2
    Means of search and targeting of the Sosna air defense missile system are built on optical-electronic systems. This means that the detection, tracking and destruction of the target are possible only under the condition of direct optical visibility and depend on current conditions. Fog, precipitation and other meteorological phenomena can affect the operation of optics in real combat conditions. In addition, the optoelectronic station has a limited field of view, and the features of its installation on the launcher make it difficult to circular view.

    You can add to the complex a passive radar that responds to radiation and shows the attack vector, with the automatic turn of the tower in the direction of the threat and the subsequent automatic launch of missiles. In very bad weather, few people fly, and in a simply bad problem, there is a short period of time from target detection to attack.
  6. NEXUS
    NEXUS 20 June 2019 08: 18 New
    +4
    SAM “Sosna-R” has limited characteristics of range and altitude, because of which, to ensure full air defense, the Sosna complex must work together with other systems with a larger affected area.

    With what fright did the author decide that the limited range and altitude of this air defense system is a drawback? Pine is a short arm of air defense and range and altitude are embedded in its performance characteristics. It should not have the characteristics of C-500. The pine is replacing or in addition to Arrow-10.
    1. Adcapa
      Adcapa 20 June 2019 08: 50 New
      +1
      SAM "Sosna-R" has limited characteristics of range and altitude

      Also drew attention to this pearl. wassat However. when the complex is placed in a distant orbit with proper targeting after many many years, it will hit the target in another solar system. soldier here you have unlimited range wink
    2. Ka-52
      Ka-52 20 June 2019 09: 03 New
      -1
      NEXUS (Andrey) Today, 08: 18
      With what fright did the author decide that the limited range and altitude of this air defense system is a drawback? Pine is a short arm of air defense and range and altitude are embedded in its performance characteristics. It should not have the characteristics of C-500. The pine is replacing or in addition to Arrow-10.

      probably because if we compare 9M337 with 57E6E, then the characteristics of Sosny-R are certainly lower. Although both systems (Pine and Shell) - the near air defense zone.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 20 June 2019 09: 09 New
        +1
        Quote: Ka-52
        Although both systems (Pine and Shell) - near air defense.

        Now developed Shell-SM, with a missile with a range of 40 km against 20 at Shell-S1. And the radar sees twice as far. Therefore, we can say that the Shell-SM is a transitional complex from the complex of the middle hand to the middle.
      2. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 20 June 2019 10: 35 New
        +3
        Quote: Ka-52
        comparing 9М337 with 57Э6Е

        Actually ... for the "current" "Pines" is intended zur 9М340! Zur 9М337 was originally intended for the "Tunguska" RMS ... later, in fact, they were going to use it in "Pine RA" ... but finally they settled on 9М340.
      3. LastPS
        LastPS 20 June 2019 23: 51 New
        0
        Shell rockets are significantly more expensive.
  7. Operator
    Operator 20 June 2019 08: 55 New
    0
    Laser guidance in bad weather and smoke on the battlefield does not work from the word at all - so the "Pine" will not take off.

    On the basis of the BMP, it is required to deploy an all-weather air defense system with "Nails" from the Pantsyr and a radar radar, with the missiles being positioned vertically inside the armored hull, and not openly replaced by shrapnel from mines and shells.
    1. D16
      D16 20 June 2019 12: 13 New
      0
      On the basis of the BMP, it is required to deploy an all-weather air defense system with "Nails" from the "Shell" and with a radar of all-round visibility, with the missiles positioned vertically inside the armored corps, and not open with shrapnel from mines and shells

      Have tried. So far, Thor Morpheus has not yet come outlaughing .
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 20 June 2019 12: 53 New
      0
      Quote: Operator
      On the basis of the BMP is required to deploy all-weather air defense system with the "Nails" from the "Shell" and with the radar of the circular review, etc.

      Something like that, now develops "Techmash" ...
  8. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 20 June 2019 09: 49 New
    +2
    It would be nice to make a "cheap" option on an armored truck chassis. Kakmaz 6x6 will fully pull or Ural 6x6. And I wonder if these systems can complement (receive data) the Shell? It would be possible to increase the budget of the Shell Shell.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 20 June 2019 12: 57 New
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      It would be nice to make a "cheap" option on the armored truck chassis.

