On the threshold of a great future. “Vityaz” air defense system in 2019 year

57
The development of all types of Russian air defense continues, and in this context, the current 2019 is one of the most important periods. In recent months, officials have repeatedly revealed plans for new developments, including on the Vityaz C-350 anti-aircraft missile system. It was reported that already this year the domestic air defense will receive the first production model of the new air defense system.





Recent past


In the last days of last year, the Russian Defense Ministry reported that several new anti-aircraft systems would be handed over to the 2019 Army. Together with other products in the unit will go C-350. In early March, new details appeared. Then it became known that by the end of the year the first Vityaz complexes would be available to the Military Academy of Aerospace Defense of them. Marshal G.K. Zhukov. With the help of such equipment, the Academy will be engaged in the preparation of calculations for the front-line air defense missile systems.

12 on April, within the framework of the Unified Day of Military Acceptance, new messages on С-350 were heard. It was alleged that by this time the complex had passed state tests and carried out successful launches of anti-aircraft missiles. All this allowed to start the assembly of the first serial air defense missile system.

June 19 information about the success of the project "Knight" received confirmation at the highest level. During the meeting of the Collegium of the Ministry of Defense, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu recalled the successful completion of the development of the C-350 air defense missile system with enhanced fire capabilities. However, he did not give other details of this project.

The Minister said that this year, aerospace forces, including those responsible for air defense, will receive 205 samples of new equipment and weapons. According to the results of such deliveries, the share of modern products will reach 82%. The purchase of promising air defense and missile defense systems has been identified as a priority, and this fact is an incentive for the launch of the Vityaz and the development of other air defense systems.

Near future


All the main plans of the industry and the army for the near future in relation to the C-350 air defense system have already been defined and known. The next event with the participation of "Vityaz" will be just a few days. A prospective sample is planned to be shown at the Army-2019 exhibition. It should be noted that it will not be a novelty for visitors: this technique has already been demonstrated several times at domestic events. However, the first demonstration of the complex in its final form, corresponding to the appearance of future production samples, is expected.

Over the next few months, the construction of the first serial air defense system will end with its transfer to the Military Academy of the VKS. This will be followed by the start of personnel. Plans for the second and subsequent serial "Vityaz" has not yet been officially announced. However, it is obvious that the appearance of these complexes should be expected in the very near future. They may already be at different stages of construction, and their transfer to the customer will take place in the current or next year.



Also in the near future is expected the emergence of a decision on the adoption of the C-350 in service with the Russian army. Such a document will become the official point in the development program of a new air defense system. Further, there will be only "everyday" production and operation in the army.

Goals for the future


The Vityaz S-350 air defense missile system was developed taking into account the general plans for the updating and modernization of the Russian air defense system. This system should replace several aging obsolete samples. It will also provide an increase in combat capability necessary to counter modern and prospective threats.

"Vityaz" was developed as a replacement for the old C-300P / PS. Earlier it was planned that the complexes of these modifications will complete their service no later than 2015, and by this time the transfer of parts to new C-350 will begin. Certain difficulties led to a change in the original schedule, but the essence of the modernization remained the same. Air defense units of the VKS will receive a completely new technique instead of obsolete.

There is still an open question about the timing and volume of serial production of "Vityazi". In the past, it was reported that in 2010-15. write off the order of fifty C-300P / PS, which could indicate the required number of air defense missile systems to replace them. However, in official statements this question was not disclosed. The same with the terms. Obviously, the production of several dozen C-350 will take more than one year, but how long it will continue is not specified. Making a plausible estimate based on the available data is also not possible.

However, it is already clear what role the new C-350 will receive. It will have to replace the outdated C-300P / PS systems and supplement the systems of the C-300 family of later modifications, as well as modern C-400. In the future, promising C-500 complexes will join this technique. In the distant future, C-400, C-500 and C-350 will form the basis of object defense. Complexes of several types will be able to provide developed echeloned defense with the possibility of intercepting aerodynamic and ballistic targets in a wide range of ranges and heights.

In the recent past, a version was circulated, according to which the “Vityaz” could also enter military air defense. In this case, he had to replace the Buk-M1 self-propelled complexes. However, according to the latest data, the C-350 will serve only in the air defense and missile defense forces.

