Military Review

The terrible opponent of Torov and the Shell is already at the R&D stage. Possibilities of the advanced Kampluftvern air defense system

168

No matter how unpleasant this may sound to a cheer-patriotic audience of the Russian segment of the Internet and some expert circles, detailed monitoring of Western European military-analytical and news publications once again strengthens us in the opinion about the fallacy of the "cultivation" by defense enterprises of the Almaz-Antey VKO concern and the Rostec state corporation only radio command guidance systems for equipping military air defense systems of the Tor-M2U and Pantsir-C1 families, as well as "Blindness" on equipping anti-aircraft missiles 9M331 and 57E76 only with aerodynamic controls.


Gaining operational operational readiness by the Kampluftvern anti-aircraft missile system will change the alignment of forces in the North European conditional theater of operations


In particular, according to the eminent British military analytical publication janes.com, citing informed sources at the headquarters of the Norwegian military-industrial company Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace, high-ranking representatives of the enterprise announced the start of research and development work (R&D ) as part of the ambitious Project 7628 Kampluftvern project. The latter provides for the development of a promising military self-propelled short-range air defense system, designed both for integration into a network-centric layered air defense-missile defense system in conjunction with NASAMS II / III medium-range anti-aircraft missile systems, and for independent actions aimed at the formation of zone-object anti-missile "umbrellas "Over strategically important stationary objects, as well as cover for friendly mechanized units on the march. Bringing the first pre-production copies of "Kampluftvern" to the level of operational readiness is scheduled for late 2022 - early 2023.


Estimated appearance of Kampluftvern air defense systems

In the first case (in network-centric conjunction with NASAMS II / III air defense systems), compact combat vehicles of promising Kampluftvern air defense systems equipped with quadrate inclined launchers with IRIS-T anti-aircraft missile launchers will be used to cover NASAMS 2,5-kilometer dead zones, as well as intercepting high-speed tactical cruise missiles of the enemy, carrying out intensive anti-aircraft maneuvers. The above range of tasks is due to the highest flight-technical qualities of the IRIS-T missiles, achieved due to the presence of a thrust vector deviation in the gas-jet control system.

This system, represented by four heat-resistant turning planes in the nozzle channel, enables the IRIS-T missile to maneuver with overloads of up to 65 units. up to the complete burning of the solid propellant charge of solid propellant solid propellant rocket rocket rocket fuel, providing efficient interception of high-precision weapons maneuvering with overloads up to 30-32G. Anti-aircraft modifications of the AIM-120C-7 interceptor missiles, which are part of the NASAMS II / III air defense systems and are equipped only with aerodynamic controls, have disposable overloads in the 30G, and therefore can only withstand airborne attacks that carry out anti-aircraft maneuvers with overloads no more than 15G.


The launch of the AIM-9X missile anti-aircraft missile system NASAMS II / III

As for the maneuverability of anti-aircraft guided missiles 9М330 and 57Е6 of the Tor-M2U / MKM and Pantsir-S1 complexes, their angular velocity of rotation corresponds to the AIM-120C-7 indicators, preventing the destruction of such “well-designed” helicopters intercepts missile iris-t. The recently announced re-equipment of Torov-M2U combatant missiles with promising ammunition, which has more maneuverable RZV-MD (9M338K) missiles with advanced tail aerodynamic rudders and more accurate radio fuses, which together with the upgraded Tor-R radar base system, can brighten things up a bit. -M2U "allowed to intercept three of the five air targets of the Saman type by the method of kinetic destruction / direct hit (" hit-to-kill "), which was confirmed during field and tests carried out in 2013 year. With regard to missiles with the radio command principle of guidance, the above ability is unique.

The radio command guidance system for self-propelled air defense systems Tor-M2U and air defense missile systems Pantsir-S1 eliminates operational-tactical flexibility in the formation of zonal-object air defense over areas with difficult terrain


Despite the above situation, as a devil from a snuff-box, another extremely serious misfortune materializes - the acute dependence of the interception of targets on the radio command guidance system of anti-aircraft missiles 9М330, 9М338К and 57Е6, which, unfortunately, is a “genetic disease” of all modifications of T "Shell". The need for constant accurate automatic tracking of targets by guidance radars and optoelectronic sighting devices (with the simultaneous transmission of control commands for 9M338K and 57E6 missiles located on the trajectory) not only excludes the possibility of firing at objects hiding behind natural elements of the terrain (hills, mountain ranges and in gorges ), but it also turns the Tor-M2U and Pantsir-S1 complexes into radio-emitting objects that are easily detectable by means of, for example, strategic radio-technical and radio-electronic airplanes ktronnoy reconnaissance RC-135V / W «Rivet Joint» from a distance in 350-450 km.

As for the promising Norwegian-German Kampluftvern mobile air defense systems being developed, these products will not have the above list of disadvantages. IRIS-T interceptor missiles in the SLM anti-aircraft version, equipped with an infrared seeker with an indium antimonide based photodetector (with a medium-wave infrared range from 3 to 5 μm), are fully autonomous short-range interception tools capable of destroying targets outside the target detection radar sectors placed on combat vehicles of the Kampluftvern air defense system.

The terrible opponent of Torov and the Shell is already at the R&D stage. Possibilities of the advanced Kampluftvern air defense system

Anti-aircraft guided missiles IRIS-T SLM

In addition to hitting targets "diving" into the gorges and hiding behind elevations of the terrain and a radio horizon, IRIS-T SLM missiles are capable of working on anti-radar and operational-tactical ballistic and cruise missiles that attack air defense systems in a "dead crater" (at angles from 70 to 90 degrees). At the same time, target designation in the inertial navigation system IRIS-T SLM missiles can come from numerous third-party radar, optoelectronic or electronic reconnaissance equipment via the radio channel of the INTRACOM Data Link two-way asynchronous data exchange line. Neither the Shell, nor the Torah-M2U can boast of such potential. Are these not the most significant arguments in favor of resuming the once-forgotten and eventually forgotten program for developing a promising self-propelled air defense system based on the RVV-AE-SAM air defense missile?
Author:
168 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. rocket757
    rocket757 6 December 2019 15: 09
    +27
    A reliable criterion is practice ... especially the vaunted “Patriots” have distinguished themselves in that.
    1. svp67
      svp67 6 December 2019 15: 16
      +22
      Quote: rocket757
      A reliable criterion is practice ...

      Yeah, that our "Torah" and "Armor" ALREADY PASS in the troops, as part of the units, but this western air defense system is still at the stage of Scientific Research Experimental Design Works and when it will come out of this stage and in what form it is not yet clear. And the main thing is that ours all this time "are going to rest on their laurels"?
      So, I understand the anxiety of the authors of the article, but I do not understand the mood ("everything is lost, everything is lost") in the style of which this article is written.
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 6 December 2019 15: 32
        +22
        I wonder what the unbridled optimism of author is based on. R&D is just beginning, and by 2023 adoption is expected !!! Although our harsh reality, says the opposite, that bringing to real combat capability takes years.
        1. svp67
          svp67 6 December 2019 15: 37
          0
          Quote: TermNachTER
          I wonder what the unbridled optimism of author is based on.

          I would not like to suspect him and his hedgehog of "economic interest"
          1. Shurik70
            Shurik70 7 December 2019 19: 58
            +3
            The author does not understand the difference between the words "opponent" и "competitor".
            For air defense systems, opponents are drones, missiles, planes, helicopters and other airborne attack and reconnaissance systems.
            And the other SAM is competitor.
          2. Sanichsan
            Sanichsan 12 December 2019 14: 55
            0
            Quote: svp67
            I would not like to suspect him and his hedgehog of "economic interest"

            Damantsev? what invests in German air defense systems?!? belay
            wassat
            1. Nick
              Nick 12 December 2019 21: 28
              +1
              Quote: SanichSan
              Quote: svp67
              I would not like to suspect him and his hedgehog of "economic interest"

              Damantsev? what invests in German air defense systems?!? belay
              wassat

              Just earning his thirty pieces of silver.
        2. Chaldon48
          Chaldon48 6 December 2019 18: 10
          +5
          Well, why "everything is lost" you just need to work for the future.
        3. URAL72
          URAL72 6 December 2019 18: 34
          +1
          Especially there is nothing to be wise and there is nothing to test, because they have already taken a serial rocket. And you shouldn't cry about our "backwardness". It's just that we have one of the main criteria - cost. Hence the simplification of the design. If it is necessary, we will do this, but for now, for the "completed" at the Shell of the cannon.
        4. Nick
          Nick 7 December 2019 16: 38
          -1
          Quote: TermNachTER
          I wonder what the unbridled optimism of author is based on. R&D is just beginning,

          Probably on a substantial fee for the article wink hi
      2. whitepike
        whitepike 6 December 2019 15: 51
        +1
        Here ... the text for the funeral. And when they do it and it’s not yet a fact that it will turn out, but it will turn out that way they need to be done and adapted, it’s another 5 years. Already our RVSs were always at their best, I think the guys in the design bureaus in zashashniks already have a step ahead of development. By live we will see, while everything is in order with us, they are running in Syria, they eliminate errors))
      3. rocket757
        rocket757 6 December 2019 17: 30
        +4
        Quote: svp67
        And the main thing is that ours all this time "are going to rest on their laurels"?