      Hmmm ... the first samples of the "Shell" were mounted precisely on the chassis of the truck ... even, not armored. wink And the 30-mm guns were taken from the BMP-2 ... laughing
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 20 June 2019 14: 34 New
        0
        And then there’s no pushe, 4 tons of radar .... Typhoon-K / U with an armored cab is quite suitable ...
      2. Tamer
        Tamer 20 June 2019 15: 13 New
        0
        I assume that the first "chassis" of the Shell was a "steamboat" wink
        And about 2А42 on the shell for me news belay
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 21 June 2019 00: 16 New
          0
          Quote: Tamer
          And about 2А42 on the shell for me news

          I have to apologize to you ... I "made a reservation"! repeat Not the BMP-2 had to be specified, but the BMP-3! And the guns are not 2А42, but 2А72 ...
          The Primary Armor (somewhere 1994 ...) had 2А72 guns, 9М335 guns and was located on the Ural-5323.4 chassis ... was not intended for ground forces (not military ZRK ...) , and for air defense (protection of rear objects ...) hi
  9. riwas
    riwas 20 June 2019 09: 56 New
    +1
    On the optoelectronic target tracking station (OSS SSC) for anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems in my article:
    http://www.sinor.ru/~bukren12/asimm_otvet3.htm
  10. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 20 June 2019 10: 51 New
    +2
    9М340 is the predecessor of 9M337 ... The 9M337 was developed first for the Tunguska RRMS, used for testing the first modifications (variants) of the Sosny, used for the Palma shipboard RCP ... . range-8 km; on height-3,5 km .... 9М340-nakl.dal-t-10 km; Altitude-5 km
    9М337-БЧ-5 kg .... 9М340-БЧ-7 kg; 9М337-speed-m-s-1200 9M340-speed-m-s-900
    1. Pushkowed
      Pushkowed 20 June 2019 12: 35 New
      +5
      The most important difference: the method of guidance.
      9М337 - radio command; 9М340 - laser beam (as on the Kornet ATGM).
      Laser guidance creates big problems with paired launches (if it doesn't make them impossible at all): only one 1 rocket can go along one beam, i.e. to increase the probability of hitting a target by launching several missiles on it is problematic (it is not clear how many laser channels the Pine has; if 1, then you will have to say goodbye to paired launches).

      Both methods require continuous tracking of the target until the moment of defeat (in the first case - by a radar beam, in the second - visually). No homing (and the "Arrow-10" was).

      Since there are no radars on the Pine (and there is no radio command transmitter), firing with old missiles (from the Tunguska and the Shell) is impossible. Since they have similar TPKs (possibly generally of the same type), this can create problems in combat nutrition.

      The only interesting point is the possibility of using armor-piercing warheads. These are clearly not against air targets. Perhaps “Pine” is a universal carrier, incl. and for the promising long-range missile system Hermes.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 20 June 2019 13: 07 New
        +2
        Quote: Pushkowed
        The most important difference: the method of guidance.
        9М337 - radio command; 9М340 - laser beam (as on the Kornet ATGM).

        Not exactly ... Yes, when 9М337 was developed for Tunguska, the original idea was radio command guidance ... but then (as they say, in some articles ...), the suhr decided to "adapt" and to the Pine complex -R". This is how "laser-beam" guidance on the 9М337 was achieved ... In general, both the 9М337 and 9М340-guidance systems are similar: on the initial section, the radio command ... on the "rest" - "laser-beam" ...
  11. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 20 June 2019 11: 05 New
    +3
    To modernize the Strela-10М ... air defense missile system, it would be better to have adapted the 9-M342 (Igla-S MANPADS)! Dual-band IK.GSN would be “modernized” into a dual-mode hsn (IK.GSN + laser hsn). And it would be good for the happiness!
    1. D16
      D16 20 June 2019 12: 23 New
      +3
      The main advantage of rockets of the Pine, Shell, Tunguska family is their relative cheapness and noise immunity. There is no GOS. Neither IR nor laser. Pine Rocket is induced as an ATGM Cornet. Shell and Tunguska as ATGM Attack.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 20 June 2019 13: 12 New
        +1
        Or maybe enough hope only on "remote-controlled" rockets? Maybe we should remember the saying: "I am not so rich to buy cheap things!" ?
        1. D16
          D16 20 June 2019 20: 40 New
          0
          If the military is happy with the complex, then why pay more? You can take the S-350 and load it with 9M100 missiles for all the money, you get about what you want. It remains a little. Shove everything into one BMP-3 or BMD-4 and make it drop laughing .
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 20 June 2019 13: 11 New
      +2
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      For the modernization of the Strela-10M ... air defense system, it would be better to adapt the 9M342 zur (Igla-S MANPADS)!