New benefits


The Vityaz C-350 SAM system was created to replace the older C-300P / PS and is markedly different from it. The presence of such differences is due to the specifics of modern threats and the development of air attack weapons. In addition, measures were taken to simplify the complex and increase the efficiency of its operation.



The C-350 complex includes several fixed assets built on self-propelled chassis. These are the launcher 50P6E, the command post of the 50K6E and the radar 50H6E, the 9М96 and 9М100 guided missiles, as well as a set of auxiliary systems and machines. The air defense missile system of this configuration can quickly go to a given position and carry out deployment. Interaction with other air defense missile systems and command and control devices is provided.

The 50P6E launcher transports and can use different types of 12 missiles, while several batteries are included in one battery, which increases the overall ammunition load. The 9М96 and 9М100 missiles are capable of intercepting air targets in the near zone and at medium ranges. The launch range reaches 120 km; The maximum target speed is 1 km / s.

In terms of architecture, the C-350 ADMS has advantages over the C-300П / ПС. In the latter was used so-called. launch complex - a system of one main and two additional launchers with four missiles each. Thus, the battery "Vityaz" with the same size of ammunition is smaller and more convenient to transport. The same number of installations, respectively, allows to increase the total ammunition.

The build-up of ready-to-use ammunition gives the Vityaz additional advantages. In this configuration C-350 will be able to more effectively counteract massive air strikes. The experience of recent conflicts shows the relevance of such threats and the need for preparedness for them.

Stage 2019 year


Designing promising C-350 Vityaz lasted several years. In 2013, the industry built the first prototype of such a system. Later, multi-stage testing began, the completion of which was reported in April. Now the construction of serial equipment for use in training purposes, and then there will be samples for use in the troops.

Thus, 2019 was of great importance both for the C-350 complex and for the air defense and missile defense forces. However, the current plans for the modernization of the armed forces provide for the most active and continuous development of air defense and missile defense. Therefore, it is worth expecting that the next 2020 will be equally important for the air defense and security of the country as a whole.
57 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    21 June 2019 05: 57
    Now, when there is information that the complex began to be purchased for the army, that it was adopted, then we will rejoice! I will come out as with a mass of military models of equipment shown to the country, and not accepted for some unknown reason into the arsenal of the country.
    1. +5
      21 June 2019 07: 24
      Quote: Thrifty
      Now, when there is information that the complex began to be purchased for the army, that it was adopted, then we will rejoice! I will come out as with a mass of military models of equipment shown to the country, and not accepted for some unknown reason into the arsenal of the country.

      =======
      You read the article CAREFULLY ?? What is written there? "...the first complexes "Vityaz" until the end of the year will be available to the Military Academy of Aerospace Defense. Marshal G.K. Zhukov. Using this technique, the Academy will prepare calculations for combat air defense systems..... "
      And why is it incomprehensible? If enters the TRAINING CENTERS, then the troops will be 100 pounds!
      1. -9
        21 June 2019 17: 33
        And you? The difference in verbs will come and come - feel? If not, then you should learn the times in Russian.
      2. +3
        22 June 2019 10: 50
        The fact that the Su-57 will arrive in 2016, Armata - in 2015, then in 2017, the same air defense system Vityaz - will be put into service in 2017. This is according to the most striking weapons that the whole country is waiting for, because they promised
    2. -1
      22 June 2019 02: 53
      And even when information appears on the price of Vityaz missiles compared to Buk-M3 missiles. They wrote that ~ 30 times more.
  2. +2
    21 June 2019 06: 57
    SAM S-350 is just entering service and therefore there are enough "bewildered" questions! For example, 12 zur ... wouldn't it be enough? After all, the S-300PM2 can "take" a maximum of 16 missiles. 2. For some reason, practically, Zur 9M100 is not mentioned in connection with the S-350 .. What will be its "functions"? What is the expected ratio of 9M96 and 9M100 on PU? in the battery? Will it be necessary, in the presence of 9M100, to cover the S-350 with "Pantsir"? Isn't it advisable to "combine" the launcher with the 9M96 with an additional compact launcher for "anti-aircraft nails" similar to the American MNTK?
    1. +14
      21 June 2019 08: 02
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      After all, the S-300PM2 can "take" a maximum of 16 missiles.