        But this is the obvious and most important thing!
        Our rocket technology, defensive and offensive, in the forefront!
        Just such a screech from the whales and their hangers-on!
        This screech is like fanfare for our scientists, manufacturers and the military! For all of us, patriots of OUR MOTHERLAND!
      4. YOUR
        YOUR 7 December 2019 03: 24
        +16
        The author somehow weirdly draws everything. The article is saturated with various terms inserted to the place and mainly out of place as a kind of entourage to add prettiness to the article. A lot of words, beautiful almost scientific words, for example - Radio-command guidance system of self-propelled air defense systems "Tor-M2U" and air defense system "Shell-S1" excludes operational and tactical flexibility in the formation of zonal-object air defense over areas with difficult terrain.
        It is written cool, but the question is, what does this mean ???????
        The author clearly has journalistic abilities to write about anything without understanding the topic.
        - and operational-tactical ballistic and cruise missiles that attack an air defense system in a "dead funnel" (at angles from 70 to 90 degrees) - hereinafter - Neither the Shells nor the Torah-M2U can boast of such potential.
        "Dead funnel" - these are the boundaries from the point of the air defense system to the near border of the affected area. So what kind of dead vortex does Carapace have? Yes, no, where the missiles will not take the guns are available. Thor has 1 (one) km.
        The working flight altitude of the Kyrgyz Republic is 15-50 meters, it is the altitude of the flight that they are strong, which attack at an angle of 70 - 90 degrees. operational-tactical ballistic - it’s not at all funny to shoot such missiles at a separate machine, and most importantly, both the Kyrgyz Republic and operational-tactical ballistic .. they are used only for stationary targets, they are programmed before launch. The SAM went off a hundred meters and what next.
        This is about the writing style and the technical and tactical literacy of the author.
        The title of the article is "Formidable opponent" Thors "and" Shell "..." What are they opponents !!!! It is possible to compare their characteristics, but they will never be opponents. And what does it mean - the capabilities of the advanced air defense system? What the author meant.
        In general, as he wrote at the beginning of his comment, he sins with all sorts of words and sculpts them everywhere without hesitation.
        1. YOUR
          YOUR 7 December 2019 03: 32
          +9
          I will also add. I wrote that the author is poorly versed in the topic, more precisely, neither. So, the Thor air defense system does not participate in the creation of object-zone defense, there are no such complexes in service with the Aerospace Forces, they are in service with the air defense of the ground and serves to cover the troops, including on the march, and the Pantsir air defense missile system in the Aerospace Forces is intended for defense of the S-300 and S-400 systems, he closes their "dead funnel" and serves to directly cover these complexes.
          1. PPD
            PPD 7 December 2019 11: 17
            +4
            Yes, there is much to add, for example:
            1.
            enemy high-speed tactical cruise missiles carrying out intensive anti-aircraft maneuvers.
            -which ones? In the corner of the ring boxer-N, the battle for the title ... Name, yes, it doesn’t matter, what are you really.
            2 [quote representatives ........... announced the beginning of research and development] [/ quote] -that is. still only drawings began to draw, drawings have not yet reached. Well, yes, Torah is the time to smoke on the sidelines, and the Shell is crying with envy.
            3.
            the highest flight performance of missile systems IRIS-T

            Does this follow from the previous paragraph? Well then, missile range, speed! ????
            You can still throw points, but the most important thing in the article is that it is painted in large letters. For this, everything was written.
            The surname of the authors is better to write right away, of course, so as not to waste time.
            1. alstr
              alstr 7 December 2019 12: 27
              +3
              And I will add too.
              How can we compare two complexes in which the affected area differs by at least 10 times (2,5 and 30 km)?

              Another point. At a distance of 2,5 km, firstly, you can always find a dominant altitude that will not allow anyone to dive somewhere.
              Secondly, at such a range it is impossible to conduct any firing at an external command center - it simply will not pass stupidly in time, and if it does, it means that the luminous one will be under attack.

              And about network-centricity, even in our country MANPADS can get preliminary missiles (this is exactly the same 2,5 km, if not more).
            2. YOUR
              YOUR 7 December 2019 13: 08
              +3
              Quote: PPD
              enemy high-speed tactical cruise missiles carrying out intensive anti-aircraft maneuvers.

              This phrase alone casts doubt on the author’s knowledge and exalts his verbiage. High-speed - wow, tactical - class and performing intensive anti-aircraft maneuvers - in general a masterpiece. Dreams of a militant schoolboy who has no idea what a cruise missile and its guidance methods are.
              1. Nick
                Nick 7 December 2019 16: 48
                +1
                Quote: YOUR
                This phrase alone casts doubt on the author’s knowledge and exalts his verbiage. High-speed - wow, tactical - class and performing intensive anti-aircraft maneuvers - generally masterpiece

                I was especially touched by the passage about HIGH-SPEED KR. The author obviously does not know that our probable adversary, who is in the arsenal of the Kyrgyz Republic Tomahawk, is ALL subsonic.
                1. PPD
                  PPD 12 December 2019 20: 36
                  +1
                  Honestly!? - Yes, he has no idea about it! negative
      5. Cyrus
        Cyrus 7 December 2019 12: 17
        -3
        The article is written in a normal style, but I don’t understand your position of the ostrich.
    2. knn54
      knn54 6 December 2019 15: 33
      +5
      Victor, that's why they ONLY sell the Patriots. And, in particular, Washington is guarding the NORWEGIAN-American NASAMS SAM system.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 6 December 2019 17: 35
        0
        Nicholas soldier
        Quote: knn54
        Washington guarded by NASAMS NORWEGIAN-American production.

        A reasonable approach, be guarded by what really protects!
        And they can sell EVERYTHING that they can vtyuhut any .... mugs.
    3. Kirill Dou
      Kirill Dou 6 December 2019 16: 10
      -9
      And what are the "Patriots" so distinguished?
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 6 December 2019 17: 37
        +4
        Quote: Kirill Dou
        And what are the "Patriots" so distinguished?

        Distinguished! The fact that they "protected" .... in short, there was NOTHING to protect!
        1. Kirill Dou
          Kirill Dou 6 December 2019 17: 41
          -10
          Was this the only case of an attack on an object protected by the Patriot air defense system in the entire history of the operation of this complex?

          Well, this is how I can cite 1 case when the Russian Pantsir-S air defense system failed.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 6 December 2019 18: 17
            +3
            Quote: Kirill Dou
            Was this the only case of an attack on an object protected by the Patriot air defense system in the entire history of the operation of this complex?

            This is an absolutely indicative example of failure, though not of a complex as such, but of tactics of application, competence of organizers and staff!
            However, PETRIOT missed plenty of dangerous objects, like many other systems it does not provide absolute protection ... to be more precise, NO ONE can guarantee absolute protection! Value for money ??? very amateur.
            Quote: Kirill Dou
            Well, this is how I can cite 1 case when the Russian Pantsir-S air defense system failed.

            Compare stationary, multi-object, expensive complex, with a small, autonomous, mobile air defense system ..... well, if you really want to, try it. I'm not beating.
            1. Kirill Dou
              Kirill Dou 6 December 2019 18: 36
              -14
              Quote: rocket757
              This is an absolutely telling example of failure,
              - as well as there are indicators of an example of the success of this complex.

              However, PETRIOT, there were plenty of dangerous objects missing
              - as well as intercepted.

              "like many other systems does not provide absolute protection ... more precisely, no one can guarantee absolute protection!"
              - this is true, and this must begin.

              Compare a stationary, multi-objective, expensive complex with a small, autonomous, mobile air defense system .....
              - I would love to compare the Patriot with its S-300/400 rivals, but the problem is that they have no cases of combat use, while the Patriot has plenty. That is why I cited "Shell" as an example, because there is data on it.
          2. olegactor
            olegactor 6 December 2019 21: 07
            +2
            This was the only case of an attack on an object protected by the Patriot air defense system,


            and Japan as ... there, too, a North Korean rocket flew over the island .... already two at least
            1. Mimoprohodil
              Mimoprohodil 7 December 2019 11: 48
              +2
              Quote: olegactor
              North Korean rocket flying over the island

              At an altitude of 500 km, how was the Patriot supposed to shoot it down? Here the S-400 would help like a dead poultice
              1. olegactor
                olegactor 7 December 2019 13: 21
                -1
                At an altitude of 500 km,

                а
                Th not not a thousand ... where infa then fellow
                1. Mimoprohodil
                  Mimoprohodil 7 December 2019 16: 45
                  +1
                  The launch was carried out from the area of ​​the city of Sunan near Pyongyang towards the Sea of ​​Japan, the statement of the joint committee of chiefs of staff of South Korea said.