      But this is wrecking - to make self-propelled air defense systems based on MANPADS.
      Because the MANPADS all TTX (range, mass warheads) brought to the detriment of the possibility of carrying the calculation. While the complex remains portable, this decrease in TTX is compensated by its stealth (two people with a pipe) and ubiquity (in Afghanistan, perfumes equipped positions on the tops of the mountains to raise the ceiling of MANPADS). As soon as we put MANPADS on the chassis, we can immediately forget about stealth and patency. But truncated performance characteristics do not disappear anywhere. And we get a self-propelled target, the missile range of which is less than the range of the ATGM potential enemy.

      It was not for nothing that even when creating the first self-propelled regimental air defense missile system Strela-1, both the designers and the military refused the simplest way - to arm it with already developed SAM systems from MANPADS, and decided to make a heavier missile with better performance characteristics.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 20 June 2019 13: 37 New
        0
        But do not confuse the 9М31 zur with the warhead = 2,35 kg and 9М32 with the warhead = 1,17 kg. The difference is 2 times! Zura 9M37 (included in the ammunition Strela-10 ... ") have warheads = 3 kg, and zur 9М342 with warheads = 2,5 kg (MANPADS" Needle-S ") .. not a very big difference! Moreover, the air defense missile systems with MANPADS are available! Well, you don’t like the MANPADS, take 9М37or 9М333, which you can call the GSN "dual mode" because They have IR sensors and photocontrast (light-blue) sensors ... "Enhance" the photocontrast sensor "under the laser beam" and try to get a "two-mode" GOS (IK.HSS + laser GOS)!
      2. Pushkowed
        Pushkowed 20 June 2019 15: 31 New
        +2
        Not in vain, even when creating the first self-propelled regimental air defense missile system "Strela-1", both the designers and the military refused the simplest way - to arm it with already developed SAMs from MANPADS
        Not certainly in that way. When Strela-1 was developed, there were no MANPADS in the USSR. It was she who was supposed to be the first. But it did not work out in terms of mass and size - instead of MANPADS, it was necessary to sculpt a self-propelled gun on a wheeled chassis from it. And the first Soviet MANPADS was the competing Strela-2 project.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 20 June 2019 19: 06 New
          0
          Quote: Pushkowed
          Not certainly in that way. When Strela-1 was developed, there were no MANPADS in the USSR. It was she who was supposed to be the first. But it did not work out in terms of mass and size - instead of MANPADS, it was necessary to sculpt a self-propelled gun on a wheeled chassis from it.

          Not certainly in that way.
          Initially, Strela-1 was indeed designed as a MANPADS. And he lost the Strela-2 MANPADS.
          But when creating the regiment of self-propelled SAM "Strela-1" they refused to use the previously developed SAM "Strela-1" and blinded a heavier missile at its base.
          For the expedient use of the Strela-1 complex in the troops, the GKOT leadership appealed to the Customer and the Government with a proposal to establish for this air defense system higher requirements for a maximum range of destruction (up to 5 km) and reach in height (up to 3500 m), abandoning the portable execution of the complex and going to the air defense system with placement on a car chassis. It was envisaged to increase the mass of the rocket from 15 to 25 kg, diameter - from 100 to 120 mm, length from 1,25 to 1,8 m.
          © Said Aminov
  12. Pushkowed
    Pushkowed 20 June 2019 12: 07 New
    +2
    It’s interesting what channel it has in terms of goals (of course, only for those that deign at the same time are in the sector of the review of optics). At short range you have to fight not so much with airplanes as with high-precision weapons. And they fly extremely rarely alone.
  13. garri-lin
    garri-lin 20 June 2019 14: 02 New
    +2
    Again Cyril on the topic did not taste!
  14. Private-K
    Private-K 20 June 2019 14: 13 New
    +4
    1. Organically inherent properties of weapons cannot be considered disadvantages! Nobody demands from Ak74 the ability to hit targets at 1000 m. So from a short-range air defense system, which is positioned as a short-range air defense system (and also relatively inexpensive), one should not require a longer range. You can complain that they would like to 12-14 km in range, but what is there is already very good in itself.
    2. To compare the driving characteristics of the MT-LB and BMP-3 as the same is the height of incompetence. BMP-3 is an SUV limousine, and MT-LB like GAZ-69, the same age, by the way. MT-LB is a completely obsolete design that is as simple as possible for tractor cheapness - it was ideologically laid. The chassis of the BMP-3 is a level three heads higher in all respects. Blaming the increase in weight from 12-13 to 19-20 tons is complete nonsense. I'm not talking about the fact that for a 3,5m motor-bike load is much more significant and more influential on driving performance than for the BMP-3 chassis. Therefore, the comprehensive mobility characteristic of Pine on the BMP-3 chassis will be MUCH higher than on the MT-LB chassis; and the comfort of the crew - here is generally incomparable.
    3. OES Pines just has a circular view with the possibility of simultaneous (!) More detailed viewing of the selected sector.
    4. Increased secrecy of work and guarantees increased combat stability - ie these air defense systems will be less likely to be affected by the enemy’s ASA than if they had radar and radio command lines. Therefore, according to a balanced assessment, it is possible to endure difficulties with shooting in heavy rain or fog: the more so since they also affect aviation and TSA.
    5. Lack of specialized TZM = lack of additional costs for ensuring combat work. The fatigue of crews from overloading ammunition is treated using the regular method - the presence of additional soldiers on standard battery machines that will transport bk (and they will be necessary!).
    In general, the criticism was useless and did not touch upon the really significant shortcomings of this particular air defense system, but some of its negative features, which should be countered by appropriate measures.
    1. Tamer
      Tamer 20 June 2019 15: 58 New
      +2
      Quote: Private-K