      ========
      Yes! 16 missiles - BUT! On the 4 (four) PU. On 4 launchers S-350 is placed 48 (forty eight) rockets !!! Those. - three times more!
      ----
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      For some reason, practically, Zur 9M100 is not mentioned in connection with the S-350 ..

      =========
      Why is this "not mentioned"? It is also mentioned quite often (for example: http://vimpel-v.com/guns/armor/zrk/1112-zrk-vityaz-s-350.html) ...
      -----
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      What will be its "functions"?

      =======
      Do you have any idea? Work at short distances on heat-contrasting targets in the face of strong radio opposition of the enemy.
      --------
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      What is the estimated ratio of 9М96 and 9м100 on PU? in the battery?

      =======
      Whatever, depending on the situation. In the photo, usually 2-4 starting glasses of smaller dimensions (obviously 9М100).
      -------
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Will it be necessary, in the presence of 9M100, to cover the S-350 with "Pantsir"?

      =======
      Again, it depends on the setting and situation. If the probability of shelling the complex (MLRS, mortars, etc.) is high enough, then YES, it probably makes sense to cover the S-350 with "Pantsyry" or "Torah", and if not, then they somehow seem to him and unnecessarily ....
      1. +3
        21 June 2019 08: 09
        Quote: venik
        If the probability of shelling the complex (MLRS, mortars, etc.) is high enough, then YES, it probably makes sense to cover the S-350 with "Pantsyry" or "Torah"

        And will they help?
        1. +7
          21 June 2019 12: 57
          Quote: Spade
          And will they help?

          =========
          Well, if you judge by the situation in Tartus ... That sort of like VERY EVEN

          Pay attention to the results of firing on rockets!
          Sincerely, Venik!
          1. -1
            21 June 2019 15: 14
            Quote: venik
            Well, if you judge by the situation in Tartus ... That sort of like VERY EVEN

            May be...
            Then the next question: how many "Thors" or "Shells" are needed to destroy at least 20 missiles in about 240 seconds?
            1. +6
              21 June 2019 15: 35
              And where did this -240 figure come from?
              1. +3
                21 June 2019 15: 44
                Quote: sivuch
                And where did this -240 figure come from?

                The norm for BM-21 and targets like "Radar, a group of radar or radio stations on cars, batteries (platoons) of self-propelled SAM systems with a unified guidance system, located openly"
                No "markups". With them, more.
                1. +9
                  21 June 2019 16: 27
                  as I understand it, the S-350 belongs to the country's air defense and should not even be in the BM-21 affected area. And if she is there, so universal Tryndets
                  1. 0
                    21 June 2019 17: 24
                    Quote: sivuch
                    as I understand it, the S-350 belongs to the country's air defense and should not even be in the BM-21 affected area.

                    The question is not for me.

                    Quote: venik
                    If the probability of shelling the complex (MLRS, mortars, etc.) is high enough, then YES, it probably makes sense to cover the S-350 with "Pantsyry" or "Torah", and if not, then they somehow seem to him and unnecessarily ....
      2. +3
        21 June 2019 08: 24
        Quote: venik
        Yes! 16 missiles - BUT! On the 4 (four) PU. On the 4 PU C-350 fits 48 (forty-eight) missiles !!! Those. - three times more!

        What is it like ? belay Where is my calculator? C-300 PM2 / C-400 ... 1 PU-4 TPK under the aura 48H6 ... 1 TPK (48H6) = 4 9М96 ...; 1 PU = 4 TPK (48H6) x 4 9М96 = 16 9М96 ... 1 PU = 16 SUR 9М96! Sixteen, Karl! wink (as often found in the comments ... lol )
        Quote: venik
        What is the estimated ratio of 9М96 and 9м100 on PU? in the battery?

        =======
        Whatever, depending on the situation. In the photo, usually 2-4 starting glasses of smaller dimensions (obviously 9М100).
        -------

        Did not notice ! I will try to pay attention! hi
        1. +3
          21 June 2019 08: 38
          PS 1 PU = 16 sur 9М96 ... And if you take your 4 PU, then 64 sur 9М96 ... sir!
          1. +8
            21 June 2019 11: 31
            PS 1 PU = 16 sur 9М96 ... And if you take your 4 PU, then 64 sur 9М96 ... sir!