                  According to him, a rocket flew over the territory of the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido and covered a distance of 2,7 thousand kilometers with a maximum flight altitude of about 550 kilometers Yoshihide Suga, Secretary General of the Government of Japan, said the rocket crashed 1180 kilometers east of Cape Erimo at the southeastern tip of Hokkaido
                  1. olegactor
                    olegactor 8 December 2019 18: 18
                    0
                    thousand kilometers with a maximum flight altitude of about 550 kilometers

                    after you ramped up and did not shoot down ... you can say whatever you want ... and at what then the flight altitude is effective
                    1. Mimoprohodil
                      Mimoprohodil 14 December 2019 12: 09
                      0
                      If a ballistic missile flew 2700 km, then obviously not at an altitude of 30 km.
          3. Proud.
            Proud. 7 December 2019 08: 26
            0
            Bring.
          4. 2Albert
            2Albert 7 December 2019 14: 26
            +2
            Let me remind you about the Iraqi SCAD-M in 1991
            February 25, 1991 - An Iraqi SCUD missile hits US barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
      2. svp67
        svp67 6 December 2019 17: 41
        +6
        Quote: Kirill Dou
        And what are the "Patriots" so distinguished?

        Yes, they couldn’t bring down the SCAD, which went straight into the barracks with the American marines, and this is an UNMANUALED shell ...
        1. Kirill Dou
          Kirill Dou 6 December 2019 17: 52
          -15
          Quote: svp67
          Yes, they could not bring down the SCAD
          - but there were also cases (moreover, many) when the "Patriot" successfully repelled the attacks of both "Scuds" and other targets .. In "Wikipedia" on the page about "Patriot" there is detailed statistics of the combat use of this air defense system in various conflicts.
          1. svp67
            svp67 6 December 2019 18: 06
            +5
            Quote: Kirill Dou
            In "Wikipedia" on the page about "Patriot" there is detailed statistics of the combat use of this air defense system in various conflicts.

            "Wiki" is too "open" encyclopedia, which can be changed by all and sundry. Specialists are more critical of these statistics, noting that the Iraqi SCAD had too low reliability, in terms of the fact that their strength suffered greatly after the modernization that Korean specialists carried out it. Therefore, some of the "downed" SCUDs, they simply refer to the "collapsed in flight"
            1. Kirill Dou
              Kirill Dou 6 December 2019 18: 09
              -13
              "Wiki" is too "open" encyclopedia, which can be changed by all and sundry.
              - data on the use of "Patriots", indicated in the "Vick", taken from the reports of the US and other military. Sources can be viewed on the links.

              "Specialists are more critical of these statistics" - what kind of specialists? Where does the confidence in their competence come from?
              1. svp67
                svp67 6 December 2019 18: 10
                +3
                Quote: Kirill Dou
                taken from reports by the US and other military.

                That's exactly AMERICAN. They only recognized their failures there after 15 years
                Quote: Kirill Dou
                Why confidence in their competence?

                I don’t know whether it will open or not, this is the report of the Americans on the basis of evaluating the effectiveness of the Patriots. I’ll say right away, the result is that there’s nothing particularly proud of, we urgently need to redo the air defense system

                Technical Debate over Patriot Performance in the Gulf War: American Physical Society
                Panel Correctly Rejects Criticism of Analysis Showing Patriot Failed to Destroy Scud Warheads
                George N. Lewis and Theodore A. Postol
                Science and Global Security, 2000, Volume 8: 3, pp. 315 - 356
                TECHNICAL DISCUSSION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PATRIOT MISSILE IN THE WAR
                IN THE PERSIAN BAY: AMERICAN PHYSICAL WORKING GROUP
                SOCIETIES CORRECTLY REFUSED THE CRITICISM OF ANALYSIS THAT SHOWN THAT
                “PATRIOT” ROCKETS WERE NOT ABLE TO DESTROY THE EVENTS “SCAD” Rocket

                https://docviewer.yandex.ru/view/957697091/?*=MXKLT%2Fta%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&lang=ru
                1. Kirill Dou
                  Kirill Dou 6 December 2019 18: 19
                  -13
                  They only recognized their failures there after 15 years
                  - not true. For example, no one was hiding the case of the Scud's passage through the barracks, and an investigation was immediately carried out, which established errors in the SAM software. Immediately after the 1st Gulf War, the American command provided a report that the Patriot successfully shot down targets over Saudi Arabia in 80% of cases, and over Israel in 50% of cases. Note - no one in the report claimed that there were no unsuccessful interceptions.

                  So why should I trust the "specialists" but shouldn't trust the American military?
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 6 December 2019 18: 23
                    +5
                    Quote: Kirill Dou
                    - not true.

                    your right...
                    Quote: Kirill Dou
                    So why should I trust the "specialists" but shouldn't trust the American military?

                    These "specialists" are the same Americans and they are the ones who lay the scientific basis for all these developments.
                    The right is yours. I read their report and honestly, it aroused more confidence in me than the statements of the American military. Moreover, the latter, almost immediately demanded new research work to improve the "jambs" of the "Patriot" just indicated in this report, you will agree that it is strange
                  2. alstr
                    alstr 7 December 2019 12: 29
                    +1
                    Well, it was very difficult to hide something.
                    But I remember very well the first comment that they shot me down, but unfortunately she fell on the barracks.
                  3. zombirusrev
                    zombirusrev 7 December 2019 12: 58
                    0
                    Where does the interception percentage come from? "Link to the studio otherwise ffftopku!" (C)
                2. Kirill Dou
                  Kirill Dou 6 December 2019 18: 30
                  -14
                  So no one denies that the Patriot had problems with repelling ballistic missiles in the first Gulf War (although not always). After that, the complex was modernized and quite successfully coped with "Scuds" in subsequent conflicts.

                  Nobody calls the Patriot ideal or perfect - not even the Americans themselves. No technique is perfect.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 6 December 2019 18: 38
                    +8
                    Quote: Kirill Dou
                    Nobody calls "Patriot" perfect and perfect - including the Americans themselves

                    They call it, otherwise it won't be "sniffed"
                    1. Kirill Dou
                      Kirill Dou 6 December 2019 19: 19
                      -15
                      Can you give examples? Well, concrete statements of Americans, where "Patriot is called perfect and ideal"
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 6 December 2019 20: 10
                        +8
                        Quote: Kirill Dou
                        Well, concrete statements of Americans, where "Patriot is called perfect and ideal"

                        Read their ads of this complex at all weapon exhibitions
                      2. Kirill Dou
                        Kirill Dou 6 December 2019 20: 38
                        -13
                        Well, give at least one example yourself. It does not take much, even one example. To include the words "perfect and ideal".
                      3. svp67
                        svp67 6 December 2019 21: 03
                        +3
                        Quote: Kirill Dou
                        To have the words "perfect and perfect" in there.

                        Specifically, I can't find such words, but you can search for them yourself on the website of the manufacturer of these complexes - "Raytheon"
                        https://www.raytheon.com/
                      4. Kirill Dou
                        Kirill Dou 8 December 2019 04: 04
                        -1
                        Well, you see, you don’t find these words specifically. But talk about them.
                      5. businessv
                        businessv 6 December 2019 21: 56
                        0
                        Quote: Kirill Dou
                        Can you give examples? Well, concrete statements of Americans, where "Patriot is called perfect and ideal"

                        Damn, I read your posts, such an impression, colleague, that Raytheon pays you extra! Just don't say that you "stand for the truth." The Patriots firmly refused to carry out F16 launches in Turkey during a coup attempt that bombed Parliament and the Presidential Residence. Do you think that Erdogan bought the C400 out of a whim ?!
                      6. Kirill Dou
                        Kirill Dou 7 December 2019 03: 12
                        -6
                        And I nowhere and do not deny that the "Patriots" do not always work. However, there are many cases when they worked 100%.

                        The bottom line is that as evidence of the ineffectiveness of the "Patriots" are cited here separate cases. While the evidence is the statistics of their application.
                      7. Mimoprohodil
                        Mimoprohodil 7 December 2019 12: 00
                        0
                        Quote: businessv
                        Patriots resolutely refused to carry out F16 launches in Turkey during a coup attempt, during which the buildings of the Parliament and the Presidential Residence were bombed
                        NATO stationed the Petriots on the Turkish-Syrian border (which is very far from the adm. Buildings) and took them out of Turkey before the coup. Very much but.
        2. zombirusrev
          zombirusrev 7 December 2019 12: 56
          0
          Are you a citizen in general in the subject or do you have the honor to confuse OTR Moon and OTR R-11 :))))))
        3. Good_Anonymous
          Good_Anonymous 7 December 2019 18: 49
          0
          Quote: svp67
          hit the barracks with the American marines



          report said the barracks housed the 475th Quartermaster Group, an Army Reserve unit based in Farrell, Pa., a small town near the Ohio state line.