      3. OES Pines just has a circular view with the possibility of simultaneous (!) More detailed viewing of the selected sector.

      A circular overview of the ECO is ensured by the operation of the general drive of the SAM module as a whole? Or a separate ECO drive (I don’t see it)? and the ECO module is non-retractable. Rather, the field of view of the television and thermal imaging channels within the sector between the TPK SAM. I don’t see thermal and television cameras "in a circle" either. How is it implemented "all-round visibility with the possibility of simultaneous (!) more detailed viewing of the selected sector"? Detailed view sectors in the sector between TPK?
    2. PilotS37
      PilotS37 20 June 2019 17: 54 New
      +2
      I would also say that at such ranges the main objective of the air defense system will be helicopters and UAVs.
      They mainly use missiles with the same laser or with thermal seekers (by the way, and most ISs are equipped with missiles with the same types of seekers). In bad weather, these aircraft, if they fly, can’t precisely launch their missiles. So the "Pine" is losing effectiveness simultaneously with your counterparts (well, and to hell with him!).
      But the fact that it is difficult to detect it with airborne radars is a fat plus.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 21 June 2019 00: 15 New
        +1
        Quote: PilotS37
        But the fact that it is difficult to detect it with airborne radars is a fat plus

        And what is the difficulty of detecting an iron tank with a radar in an open field? And the heads, as you yourself said, are infrared, which will be pointed at the engine and not at the radar.
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 21 June 2019 14: 20 New
          0
          I believe that the person has expressed himself incorrectly - it should be read: radar radiation (SOC and SN) is easily detected.
          But the difficulties are really enough. There are quite a lot of armored objects on the battlefield, and it’s difficult to understand that this is an air defense missile system (second place in the priority list), and not just There, on the battlefield, there are natural and artificial obstacles, in particular, smoke curtains. By the way, they work not only in the visual range - in infrared and radar, too. And there is a means of reducing visibility - the same Cape
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 21 June 2019 21: 03 New
            0
            Quote: sivuch
            There are quite a lot of armored objects on the battlefield and it’s difficult to understand that this is an air defense missile system (second place in the list of priorities),