            It’s better to show it once, for clarity, otherwise many people don’t understand where 16 came from
          2. +1
            21 June 2019 11: 56
            Apparently, Broom is not aware that 1 SAM 400M300 can be placed in 2 TPK S-4 or S-9PM100.
            1. +8
              21 June 2019 14: 05
              Quote: kjhg
              Apparently, Broom is not aware that 1 SAM 400M300 can be placed in 2 TPK S-4 or S-9PM100.

              =========
              Broom - aware that in one TPK S-400 or S-300PM2 can be placed not 4 9M100 missiles, but as many 5 (five!) SAM 9M100 !!!
              Only after that the S-400 turns into ("... trousers turn ... trousers turn ... into elegant shorts ... Excuse me:" a little technical "problem" ...)

              If 5 9M100 missiles are loaded into each S-400 container ...... "Triumph" turns ... "Triumph" turns ... into "Elegant, improved ...." Arrow-10M !!!! !!
              Congratulations to you !!!
              PS Regards, Venik! tongue
              1. -4
                21 June 2019 14: 59
                Quote: venik
                "Triumph" turns ... "Triumph" turns into ... "Elegant, improved ...." Arrow-10M !!!!!!
                Congratulations to you !!!
                PS Regards, Venik!

                Laughter for no reason is a sign of ... incomprehensibility! I would not like to answer your comment here ... And not because of the "maliciousness", but because the "problem" you mentioned, I "highlighted" today in a commentary to the article "about the S-400"! hi
                1. -1
                  21 June 2019 17: 36
                  So he has a reason. 9M100 with a range of 15km - this is not even close to 9M96D with a range of 120km. Why, then, missiles completely different class and capabilities equal? Not good - juggling, and even cheating.
                  1. 0
                    21 June 2019 23: 04
                    And who and where "equals"? request Yes, both 9M96 and 9M100 were mentioned, but with a different "sauce"! And what does the "alignment" have to do with it? request
            2. +2
              21 June 2019 14: 51
              I understand that you meant: "... 4 SAM 9M96 ..." hi
        2. +4
          21 June 2019 12: 50
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          What is it like ? belay Where is my calculator? S-300 PM2 / S-400 ... 1 PU-4 TPK for zur 48N6 ... 1 TPK (48N6) = 4 9M96 ...; 1 PU = 4 TPK (48N6) x 4 9M96 = 16 9M96 ... 1 PU = 16 zur 9M96! Sixteen, Carl! wink (as often seen in comments ... lol)

          ========
          Oooh, how "everything is running"! ..... Ie Do you think that someone "in their right mind and sober memory" is going to load into the S-400 ONLY 9M96 missiles ???
          Well clean theoretically - it's possible! But in this case - it (S-400) will turn into S-359 (but only MUCH more expensive (well, somewhere in 2.5 - 4 times!) ..... It turns out FULL Stupidity - use the FAR complex EXCLUSIVELY for intercepting targets at MIDDLE distances? This is NONSENSE!
          I’ll tell you even more: And if ALL missiles are replaced by 9M100, then even 20 (twenty) will fit there! But just WHAT imbitsil will do this ???
          Yes! S-400 - tried to make universal (and this - good!). By the way, it was really planned to install 4-core PU 9M96 - EXCLUSIVELY for increasing ammunition, for firing at targets that managed to break through from the far zone - to a medium distance!
          At the same time, it was NOT assumed that for each PU there would be more than 1 quad-container 9M96!

          Well, if something is not clear - WRITE SIR!
          1. -6
            21 June 2019 15: 10
            Thank you for your kind permission to bring your opinion to you and thereby try to correct your "misunderstanding"! I dare not dare to unduly occupy your attention in this answer, spreading my thoughts along the tree of time and simply informing you, sir, that my comment to the article "S-400" can serve as an answer to your "perplexities". So I hasten to take my leave! hi
          2. 0
            21 June 2019 17: 22
            Probably, before "being clever", it is worth "turning on the mind"! In the S-300 (and S-400) complex, a 48N6E missile can be used with a slope range of 150 km and an altitude of 27 km ... range-9 km (met and 96 km ...) and height-120 km ... What is the "flaw" in replacing 150N30E missiles with 48M6E9 missiles? request
            The fact that the option demonstrates, where 3 TPK (48N6) + 1 TPK (4 x 9M96), this can be explained by the "configuration established by the charter"! In addition: the 9M96 missiles have just been brought "to mind", and only now they are beginning to think about how the 9M96 can be used in the S-300/400 air defense system ...
        3. +2
          21 June 2019 12: 58
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          Did not notice ! I will try to pay attention!