          27 were killed and 100 were wounded.


          Lies, I guess.
      3. Al Asad
        Al Asad 6 December 2019 22: 19
        +1
        They flew into the ground instead of an air target. There is a video of this incident from Saudi Arabia. And in general, it didn’t work against old Soviet missiles launched by the Hussites from Yemen.
    4. Starper-xnumx
      Starper-xnumx 6 December 2019 19: 41
      +3
      Quote: rocket757
      A reliable criterion is practice ... especially the vaunted “Patriots” have distinguished themselves in that.

      And "iron domes" including wassat
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 6 December 2019 22: 30
        0
        Quote: Starper-777
        And "iron domes" including

        Of course, there is no ideal one, but only real working systems can be compared by real indicators ... besides, there are chances for improvement, since the training is also going on intensively.
        Our new, long-range systems were not tested in real life, which is good, we do not need a real war, but it stops some potential buyers.
        "Iron Dome" works, is tested, but one-sided! electronic counteraction against him is not conducted! But our near-zone systems in Syria work against the most sophisticated objects !!! And this is EXPERIENCE !!!
    5. SHURUM -BURUM
      SHURUM -BURUM 7 December 2019 08: 45
      0
      Here is a link to a patent that leaves no chance for an enemy helicopter. So what? None of ours have yet shown interest. https://yandex.ru/patents/doc/RU186630U1_20190128. To protect the helicopter from an anti-aircraft missile, an option was proposed with an aerosol rip-screen created in the atmosphere, on which a receding helicopter using a powerful laser creates a more powerful ghost of a thermal picture (a method of protecting cuttlefish). Rejected. Sorry I can’t insert the picture.
      1. SHURUM -BURUM
        SHURUM -BURUM 7 December 2019 09: 00
        0
        It’s strange ... They didn’t allow to publish a link to an open patent, which leaves no chance for a helicopter to attack an anti-aircraft missile, which allows adding brains to Diamond-Antei? Very patriotic. By the way, the patent is in the public domain and we have already been phoned from Germany with an offer to patent it in Europe. But in his native country - silence.
      2. Evil Booth
        Evil Booth 27 December 2019 16: 17
        0
        pshsh presidents already in service and what do you mean?
    6. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 27 December 2019 16: 16
      0
      trash of delirium from the tank’s 90s on the topic of how a ballistic tip kills DZ Kontakt5 and the fact that the palette k1 is small and ineffective and the type k5 does not exist and so on there oh all this nonsense. so here.
    7. sH, arK
      sH, arK 30 December 2019 11: 49
      0
      I’m not an air defense specialist, but from the course of control theory I remember that a reliable interception in catch-up courses requires a minimum of three times the interceptor’s maneuverability over the target, and in the opposite direction - five times! How were these going to intercept a target maneuvering with an overload of 32g with less than 2x margin?
  2. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 6 December 2019 15: 17
    +8
    Well, if the cheer patriots should not vote, then all-proponents have nothing to get excited. This is only OCD and the start of testing. How many jambs can get out, everyone understands. So let's wait!
    1. shahor
      shahor 10 December 2019 20: 10
      0
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      This is only OCD and the start of testing.

      So that’s how it is ... there is a rocket for the complex, there is a German platform, there is, there is a kung, there is a locator. The task is to connect into a single whole with the help of mathematics and fit into the network-centric air defense system. The term is 2 years. Really?
      More than.
  3. Sergey39
    Sergey39 6 December 2019 15: 19
    +3
    Trying to catch up. Time to try is not limited.
  4. Pavel57
    Pavel57 6 December 2019 15: 31
    +3
    Something a lot of tonality - "everything is gone."

    Will the IRIS thermal head work in fog and in PPP of a low-contrast target?
    Does the situation often arise with a "diving target" in the case of object air defense?

    As a response to the TGS rocket, it is proposed to return to the development of the ARGS rocket. So TGS is not good?

    The article is either a compote or a venigret from various topics.
  5. Amateur
    Amateur 6 December 2019 15: 32
    +5
    No matter how unpleasant this may sound to a cheer-patriotic audience of the Russian segment of the Internet and some expert circles, detailed monitoring of Western European military-analytical and news publications

    And if you focus on the inscriptions on the fences or advertisements on the TV, then you can make such a thing that the author himself will become terribly terrible.
  6. bars1
    bars1 6 December 2019 15: 33
    +2
    For Thor developed missiles with thermal imaging seeker.
  7. bars1
    bars1 6 December 2019 15: 36
    +3
    Quote: rocket757
    A reliable criterion is practice ... especially the vaunted “Patriots” have distinguished themselves in that.

    If you are hinting at a recent Saudi failure, if they had an S-400 then the result would be the same. The whole KSA anti-aircraft defense system crashed: both air defense systems and RTV and fighter aircraft. Only in their interaction is success achieved. There is safety in numbers. So sell S-400 to the Saudis, IMHO, that is still a gamble
    1. vvvjak
      vvvjak 6 December 2019 16: 00
      +1
      Quote: bars1
      if they had an S-400 then the result would be the same

      Not a fact at all. The S 400 has about 10 types of missiles (including those with AGSN), and even without the support of short-range air defense systems, it is capable of a lot. The problem is that the Patriot did not even see this attack.
      1. Evil Booth
        Evil Booth 27 December 2019 16: 19
        0
        well, it’s more accurate to say there would be a chance to thin out ... and mb to detect and thin out the attack from afar. Patriot just MLRS and other jerboas there are only suitable for the Second World War and then at TTX and price
    2. rocket757
      rocket757 6 December 2019 22: 33
      0
      I have already assessed the situation above ...
      Quote: rocket757
      This is an absolutely indicative example of failure, though not of a complex as such, but of tactics of application, competence of organizers and staff!
  8. bk316
    bk316 6 December 2019 15: 43
    +16
    Well, all Damantsev can be changed to Gridasov.
    Yes, for a long time it was a matter of this delusions of grandeur she is.
    Designers from Antey who have been doing air defense missiles for decades, and at first they studied it, who have closed intelligence information about competitors and much, much more, OF COURSE UNSUFFICIENCY COMPARED TO THE GREAT DANCE. Better about the battleships Eugene.
    And since they have embarked on the path of writing, finally master the Russian language.
    It is necessary to explain the difference between the words OPPONENT and COMPETITOR?
  9. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 6 December 2019 15: 45
    +2
    Are there already successful projects with rocket control by heat-resistant flaps in the nozzle channel? Has someone already done this, or are we reading another dream?
    1. Mimoprohodil
      Mimoprohodil 7 December 2019 12: 14
      0
      Quote: Mikhail3
      Are there already successful projects with rocket control by heat-resistant flaps in the nozzle channel?
      Almost all short-range BB missiles. For example, R-73
      1. zombirusrev
        zombirusrev 7 December 2019 12: 59
        0
        Well, the rudders in the gas stream were still at the V-2
    2. opus
      opus 7 December 2019 14: 09
      +1
      Quote: Mikhail3
      Are there already successful projects with rocket control by heat-resistant flaps in the nozzle channel?

      this is junk on cotton wool (such a "management")
      GAS RUDDERS - are installed in the jet stream of the rocket engine to control the position of the launch vehicle. Two pairs of gas rudders deflected relative to the longitudinal axis of the launch vehicle provide pitch, heading and roll control. Made from graphite and heat resistant alloys
      / Cosmonautics: Encyclopedia / Ch. ed. V.P. Glushko ...
      Found application in rockets Fau-2, P-1, P-2, P5, in the first steps of PH "Juneau", "Cosmos", "Scout"

      Gas rudders heavier the design of the propulsion system and, due to the high gas-dynamic resistance, cause significant loss of momentum; in the process of erosion.
      Quote: Mimoprohodil
      Almost all short-range BB missiles.

      No, not almost all

      K-55 / P-55 - AA-1C ALKALI
      P-60 / P-60M - AA-8 APHID
      K-30 / K-MD / product 300
      yes a lot of them
      1. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 8 December 2019 12: 19
        0
        I knew about old stuff (and I knew that it was junk), but I was completely unaware of new missiles. Thanks to the respondents. That is, the technology is currently well developed. But the loss of momentum should still be considerable, right?
        1. opus
          opus 8 December 2019 16: 39
          +1
          Quote: Mikhail3
          That is, the technology is currently well developed.

          absolutely nothing new here. E. Damantsev is simply not in the know
          Quote: Mikhail3
          . But the loss of momentum should still be considerable, right?