            They usually try to knock out armored vehicles on the march. You don’t use “Cape” there and you will not set false goals. Well, a good tool against many goals is massaging the attack. The Americans spent 5000 Mavericks during the Desert Storm. And the first missile there went to the air defense system or the fifth is no longer important. It is important whether this SAM can repulse missiles in any noticeable amount.
  15. riwas
    riwas 20 June 2019 15: 28 New
    +2
    Is it possible to add a 57-mm cannon to the Sosna air defense system?
    On the BMP may not fit, but on wheels it is possible. Allows you to save on appliances.
  16. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 20 June 2019 17: 27 New
    +2
    The main disadvantage is one target channel. If the short-range anti-aircraft defense of the armament launched by Strela-10 and MANPADS Strela had opponents F-104 and F-5Е, now from the same Ukraine one can expect a volley of MLRS "Alder" (an analogue of the Soviet "Smerch"). The old joke between the air defense system and the RTV: At the S-300 6 air defense division of the target channels, and at the 6 radio engineering battalion Igla MANPADS, both can shoot down six aircraft. So here, 12 missiles (good missiles) of “Pine” on any chassis with one target channel will lose to the separation of 6 MANPADS shooters (with the same “Needle”) and transported BC in 12 missiles on the same chassis.
    1. Private-K
      Private-K 23 June 2019 17: 33 New
      0
      The shooting channel there, though one, but double - allows you to simultaneously shoot two missiles at once. This allows, with a guarantee of over 1,0, to hit the CC.
      The second shooting channel, of course, is good, but "Where is the money Zin?" In the NE must be delivered from 400 to 800 such air defense systems.
      By the way, you do not show me to a foreign air defense system with this ability? And what would it be serial and not 12 pieces for all aircraft? About identity.
      But to finalize the Sosna air defense system so that it would be possible to shoot SAM from it with an IR GSN (the same Willows or Needles) - it would be very useful.
      1. Tamer
        Tamer 24 June 2019 10: 39 New
        0
        Krotal?

        Quote: Private-K
        over 1,0 hit the AC
        How's that?
        1. Private-K
          Private-K 26 June 2019 20: 12 New
          0
          In conditions close to ideal, SAM Pine should have a likelihood of AC damage close to 0,9-0,95. But in reality there are no such conditions. Therefore, another indicator is taken for the base, taking into account the weather and interference conditions, the nature of the CC, etc., etc. Shooting with two missiles overlaps the required indicator and is more than 1,0 in real conditions.
          1. Tamer
            Tamer 27 June 2019 21: 22 New
            0
            Quote: Private-K
            is over 1,0

            Do not more )) simple enough 1
        2. Private-K
          Private-K 26 June 2019 20: 13 New
          0
          Krotal? I do not remember about him. He is old. Almost like me.
          1. Tamer
            Tamer 27 June 2019 21: 28 New
            0
            Quote: Private-K
            Krotal? I do not remember about him. He is old. Almost like me.

            Well, then the domestic defense industry does nothing new, only candy wrappers change
            1. Private-K
              Private-K 28 June 2019 08: 30 New
              0
              Krotal is a radio commandant. And - very expensive. And - yes, from a reputable reputable manufacturer.
              Fantik change this change the name. SAM Pine a completely new SAM. So what can I say “change of candy wrapper” - either lie, or do not understand the essence.
              1. Tamer
                Tamer 28 June 2019 10: 18 New
                0
                You asked - I answered. Krotal - exclusively a radio command, ECO is not there))

                What's new in Pine? ECO? Laser rangefinder? I don’t offend the rocket)) The development of the marine theme of thirty years, if not forty years ago, was shoved on a land platform, brought the offal into line with more or less modern technologies - got a new complex)) Is the complex better than the Arrows? Yes. Fundamentally new? No.
                I asked you questions based on your comments on Pine criticism in the article, but I didn’t hear an answer.
                1. Private-K
                  Private-K 29 June 2019 09: 43 New
                  -2
                  Do you need a fundamentally new weapon, on fundamentally new principles, what would fundamentally consider it to be fundamentally new? ;)))
                  Before Pine there were two laser-guided air defense systems: the Swedish RBS-70 / -90 (successful and successful) and the British Starstrik (not accepted by anyone). Yes, Pine is not fundamentally new. The principles and elements used on it are well known. But this does not make the Sosna air defense missile system a “new wrapper”. The long tempering of the topic is due to the well-known "holy 90s" and the presence of Strel-10 masses in the troops (who are also trying to modernize and modernize everything).
                  What could be new in underpants? ;) But you are buying NEW underpants, and not all the time patched up, washed over old ones? ;)
  17. APASUS
    APASUS 20 June 2019 21: 50 New
    0
    VPK-39273 Wolf 6 × 6 seems to have a modular system, why not put it on it, with a payload capacity of up to 4,5 tons. Just suitable for landing.
    1. Private-K
      Private-K 23 June 2019 17: 34 New
      0
      The Wolves theme has long since died.
      In fact, other basic machines. And, quite possibly, we will see those for parts on the same wheeled armored personnel carriers.
  18. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 21 June 2019 00: 23 New
    +1
    SAM “Sosna-R” has limited characteristics of range and altitude, because of which, to ensure full air defense, the Sosna complex must work together with other systems with a larger affected area.