          ======
          I'll try to search in my "archives" - I will find it, I'll post it (in a "personal"!) soldier
          1. 0
            21 June 2019 15: 11
            Be kind! Yes
    2. Oct
      +1
      21 June 2019 13: 07
      The article says what it will replace with 300p and ps, these are the oldest systems in the series. In fact, this is an analogue of the "beech" for the object air defense. And from 300 rpm it will probably be replaced by c400.
  3. -6
    21 June 2019 07: 07
    Over the next few months, the construction of the first mass-produced air defense system will end with its transfer to the VKS Military Academy. This will be followed by the launch of personnel.
    I wonder where this personnel should start?
    The author in his repertoire - from empty - to empty.
    1. +3
      21 June 2019 08: 08
      Quote: Undecim
      I wonder where this personnel should start?

      ========
      Usually, specialists are first of all trained for parts that are the first to receive new equipment. And where exactly? So now no one will tell you!
  4. 0
    21 June 2019 08: 17
    With missiles and their number, we will probably have everything - top and even very much! Good.
    The main thing is that such air defense elements - missile defense as intelligence, communications, coordination systems .... in short, intelligence, control and automation were the best, at least close to that!
    Then we can show ALL ill-wishers a fig! Explicitly and not embarrassed.
  5. +1
    21 June 2019 09: 05

  6. +1
    21 June 2019 09: 47
    A good car, a salvo of even a division of such launchers, unless of course they manage to shoot back, it will sweep away everything flying from the sky :-)
    1. -5
      21 June 2019 16: 01
      Alas, it will not sweep. And the regiment brigade will not sweep. We are still frankly weak. And don't forget that 1 target is 2 missiles.
  7. +2
    21 June 2019 09: 53
    Cheap C-350 is good because the range of its missiles is balanced with the radar of its radar - unlike expensive C-400 / C-500, which become narrow-range air defense missile systems, designed to destroy high-altitude and horizon-based air targets at long range.
  8. +8
    21 June 2019 10: 02
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    After all, the S-300PM2 can "take" a maximum of 16 missiles.

    Can. But have you seen at least one photo from the test site (not to mention combat units) where the "three hundred" instead of at least one container had 4 smaller dimensions? Most often, a launcher was shown at exhibitions, in which one TPK was replaced by 4

    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    For some reason, practically, Zur 9M100 is not mentioned in connection with the S-350.

    IMHO the opposite. Most often 9M100 is mentioned in the context of S-350 than S-400

    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    What is the estimated ratio of 9М96 and 9м100 on PU? in the battery?

    I think the namesake that the ratio will be established depending on the task

    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    Will it be necessary, in the presence of 9M100, to cover the S-350 with "Pantsir"?

    A HZ, to be honest. The "shell" can reduce the dead zone of the complex, it certainly is. But whether or not there will be a "shell" in the compound equipped with the S-350 complex is unknown

    Quote: venik
    Yes! 16 missiles - BUT! On the 4 (four) PU. On the 4 PU C-350 fits 48 (forty-eight) missiles !!! Those. - three times more!