          1. not momentum, but traction!
          Momentum, number of motion does not change (mv). Traction decreases yes
          2. not only the loss of claim 1. + Another parasitic mass (they themselves and the drive and energy for the drives) weigh quite a lot.
          1. Mikhail3
            Mikhail3 9 December 2019 09: 43
            0
            Yes, the momentum changes) Through the change in v due to losses. Although it is more accurate to define the thrust, here you are right. And where does the "parasitic mass" come from, because other rudders, atmospheric, and their drives also weigh something. It may even be more, due to the fact that the size of the atmospheric control surfaces should be much larger, since the atmosphere is many times less dense than the flow of the working fluid in the nozzle channel.
            It would be interesting to see how nozzle rudders are solved. There you can do everything very differently ...
            1. opus
              opus 9 December 2019 11: 40
              -1
              Quote: Mikhail3
              Through a change in v due to losses

              v- does not change. the flow rate will not change, but maybe even more, in relation to the calculated one. It all depends on the height, the pressure at the nozzle exit, as the degree of expansion is average (in my opinion 3000 m)
              m-also does not change.
              therefore m * v = practically does not change
              Quote: Mikhail3
              And where does the "parasitic mass" come from?

              parasite mass is always there. it's just that these "rudders", as well as their drives, work in VERY difficult conditions (the effect of temperature, the jet of expiration-speed, the chemical aggressiveness of the jet (Km)) - therefore they will be HEAVY (the mass is more)
              Quote: Mikhail3
              the atmosphere is many times less dense

              pressure at the nozzle exit, as a rule, is less than atmospheric ... the local gas density in the jet stream = atmospheric or 2 times less. / in the chamber and in the nozzle, work must "pass", the transformation of energy T and density into an outflow velocity. The mass does not change.


              Quote: Mikhail3
              It would be interesting to see how nozzle rudders are solved.

              Annular gas rudders (deflectors) on the engine nozzles of the first stage of the 9M71 "Temp" rocket
              1. Mikhail3
                Mikhail3 9 December 2019 11: 55
                0
                Wait a minute. Impulse is the product of the mass of a body at the speed of its movement, and not at the rate of flow of the gas stream. And then it turns out, what diffusers do not stick in the stream, and the speed does not change? Perpetual motion machine?)
                According to the second point, maybe you are right, a lightweight atmospheric rudder blade may well be lighter than a nozzle deflector adapted to work in a hot jet.
                Thank you very much for the photo. That is, the solution, let’s say, is an intermediate one. The deflector is actually located outside the rocket. Since hydro-gasdynamics is a mysterious science, the mass of phenomena in a gas stream that begin to occur at the interface between the gas medium from the nozzle channel and the atmosphere cannot be calculated. Only partially. The rest are years of testing for statistical curves. Oh, and all this money goes! Work! Frames! But interesting, I guess ...
                1. opus
                  opus 9 December 2019 12: 16
                  -1
                  Quote: Mikhail3
                  Wait a minute. Impulse - the production of body weight at its speed

                  what impulse are you talking about here:
                  Quote: Mikhail3
                  But the loss of momentum should still be considerable, right?

                  did they say?
                  make up your mind
                  Although not very important

                  v = u ln (m0 / m)
                  Quote: Mikhail3
                  And then it turns out, what diffusers do not stick in the stream, and the speed does not change?

                  1. I did not speak about diffusers
                  Here we "thrust" flat platinum parallel to the flow. It creates a counter-draft (part of the reflected jet is slowed down, part is lost, because cos (angle of inclination) is always <1 /
                  BUT THE SPEED OF EXPIRATION, and on the "escaping mass from the nozzle", they do not affect
                  2. With a fool, you can close the nozzle shutter, plug the cork. Momentum will be = 0 and thrust.
                  remember how Belyaev
                  stone the nozzles! it will be more true and effective: the conspirators thought, running up to the rocket

                  Quote: Mikhail3
                  That is, the solution, let’s say, is an intermediate one.

                  it’s most correct to manage .... DISPLACEMENT OF THE CENTER OF MASS, ALONG THE AXIS AND REGARDING THE CENTER OF THE CIRCLE OF ZUR / RVV .. nevertheless we fly in the environment
                  or
                  nozzle, turn the COP (nozzle), but on the RTDD, and even more so light missiles. It is difficult to implement.
                  1. Mikhail3
                    Mikhail3 9 December 2019 12: 25
                    0
                    I initially spoke of the impulse that I defined. And you understand me, right? I did not try to catch you, and what you plowed, it happens. No need to fend off me as a customer, filling it with formulas that he does not understand and is afraid of like fire) First of all, I understand them a little, and secondly I didn’t want to hurt them by trolls. Relax.
                    The displacement of the center of mass ?! What is it like? First, the center of mass shifts all the time, as the fuel runs out. Secondly ... that is, do you propose moving a certain control mass inside the rocket? And since there is nothing superfluous in the rocket, and it is undesirable to introduce a lead ingot there, is this something - to carry a charge around the internal volume? But cool at all! Has anyone tried it?
                    And yes, a diffuser is any narrowing. Including narrowing, resulting from the placement in the stream of the scapula.
                    1. opus
                      opus 9 December 2019 12: 50
                      +1
                      Quote: Mikhail3
                      I initially spoke of the impulse whose definition led

                      you brought him later.
                      So what?
                      Did I "bring" something else?
                      Quote: opus
                      Impulse, the number of movements does not change (m.v.). Traction decreases yes

                      Do you have any impulse?

                      Quote: Mikhail3
                      And you understand me, right?

                      no. because when I talk about a jet engine, I have a completely different impulse in mind
                      namely m (mass of gas: fuel + oxidizing agent) * v (speed of their outflow of their nozzle
                      I am not interested in the external characteristic of the rocket itself, it is in no way connected with the thrust vector control method
                      and (!)
                      Quote: Mikhail3
                      Impulse - the production of body weight at its speed

                      your rocket mass will change, and VERY quickly (fuel consumed), for RVV it is tens of seconds. The influence of gas dynamic rudders for m (rocket mass) * V (rocket speed) = pah, grind and forget
                      Quote: Mikhail3
                      Relax.

                      I'm not dressed up

                      Quote: Mikhail3
                      The displacement of the center of mass ?! What is it like?

                      Quote: Mikhail3
                      that is, do you propose moving a certain control mass inside the rocket?

                      pump + mercury (or something, let's say fuel for BIP) + closed circuits + good high-speed computer
                      Quote: Mikhail3
                      lead lead ingots are undesirable

                      why lead?
                      DH does not need to be moved a little from the CD
                      Quote: Mikhail3
                      But cool at all! Has anyone tried it?

                      working on bullet-guided projectiles
                      1. Mikhail3
                        Mikhail3 9 December 2019 13: 00
                        0
                        It's bad that you mean something of your own, not paying attention to the interlocutors. Nonsense turns out, And you have some kind of "your" impulse, which I am not obliged to guess, and no one is obliged, you are not a professor in the audience, and not a GC in your design bureau, here is just an open area. It is wise to stay in an open forum of general concepts and basic definitions, without getting into specifics. It is also reasonable to accept your mistake as an impetus to correct it, and not try to build up your shadow contrary to reality.
                        Mercury, lead, it doesn't matter. All the same, the solution is not optimal, additional weight. On the other hand, rudders installed anywhere are also massive. In general, everything depends on the BCM and the boundaries of the possibilities of such management. If it works out - a funky thing will come out! This is a really new solution, based on a previously unused idea! I envy people who are professionally engaged in such tasks ...
                      2. opus
                        opus 9 December 2019 13: 09
                        -1
                        Quote: Mikhail3
                        It is reasonable to stay in an open forum of general concepts and basic definitions, without getting into the specifics. It is also wise to accept your mistake as an impetus to correct it, and not try to build up your shadow in spite of reality.