    I saw several articles about Pine, but still did not understand, could this kit work on enemy missiles? So the good old AGM-65 Maverick from 1969 works at a range of up to 30 km. It is unlikely that it will be possible to intercept a Pine plane or a helicopter with such a missile, it simply will not come close. But there is no clear answer about the possibility of intercepting the same Maverick or ATGM of the enemy Pine. It's a pity.
    1. Private-K
      Private-K 23 June 2019 17: 39 New
      0
      1. Yes, Pine also works on ASP. Maverick reliably gets off. The goal is old, and many summers are among the top priorities.
      2. The fact that the attack helicopter of the enemy poking the existing SAM systems Pine (etc.) does not reach firing positions and does not hit the troops - this is a win. Sobsno, the goal of air defense is not to bring down planes, etc., the enemy’s aircraft, and not to allow them to strike at your troops.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 23 June 2019 18: 20 New
        0
        Quote: Private-K
        Sobsno, the goal of air defense is not to bring down planes, etc., the enemy’s aircraft, and not to allow them to strike at your troops.

        And how can this Pine "not allow"? The range of aircraft weapons, from the Mavericks to the planning bombs, significantly exceeds the available 10 km Pine. There is no doubt that the enemy with impunity will work on armored vehicles with everything that is at hand. This raises questions about the purpose and appropriateness of a system of this class.
  19. E.S.
    E.S. 16 August 2019 01: 22 New
    0
    Quote: Pushkowed
    The most important difference: the method of guidance.
    9М337 - radio command; 9М340 - laser beam (as on the Kornet ATGM).
    Laser guidance creates big problems with paired launches (if it doesn't make them impossible at all): only one 1 rocket can go along one beam, i.e. to increase the probability of hitting a target by launching several missiles on it is problematic (it is not clear how many laser channels the Pine has; if 1, then you will have to say goodbye to paired launches).

    Both methods require continuous tracking of the target until the moment of defeat (in the first case - by a radar beam, in the second - visually). No homing (and the "Arrow-10" was).

    Since there are no radars on the Pine (and there is no radio command transmitter), firing with old missiles (from the Tunguska and the Shell) is impossible. Since they have similar TPKs (possibly generally of the same type), this can create problems in combat nutrition.

    The only interesting point is the possibility of using armor-piercing warheads. These are clearly not against air targets. Perhaps “Pine” is a universal carrier, incl. and for the promising long-range missile system Hermes.

    Here's about shooting with one missile with a laser guidance is especially funny :-)
    You should at least google some videos, the right word, even uncomfortable for you :-)
    And about bad weather it’s also very funny, well they didn’t say anything about noise immunity either :-)
  20. E.S.
    E.S. 16 August 2019 01: 29 New
    0
    Quote: Saxahorse
    SAM “Sosna-R” has limited characteristics of range and altitude, because of which, to ensure full air defense, the Sosna complex must work together with other systems with a larger affected area.

    I saw several articles about Pine, but still did not understand, could this kit work on enemy missiles? So the good old AGM-65 Maverick from 1969 works at a range of up to 30 km. It is unlikely that it will be possible to intercept a Pine plane or a helicopter with such a missile, it simply will not come close. But there is no clear answer about the possibility of intercepting the same Maverick or ATGM of the enemy Pine. It's a pity.

    Get closer to what? The location of the Pine is unknown, it can be under any bush and it is extremely difficult to catch a purely passive and very mobile air defense system. And the radar of detection is autonomous and works in automatic mode, it will be turned off one - the other will work, but for the time being they will take out the first - they will cut off everything that shoots
  21. E.S.
    E.S. 16 August 2019 01: 36 New
    0
    Quote: Private-K
    Do you need a fundamentally new weapon, on fundamentally new principles, what would fundamentally consider it to be fundamentally new? ;)))
    Before Pine there were two laser-guided air defense systems: the Swedish RBS-70 / -90 (successful and successful) and the British Starstrik (not accepted by anyone). Yes, Pine is not fundamentally new. The principles and elements used on it are well known. But this does not make the Sosna air defense missile system a “new wrapper”. The long tempering of the topic is due to the well-known "holy 90s" and the presence of Strel-10 masses in the troops (who are also trying to modernize and modernize everything).
    What could be new in underpants? ;) But you are buying NEW underpants, and not all the time patched up, washed over old ones? ;)

    In this case, the new underpants are clearly self-donning, self-tightening and have telepathic abilities.
    From a quiet reading of the open part of the TTX from official sources, this follows in an obvious way