    No, namesake. Vladimir said, as far as I understood, about the masking number of missiles on the launcher "three hundred", when in place of each large container 4 smaller ones with 9M96 or 9M100 missiles would be put
    1. +3
      21 June 2019 14: 21
      Quote: Old26
      Vladimir said, as far as I understood, about the masksmalny number of missiles on the launcher "three hundred", when in place of each large container would be put 4 smaller ones with missiles 9M96 or 9M100

      =======
      Well, to be honest, as far as I know, they learned how to "cram" into one "big glass" up to 4 9M96 or 5-6 9M100, so outwardly you can figure it out ...
      The result is a funny thing: Each S-400 launcher can carry up to 3 "long-range" missiles (or RPRO) + 4 medium-range missiles = INCREASED ammunition (if someone breaks into the "middle zone" + preservation of the "long-range interception" functions "! good
    2. -1
      21 June 2019 15: 36
      Quote: Old26
      Most often, the exhibitions showed the launch, in which one TPK was replaced by 4

      Duc, where they (9M96) to dial 4 TPK, if only they (9M96) "figured out": will they be, or not! wink Second: maybe such a complete set (3 TPK -48N6; 1 TPK-4 9M96 ...) decided to make "statutory"?

      Quote: Old26
      Most often 9М100 is mentioned in the context of C-350, than C-400

      And I do not argue in the "context of the S-350"! One can only "speculate": will the 9M100 be placed in a "standard" container "under the 9M96" ... how many will fit there? If we "solve" this "problem", then we will be able to determine: how much 9M96 the S-300/400 will take if it "wants" ...
      PS I agree with the rest. In general, I agree ...
  9. -1
    21 June 2019 11: 17
    Vityaz is the clearest example of the fact that we still know "HOW?", But have huge problems with "FROM WHAT?"
    1. +4
      21 June 2019 14: 31
      Quote: FeoFUN
      but we have huge problems with "WHERE?"

      =========
      I can answer this question UNIVERSE! Huge problems with ... "ELEMENT BASE" !!! For Koreans (with access to ANY element base), a similar complex was created in an EXTREMELY SHORT time frame .... Yes, and their S-350 was quickly bungled .... And here "sanctions"... Access to foreign element bases -" covered with a copper basin ".... I had to create OWN production - AND GLORY TO GOD! Time was certainly lost, but the TECHNOLOGICAL INDEPENDENCE!!!!!!
      1. -1
        21 June 2019 16: 08
        Yes, that’s exactly what I hinted at - the difference in pace between the launch of the series and the arming of the South Korean KM-SAM and Vityaz. Yes, the Korean complex’s range of destruction is much more modest than that of the PR or Vityaz, but it was by no means 96km with the Redut with the 120th missile, however, in the case of the Redoubt, our military-industrial complex grabbed the grief in full, and the complex itself, up to the last couple of three years, worked with variable, if not dubious, success.
      2. -1
        21 June 2019 16: 13
        Yes, and with regard to technological independence, then I would have waited with relations. It is possible that just one source of dependence was replaced by another. For true technological independence, domestic means of production are needed, otherwise it can happen as in the case of the bankrupt Angstrom.
  10. 0
    21 June 2019 15: 08
    I look, after a straight line, people are not up to rockets.
  11. -2
    21 June 2019 16: 47
    Far from air defense missile defense, people who know tell us briefly the difference (more precisely, the purpose) of the S400 from the S300 / S350 (here, as I understand it, the S 350 is replaced by the S 300, the S-500 is an interception in the upper layers (again, as I understand it))
  12. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  13. +3
    21 June 2019 23: 14
    Quote: venik
    Well, to be honest, as far as I know, they learned how to "cram" into one "big glass" up to 4 9M96 or 5-6 9M100, so outwardly you can figure it out ...
    The result is a funny thing: Each S-400 launcher can carry up to 3 "long-range" missiles (or RPRO) + 4 medium-range missiles = INCREASED ammunition (if someone breaks into the "middle zone" + preservation of the "long-range interception" functions "!

    Well, namesake, let's take it.
    According to the open data, the diameter of the rocket 48Н6 is equal to 519 mm (we will not be trivial, let it be 520 mm). The diameter of the WPK will be about 530-540 mm. The diameter of 9М96 is 240 mm, and 9М100 is 200 mm.
    Purely theoretically, "inside" a large TPK, you can place 3 missiles of the 9M96 type or 4 missiles of the 9M100 type. That is, less than what you wrote.
    Yes, it is possible to place 400 3N48 missiles and 6 3M9 missiles, respectively, on the S-96 launcher (provided that these missiles are "crammed" into a "large TPK". If you use their own TPK, then instead of one large one, 4 small TPKs can be placed for 9M96.
    But it was about the fact that comrade Vladimir (Nikolaevich I) wrote about the option when instead of 4 large ones, 16 small ones (on a cassette with 4 TPKs) are put on each seat of a large container. I will repeat myself. Personally, I have not seen such military photographs. Only at exhibitions, and even then in the option of replacing one large TPK with four small TPK

    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    And I do not argue in the "context of the S-350"! One can only "speculate": will the 9M100 be placed in a "standard" container "under the 9M96" ... how many will fit there? If we "solve" this "problem", then we will be able to determine: how much 9M96 the S-300/400 will take if it "wants" ...