                        I wonder where I was not "holding on" (general principles and concepts) ???
                        and where
                        I have a "mistake" that "must be admitted"?
                        recourse
                      3. Mikhail3
                        Mikhail3 12 December 2019 15: 22
                        0
                        Pride...)
                    2. Evil Booth
                      Evil Booth 27 December 2019 16: 21
                      0
                      the impulse is the energy given to the arcette for the duration of the fuel operation that takes less than a minute
  10. vvvjak
    vvvjak 6 December 2019 15: 48
    +6
    A rather controversial article. We compare promising weapons with the fact that they have been at war for a long time (and quite successfully) and draw a conclusion about the "genetic diseases" of the latter. So I, personally, am not sure of the advantage of the passive IKGSN (as I understood that it was installed on the IRIS missile defense system) over the radio command guidance method "Pantsir" and "Torov" for short-range systems.
  11. Stalllker
    Stalllker 6 December 2019 16: 07
    0
    How clumsy they are made, our air defense systems "look beautiful")
  12. d4rkmesa
    d4rkmesa 6 December 2019 16: 14
    +2
    Question: How much does 1 missile 9M331 and IRIS-T SLM cost? Most likely, the difference is almost an order of magnitude. A missile with ARGS or Matrix IR GOS = expensive rocket. Until cheap sensors appear that are as reliable as traditional GOS, procurement of such equipment will reset any budget.
    1. JonnyT
      JonnyT 6 December 2019 16: 25
      -6
      This is expensive for us, and they have their own microelectronics and mass, so they are not very expensive
      1. Eduard Egorov
        Eduard Egorov 6 December 2019 17: 30
        +1
        At their prices, it’s certainly expensive for us, and don’t confuse military electronics with mass consumer electronics, it’s also expensive for them, you first learn how to use a calculator, with us this rocket will cost you two cheaper.
      2. bk316
        bk316 6 December 2019 18: 49
        +1
        its own and massive electronics, so it’s not very expensive for them

        Judging by analogs, it’s about 1,5-2 times more expensive laughing
        The French have it - it is not clear from the USA, but there is a suspicion that it is even more expensive.
  13. YakimovSS
    YakimovSS 6 December 2019 16: 15
    +2
    The author’s concerns about R&D, of course, give the right to throw stones at the existing and confirming their performance characteristics systems. The truth is not very clear why the 9M96 family is not considered. Well, okay. The main thing is that now you can breathe quietly - Diamond wiped his nose. So far, plans and on paper. But how beautiful it looks!
  14. Zeev Zeev
    Zeev Zeev 6 December 2019 16: 22
    0
    Chu, I also have a novelty of ideas. We have in Israel for a long time and "Spiders" with various aircraft all-aspect missiles of the "Derby" type, and the "Iron Dome" in a mobile version was recently announced. And all this with active homing
    1. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 27 December 2019 16: 22
      0
      mention the dome in a different place like Movton.
      1. Zeev Zeev
        Zeev Zeev 27 December 2019 23: 46
        -1
        Why mention the "Iron Dome" bad manners?
        1. Evil Booth
          Evil Booth 28 December 2019 06: 34
          0
          NK36 automatic))) the dome is ABM)))) Uldeopard’s turret armor))) Whallenger 2 tank))) f35 stealth))))))) yes all over !!! am
          1. Zeev Zeev
            Zeev Zeev 28 December 2019 09: 45
            -1
            And what prevents the LCD from shooting at aerodynamic targets? Moreover, they also tested it for this
            1. Evil Booth
              Evil Booth 28 December 2019 10: 22
              0
              laughing lol experienced)) from your words. VA first ZhK is a stationary worker working in a stationary sector with a security zone less than Osa several times. despite the fact that the wasp is universal and mobile on 1 car, it is floating in armor and if you put there the current OLS on the control center will be knocked down even by the NURS at least f22
              1. Zeev Zeev
                Zeev Zeev 28 December 2019 12: 12
                0
                Well, use the "Wasp" (by the way, the chassis is NOT armored). And we will use the "Iron Dome" in stationary, mobile (on a truck) and sea versions. And along with the "Spider", "Barack" and everything else.
                1. Evil Booth
                  Evil Booth 29 December 2019 20: 00
                  0
                  lol and let me tell you what will happen to them if I happen to be a bee 19))))))))) that's all))) crying Threat shell knocked down a ballistic lore)) the Syrians somewhere in the 13th chtoli brought down agm149abo 154 to bear. The gopher is that the patriot shot down his own more than strangers)) so use it for health =) Does the OSA still have a body stronger than the dome? clearly does not protect against dust
                  1. Zeev Zeev
                    Zeev Zeev 29 December 2019 21: 51
                    0
                    You keep believing in it winked
                    1. Evil Booth
                      Evil Booth 30 December 2019 05: 37
                      0
                      fool Well, you know that the dome works in the sector and is mobile and therefore can be covered by fire from the flank because the sector is not mobile and the channel on target 1 if you hit it in the forehead. that the MLRS patriot does not know how to fly low so it doesn’t matter .. but what else is there in the second after the Ukrainian empire with the most developed economy?
                      1. Zeev Zeev
                        Zeev Zeev 30 December 2019 07: 00
                        -1
                        The dome works the way you write it in the program. You write in the sector - it will be in the sector. You will write in 360 degrees, it will be circular. And the same with mobility. Put on a trailer - it will be stationary, put on a truck - mobile.
  15. Berkut24
    Berkut24 6 December 2019 16: 57
    +6
    There is such a thing - each method of guidance has its pros and cons. Firstly, among the listed potential targets, I do not see any super-maneuverable products. Secondly, when firing "for an obstacle" outside the line of sight, the homing head, when approaching the target, will be deprived of all these advantages in obtaining information from "numerous third-party radar, optical-electronic or radio-technical reconnaissance devices over the radio channel of a two-way asynchronous line." When meeting with a modern aircraft, the problem of the impact of on-board electronic warfare of the target and "festive fireworks" will be added.
    The idea, perhaps, is not bad, only "Armor" is not worth reviling. They at Khmeinim in Syria have not yet missed a single target. As we remember, penny drones became the main means of attack. And here comes the question of the cost of defeat. I do not believe that the IRIS-T SAM will be cheaper than the 57E6E, which does not have an engine at all. In addition, the "Carapace C1" close range starts from 0. Artillery will help him, which makes the cost of destruction even more than the minimum. Kampluftvern does not have this opportunity. And the Kampluftvern's ammunition load of 6 missiles is, in principle, inferior to the 12 missiles of the Pantsir.
    1. svoit
      svoit 6 December 2019 22: 04
      +2
      Quote: Berkut24
      Artillery to help him, which makes the cost of destruction and the minimum eight

      All the same, I just want to know how many shot down (missiles, planes ...) Carapace in Syria, which was then "crushed by a mass", I have not seen specific figures anywhere ...
    2. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 30 December 2019 05: 39
      0
      drinks intrEt the truth oh how dislikes
  16. Uncle Izya
    Uncle Izya 6 December 2019 17: 19
    0
    Which translator of articles is prolific as he manages to translate so many foreign reviews))
  17. Klingon
    Klingon 6 December 2019 17: 38
    -2
    by the time this complex is rolled out for testing, we will already have Tor-M4U and Shell-XM2 with lasers instead of guns lol
  18. Vlad5307
    Vlad5307 6 December 2019 17: 40
    +2
    Now let them first design, verify, put into production and take into service the troops. And we don’t need to be afraid of the possible as a fool Elsa from a German fairy tale. Yes, our designers do not stand still and do not rest on their laurels, but work according to the doctrine. bully
  19. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 6 December 2019 18: 07
    +3
    Oh, didn’t it sag ... didn’t our "abazeee" Damantsev have it too much? Our "L. Tolstoy Military Review" !? Something his "language dialect" has changed again! Did E. Hyde again strangle Dr. Jekyll in Mr. Damantsev? belay Mr. Damantsev stubbornly pushes us zurs 9M330 and 57E6 (that is, in order "under obsolete" missiles "...), while promising" irises "by the 23rd year! Really, the MO will not hurry up by the 23rd year about re-equipping the" TOPs " zuras 9M338K, and "Pantsirey" - zuras up to 30 km and hypersonic up to 40 km? It is also worth keeping in mind the zur 9М100! Why not think over the option of equipping the "TORs" with these missiles; and even better ... connection based on 9М100 "Torovskaya" modification!? A strong argument for the new "Pantsir-SM" will be hypersonic zuras! Against high-speed missiles, you will not get too much ... you can't maneuver ... you just might not be in time! And "Pantsir-S / C1 / C2" should be upgraded and get new missiles up to 30 km ... it can be assumed that, at the same time, the speed will be increased ... And, finally, .... "cherry on top" (!) ... for why "scare" "TORA" and "Armor" by "Kampluftvern"? request They sho ... are designed to confront each other? stop
    PS It was painful for me to argue with the petrel of the Ministry of Defense ... the light of the Crimean catacombs E. Damantsev! After all, I also "love" zuras with GOS and impulse correction ... which I have repeatedly admitted on the pages of VO! I have repeatedly stated that the combat effectiveness of the Zur 57E6 would be significantly increased if they were equipped with a DPU ... moreover, the "concept" of missiles with a detachable, soon after launch, rocket engine, as it were, "requires a DPU! Me too" I'm waiting for "such missiles in the TOR and Pantsirei ammunition, but also, I have repeatedly" quoted "the famous Kartsev ... (let there be" crayfish "5 rubles each and 3 rubles each ...)!" pluses of "radio-controlled" zurov - comparative cheapness, "all-weather", the possibility of retargeting ammunition in the air with a sudden change in the priorities of targets, a fairly high noise immunity at the modern level of "radio business" ... And here's another ... Damantsev, for some reason, wrote the mentioned "iris-like" complex in "invisible"! And won't this "Kampluftvern" be equipped with radars? It is unlikely that it will be possible to make the multipurpose complex highly efficient and all-weather without using, to one degree or another (at one stage or another ...), radar systems ... which means that this "waffle" will most likely "glow" in " radio air "!
  20. faterdom
    faterdom 6 December 2019 19: 29
    +3
    The topic is interesting, but I can’t plus such an article. For a purely propaganda article for the rejoicing of the western man in the street and our despondency.
    The truth is in the middle. Let us be glad for the German Norwegians (or Norwegians), for their multiple "will", "will be able", we will question the "capable" of missiles that do not yet exist.
    And on to rest on our laurels, but note to ourselves that NATO does not yet have anything equal in efficiency to the S-400, S-350, and even before the "Pantsir", "Thor" and our other systems, you still need to look - how it really is ...
    Not only we have problems with what and how to irradiate or detect, I hope they are working on it,
    After all, there is also a side to the matter, such as electronic warfare, and here we have plus fat.
    Yes, we have a bad relationship with AWACS, but it’s also an expensive and vulnerable thing, with our anti-aircraft missile ranges up to 400 km, I'm afraid AWACS is not an assistant in the front zone.
    In general, we sometimes have such a choice that you just can’t make a mistake - you need to invest very accurately in the developments that will secure us. Because we will not pull everything at once and in everything.
    So under Brezhnev the question was: simple reliable missiles, cheaper and more, or move on to more complex systems. Leonid Ilyich gave preference to the latter, and turned out to be right - we still use the best practices.
    1. Kirill Dou
      Kirill Dou 6 December 2019 20: 41
      -4
      there is not yet anything equal in effectiveness to the S-400, S-350
      - How can one judge the effectiveness of these missile systems if they have never been involved in battle?
    2. Mihail2019
      Mihail2019 7 December 2019 19: 29
      +1
      I just want to tell you in appendage: a comparison of the declared promising characteristics of some systems (which are redrawn ten times on the kulman. Yes, and even the customer shares the declared characteristics in half) with the real ones adopted for service - this is Damantsev’s hobby.
      Well, then a lot of hype.
      Already tired of this pseudo-smart, "littering" the article with a bunch of supposedly technical details.
      A moron must be, so as not to understand that the characteristics of real air defense systems and their ammunition will not be known to Eugene.
      But this does not prevent him from being "smart" ..
      "General of Couch Analytics"
  21. Operator
    Operator 6 December 2019 19: 50
    +9
    I understand everything - British scientists have proven, but why get so angry? laughing