    At one of the exhibitions showed the overall weight model of the cartridge with 4 TPK missiles 9M100. Cassette width 600 mm, height - 598 mm. The cartridge with TPK missiles 9M100 in TPK 48N6 does not fit. It does not fit. And to install this cassette on the seat of the container 48N6 - no problem.
    In response to comrade Vladimir [venik], I gave a simple calculation based on the caliber of these missiles. It’s stupid to put them inside a large TPK, and when replacing one large TPK with a 9M96 or 9M100 missile complex cartridge, the total number of missiles will be SEVEN ...
    1. -1
      22 June 2019 04: 13
      Quote: Old26
      According to the open data, the diameter of the rocket 48Н6 is equal to 519 mm (we will not be trivial, let it be 520 mm). The diameter of the WPK will be about 530-540 mm. The diameter of 9М96 is 240 mm, and 9М100 is 200 mm.
      Purely theoretically, "inside" a large TPK, you can place 3 missiles of the 9M96 type or 4 missiles of the 9M100 type. That is, less than what you wrote.

      As comrade Saakhov said? "You are all right, you said everything correctly! But we must also look from the other side!" 1. Zur 9M96 does not have to be "crammed" into TPK "from under" 48N6! I saw a "hinge" of zur 9M96 in their own TPK on the S-300/400 launcher; 2. I do not see any particular problems in the small modernization of the S-300/400 launcher, if necessary (!), To "acquire" the possibility of placing 16 9M96 airplanes in the TPK (48N6) or in our own TPK; 3. You have to do it! With the advent of the 9M96 (or rather, this construct ...), the zur 48N6 "became obsolete"! The tactics and organization of hostilities of modern strike aircraft force air defense systems to acquire a large number of air defense systems. That is why it is advisable to replace zur 48N6E, 48N6E2 with zur 9M96, leaving (for now!) Zur 48N6E3!
  14. +1
    22 June 2019 00: 05
    Quote: Tamer
    Alas, it will not sweep. And the regiment brigade will not sweep. We are still frankly weak. And don't forget that 1 target is 2 missiles.

    what the hell? My father, who served in air defense all his life, said that with two missiles for the same target they fired exclusively from different crews and solely with the aim of saving on targets.
    1. -3
      22 June 2019 00: 43
      Not nonsense, that's right, - in a combat situation, for a real target, the "active jammer" fired at least 2 missiles with continuously, along the entire trajectory, operating liquid-propellant engines using the "three-point" guidance method, with solid propellants, in general, for such a goal it is not clear how to shoot, ... there is no range to the target, the rocket flies after the active acceleration section along a ballistic trajectory to the meeting point with the target, ..... and the range to the target and the speed of the target along the line of sight are UNKNOWN, so ... quite a disaster ..)
    2. 0
      24 June 2019 10: 27
      Quote: Torins
      My father, who served in air defense all his life, said that with two missiles for the same target they fired exclusively from different crews and solely with the aim of saving on targets.

      EMNIP, in all domestic air defense missile defense systems, the number of channels for a missile is twice the number of channels for a target. Because since the time of S-75, two missiles have been used for the same purpose - to increase the likelihood of damage.
      At least on the S-125, which I was taught to do, it was just that - the probability of hitting one missile was considered insufficient.
      1. 0
        5 July 2019 23: 21
        My father served on the OSA) And he was in the first issue of these complexes)
    3. 0
      25 June 2019 11: 16
      What was the savings expressed in? Launch a second missile toward the target?
      The probability of hitting a target close to 1 is achieved by 2 missiles.
      The developers indicate in the performance characteristics of the defeat of one and two missiles.
      1. 0
        5 July 2019 23: 22
        The saving is that two calculations detected and successfully hit the target, and there was only one target, two targets are much more expensive)
  15. +2
    22 June 2019 10: 48
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    As comrade Saakhov said? "You are all right, you said everything correctly! But we must also look from the other side!" 1. Zur 9M96 does not have to be "crammed" into TPK "from under" 48N6! I saw a "hinge" of zur 9M96 in their own TPK on the S-300/400 launcher; 2. I do not see any particular problems in the small modernization of the S-300/400 launcher, if necessary (!), To "acquire" the possibility of placing 16 9M96 airplanes in the TPK (48N6) or in our own TPK; 3. You have to do it! With the advent of the 9M96 (or rather, this construct ...), the zur 48N6 "became obsolete"! The tactics and organization of hostilities of modern strike aircraft force air defense systems to acquire a large number of air defense systems. That is why it is advisable to replace zur 48N6E, 48N6E2 with zur 9M96, leaving (for now!) Zur 48N6E3!

    1. Namesake, but I'm talking about the same thing. The calculation was for our namesake, comrade venik, that it is impossible to "stuff" 4 9M96 or 5-6 missiles of the 9M100 type into the "big" TPK, respectively.
    As for the "hinge" in their own TPKs - no one disputes this. I just specified that I did not come across photographs where cassettes with 4 TPK missiles of the 9M96 type were attached to all seats. One - yes, such photographs from exhibitions were published regularly.

    2. The problems of modernizing the launcher do not seem to exist at all. Especially if you "hang" the 9M96 missiles in your own TPK. The question may arise about the need for such modernization. Do you need it? For example, I see only one option for such modernization, namely when the S-300 are replaced by the S-400, then the number of launchers (respectively, and divisions) equipped with 9M96 or 9M100 missiles can be increased.
    "Pushing" 48M6 or 9M96 missiles into the "big" TPK from 9N100, we will get in one case a smaller number of missiles (9M96) than if they were in our own TPK, in the other case an equal number. The point is only in disguise

    3. Perhaps the options 48Н6Е and 48Н6Х2 and morally obsolete with the advent of 9М96 (I do not presume to judge what I do not understand). But the logic suggests that it still makes sense to change the 48H6Е and 48H6X2 options to 48H6X3, and not to 9М96, since yet TTX 48Н6 is still higher than the 9М96
    1. -1
      22 June 2019 11: 43
      Quote: Old26
      3. Perhaps the options 48Н6Е and 48Н6Х2 and morally obsolete with the advent of 9М96 (I do not presume to judge what I do not understand). But the logic suggests that it still makes sense to change the 48H6Е and 48H6X2 options to 48H6X3, and not to 9М96, since yet TTX 48Н6 is still higher than the 9М96

      The problem here is that if the military gentlemen decide that it makes sense to have 300 different missiles in the S-2: 1.48N6- "far and high" with a powerful warhead, but not enough ... 2. 9M96 is not so far, but a lot, then in place of 48H6 we "see" 48H6E3 instead of E and E2 ... And I would also like to say that many of the "issues" discussed on this page intersect with the material stated in my commentary to the article about the S-400, which appeared on the same day as this article ... That is, the answers to a number of your conclusions are contained in "that" article ... hi
  16. +1
    22 June 2019 19: 25
    Not an article, but a pile of numbers, dates, etc. The author is a graphomaniac. One and the same from empty to empty, from paragraph to paragraph. It's disgusting ...
  17. 0
    12 August 2019 00: 17
    Quote: venik
    Quote: FeoFUN
    but we have huge problems with "WHERE?"

    =========
    I can answer this question UNIVERSE! Huge problems with ... "ELEMENT BASE" !!! For Koreans (with access to ANY element base), a similar complex was created in an EXTREMELY SHORT time frame .... Yes, and their S-350 was quickly bungled .... And here "sanctions"... Access to foreign element bases -" covered with a copper basin ".... I had to create OWN production - AND GLORY TO GOD! Time was certainly lost, but the TECHNOLOGICAL INDEPENDENCE!!!!!!

    Ahahahaha !!! "Koreans have created"! And then these "Koreans" got their hard-earned money and returned home, obscenely commenting on their life experience! :-))