    "Iris" is an air defense missile system of the last mile, so it can afford non-aerodynamic control (solid propellant rocket does not have time to burn out at a distance of 2,5 km). On the other hand, its thrust vector control with the help of gas-jet rudders is an ancient way as mammoth shit (sorry for my French), now the trend is a rotary nozzle or a battery of disposable mini-solid propellants (for extreme).

    And what will the Iris intercept with an available overload of 60 G - is it possible that an AIM-120C air-to-air missile, which someone will hit at a ground target, and even at a distance of 30 km (until the solid propellant rocket has run out of fuel) with an overload 30 G? Is it okay that the missile's warhead is a bare metal rod, sharpened to penetrate duralumin gliders of aircraft? laughing

    And how will the super-super-infrared seeker "Iris" work in case of smoke and dustiness of the atmosphere around the protected object - to the touch? laughing

    And the banal overload of the Iris with big fool-missiles (by the way, why are they like that for the last mile) with a mass of false targets will lead to self-disarming of the miracle of British scientific thought.

    Well, as a bonus: why such a hangover "Iris" needs the ability to hit a target outside the line of sight of an air defense missile system - such as an "air-to-ground" missile and gliding bombs have already been trained to fly / glide near the ground behind obstacles out of sight of the target for the last 2,5 , XNUMX km of its trajectory? laughing

    PS The best solution for intercepting attacking ammunition on the last mile is the Russian Pantsir air defense missile system with semi-active radar mini-Nails.
  22. sevtrash
    sevtrash 6 December 2019 21: 17
    0
    Germany's GDP is more than 2 times higher than that of Russia, so there is money for basic science, they have more R&D. And if you add another 5 countries, IRIS-T developers? The Germans know how to make technology, you don’t have to go far for examples. All chances to make advanced technology. Moreover, they have no problems with all kinds of electronics, the Americans, if anything, will give or allow them to buy. So there is nothing surprising.
    1. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 27 December 2019 16: 25
      0
      The budget of Saudi Arabia allows you to buy Yemen, but for some reason they are fighting, as a result of which Yemen WITHOUT a budget comes steeply ahead with a wide front, knocking down f15 / 16 c75 missiles and putting debris and shots on YouTube again, bursting abrams in packs and bombing airfields and the capital of the ks and Blabla destroyers drown them ... takes hundreds of captured prisoners and five. imkho if the military budget at ksa is pozyraty more than Russian.
  23. Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin 6 December 2019 22: 41
    0
    What can I say - let them do it.
  24. faterdom
    faterdom 6 December 2019 23: 17
    -1
    Quote: Kirill Dou
    there is not yet anything equal in effectiveness to the S-400, S-350
    - How can one judge the effectiveness of these missile systems if they have never been involved in battle?

    Elementary Watson! According to the performance characteristics. You can judge. By the lack of blasphemy in the Western press. By the number of people wishing to buy at least in the export (worsened) version. This is only for the S-400.
    About S-350 is a separate song, we don’t seem to sell them, but this is a very interesting complex, which, finally, our frigate makes a good air defense umbrella.
    I don't even mention the S-500 and Nudol.
    1. Kirill Dou
      Kirill Dou 7 December 2019 03: 24
      -2
      According to the performance characteristics.
      - may be overpriced by the manufacturer. Those same Americans in the VO are often accused of overestimating the performance characteristics of their military equipment. Why can't ours do the same? Because it's Americans, and we are noble Russians?

      By the lack of blasphemy in the Western press.
      - There are also critical reviews.

      By the number of people wishing to buy at least in the export (worsened) version.
      - According to the American channel CNBC, citing intelligence sources, however 13 countries are interested in the supply of the S-400 complex. The operating operators of the S-400 are 5 countries. The number of operating Patriot operators reaches 10.

      I don't even mention the S-500 and Nudol.
      - And rightly so, because they are not yet in service.
      1. alstr
        alstr 7 December 2019 12: 35
        0
        They are not in service yet, but they are already undergoing tests with successful launches. Compare - this is with just begun R&D.
        1. Kirill Dou
          Kirill Dou 8 December 2019 04: 06
          -1
          Tests, of course, an important criterion, however, the statistics of combat use is still a more objective criterion.
          1. alstr
            alstr 8 December 2019 17: 14
            +1
            So from R&D to combat use is an even greater way than from testing.

            In general, it is enough to recall the wisdom that the best warrior is not the one who defeats everyone, but the one who is not attacked.
    2. KCA
      KCA 8 December 2019 09: 10
      0
      The S-350 appeared as a result of an order for the development of an anti-aircraft missile by the Republic of Korea from Almaz-Antey, they made the complex themselves, judging by the customer's lack of complaints, at least with the S-350 missiles everything is fine, we also made the complex ourselves
      1. Evil Booth
        Evil Booth 27 December 2019 16: 26
        0
        dadadda and t90 is out of date.
  25. Dmitry Simakin
    Dmitry Simakin 6 December 2019 23: 36
    +2
    Comparison of "developed promising Norwegian-German mobile air defense systems" with the advanced Russian mobile air defense systems being developed has not been disclosed ...
  26. Dmitry Simakin
    Dmitry Simakin 6 December 2019 23: 38
    +4
    And what's the point of comparing German the day after tomorrow with Russian the day before yesterday?
  27. uralant
    uralant 7 December 2019 00: 45
    -6
    Hey cheers patriots, stop shaking your teeth and clicking. I can’t get into the letters on the clave!
  28. oligofren32
    oligofren32 7 December 2019 02: 22
    +1
    Maybe I didn’t understand something, but it’s not entirely logical to compare the numbers with the overload characteristics for these two defensive missile defense systems, as well as the target designation method for these two defensive missile defense systems, since these missiles / systems will not be used against each other and their main task to intercept the nomenclature of weapons with already known characteristics that a probable enemy has or will soon have. And the only conclusion that can be made is that both sides have or will soon have short-range missile defense systems that meet modern challenges
    1. nikon7717
      nikon7717 7 December 2019 10: 27
      0
      Compare R&D and finished product. They want one thing, but what happens and when ... how many Yankees fed all about combat lasers, and where so far?
  29. Murad Suleymanov
    Murad Suleymanov 7 December 2019 02: 36
    +1
    One rusty submarine and a couple of medium-range missiles with nuclear warheads keep America in suspense and do not allow dictating their conditions to North Korea! What are you talking about !?))))
  30. Alexander Sh.
    Alexander Sh. 7 December 2019 09: 39
    0
    Until recently, I have not heard anything outstanding about Norwegian military developments. The Germans created their "wunderwafli" at the end of the war, you can't argue with that, but they did not help them much. Comparing the models of equipment in service with R&D is at least frivolous - we, too, do not stand still, and you never know what else we have in storehouses under the heading "top secret".
    1. opus
      opus 7 December 2019 14: 45
      +1
      Quote: Alexander Sh.
      I have not heard anything outstanding about the Norwegian military developments until recently.

      come on?
      One NASAMS SAM battery guards Washington

      Kongsberg / Raytheon NASAMS 2 at a position in the air defense of Washington (USA)
      NASAMS (originally norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System, now stands for National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System)
      and the anti-ship missile "Penguin"?

      What about NSM ™ CDS?

      1. Evil Booth
        Evil Booth 27 December 2019 16: 28
        0
        to us))) such a um .. well, THIS was done by the Serbs in a week from missiles to Mig29 this is not air defense but something um ... to increase yield in the fields.
  31. 2 Level Advisor
    2 Level Advisor 7 December 2019 10: 03
    0
    on R&D? and in our R&D, what’s cooler than Torov and Shell ... until they do their job, we will have the next generation .. So the good news is, they only think how to do what we already have in the troops ...
  32. nikon7717
    nikon7717 7 December 2019 10: 24
    0
    Quote: Kirill Dou
    And I nowhere and do not deny that the "Patriots" do not always work. However, there are many cases when they worked out 100

    I can be your statement about worked out at 100%, take it as a phrase - Patriot is an ideal and perfect weapon hi
  33. Mihail2019
    Mihail2019 7 December 2019 11: 06
    0
    I looked at the heading and the first paragraph - I think Damantsev, however .. I leafed down to see the author - for sure, Eugene!
  34. opus
    opus 7 December 2019 11: 52
    +2
    It was necessary to head the article
    Evgeny Damantsev broadcasts: The terrible opponent of Torov and Shell is already at the stage of R&D. Possibilities of the advanced Kampluftvern air defense system

    I look already moved to "analytics".
    1. Well, how can one SAM be an opponent to another? They will beat each other / against each other?
    2.
    Quote: Yevgeny Damantsev
    Gaining operational operational readiness by the Kampluftvern anti-aircraft missile system will change the alignment of forces in the North European conditional theater of operations

    how?
    when Minister of Defense Ine Eriksen-Sörreide spoke at a debate at the University of Bergen, where she dwelt separately on investments in air defense.
    Many then noted the malicious comment from the audience:
    Quote: Yevgeny Damantsev
    What for? After all, we still have MG-3 in the air defense


    3.
    Quote: Yevgeny Damantsev
    The radio command guidance system for self-propelled air defense systems Tor-M2U and air defense missile systems Pantsir-S1 eliminates operational-tactical flexibility in the formation of zonal-object air defense over areas with difficult terrain

    Well Duc these are the problems of the Norwegians, the same for them the NASAMS II air defense system with difficult terrain already in the first half of the effective range is not able to "see" and hit targets at low altitudes, and the minimum firing range is 1,5-2,5 km.
    CSKA (Norwegians) sadly recall their good old warm and lamp RB-70s, which continue to gather dust in warehouses, although they once reliably covered them from combat helicopters and low-flying Ivanov attack aircraft, literally in hordes prowling between the slopes of hills and mountain tops above the front line.

    Where can we wait for an enemy seeping through a complex terrain? in the swamps of the Leningrad region?

    4.
    Quote: Yevgeny Damantsev
    IRIS-T interceptor missiles in the SLM anti-aircraft version, equipped with an infrared seeker with an indium antimonide based photodetector array (with a medium-wave working IR range of 3 to 5 μm), are fully autonomous short-range interception tools capable of destroying targets outside of the targeting radar sectors placed on combat vehicles of the Kampluftvern air defense system

    4.1. what's the difference on indium antimode or on the basis of lead chalcogenides?

    Well, I will add that it was developed by "Diehl BGT Defense", it is called TELL, and the ISN is sabotaged by the Italian company "Litton", what will change with this TGSN?
    4.2
    Quote: Yevgeny Damantsev
    then the above list of disadvantages, these products will not have.
    Oh no no no
    and the ground SL / SLM air defense complex (IRIS-T SL) and Project 7628 Kampluftvern use additional radio command guidance (in combination with inertial-satellite correction) in the main area trajectories with target capture type IIR infrared seeker in the final section.
    The SLM complex includes a multifunctional radar: first was Saab Giraffe (in particular, AMB), then with the Australian multifunctional radar CEA Technologies CEAFAR with AFAR (GBMMR).
    Quote: Yevgeny Damantsev
    SAM IRIS-T SLM capable of operating on anti-radar and operational-tactical ballistic and cruise missiles, attacking air defense systems in a "dead crater" (at angles from 70 to 90 degrees).

    I don’t know about the funnels, but the missile launcher provides launching at target sighting angles of more than 90 ° (shooting "over the shoulder"), TELL TGSN provides pumping angles up to ± 90 ° at the target line of sight angular velocity up to 60 ° / s.
    and to shoot down a ballistic missile, or its warhead, with this missile launcher, which has a warhead of 11.4 kg ... it will be difficult for the elephant
    1. zombirusrev
      zombirusrev 7 December 2019 13: 01
      0
      Right Generally amuse reasoning without reference to reliable verified sources.
    2. Geo⁣
      Geo⁣ 7 December 2019 13: 45
      0
      Where can we wait for an enemy seeping through a complex terrain? in the swamps of the Leningrad region?

      Along the border, counterclockwise: Khibiny, Caucasus, southern spurs of the Urals, Altai, Sayans, Sikhote-Alin, Kolyma Highlands, etc. etc.
      1. opus
        opus 7 December 2019 14: 15
        0
        Quote: Geo⁣
        Along the border, counterclockwise:

        no tama nats, here we have solid friends
        you see ... the article is called:
        Quote: Yevgeny Damantsev
        Terrible opponent “Torov” and “Shell” are already at the stage of R&D. Possibilities of the advanced Kampluftvern air defense system

        opponent it is someone who protests (opposes) someone in a public conversation, debate, etc. (I do not take var. 2)
        I don’t understand how 2 anti-aircraft systems can be opposed to each other? In terms of sales or what?

        I don't think WHEN the Kampluftvern thread will oppose us, in particular the "tori" and "shells", in the direction
        Quote: Geo⁣
        southern spurs of the Urals, Altai, Sayans, Sikhote-Alin, Kolyma Highlands, etc. etc.
        1. Geo⁣
          Geo⁣ 7 December 2019 21: 02
          +1
          I agree with your previous post. And about the opponent, etc.
          I disagree only with the fact that we do not need to have air defense capable of operating in difficult terrain. Perhaps this is not such a burning issue for us as for the creators of the complex under discussion, but still important.
          For the Caucasus - Georgia, in the east - the ocean in which NATO. The Central Asian republics are not as resistant to the issues of radical Islamism as we would like. Yes, and China today is normal, but tomorrow who knows? Well, etc.
          1. opus
            opus 8 December 2019 16: 35
            0
            Quote: Geo⁣
            we don’t need to have air defense capable of operating in difficult terrain

            need of course.
            For “Tori” and “Carapace” it’s easy to perform multispectral AGSN (radar and infrared).
            In another way or how, or aviation.
            And the radio command and / or according to the ANN will still remain on the upper stage
  35. xax
    xax 7 December 2019 12: 24
    +2
    No matter how unpleasant it may sound ... but detailed monitoring ... strengthens our opinion

    Who is "us"? And what is this "detailed monitoring"?
    1. Geo⁣
      Geo⁣ 7 December 2019 13: 30
      +2
      Quote: xax
      Who is "us"? And what is this "detailed monitoring"?

      Yeah. A person who calls himself in the plural, does not understand the difference between "opponent" and "competitor", does not know that monitoring is an observation over time of certain processes, and not just surfing the Internet - as the author of analytical articles does not inspire confidence, even though this person assigns such a flattering characteristic to the results of his labors as "detailed monitoring". Yeah.
  36. bubasa
    bubasa 7 December 2019 13: 58
    0
    I understand that Eugene wrote the whole text for the first paragraph? reading the rest is optional? ok let's move on
  37. storm
    storm 7 December 2019 15: 18
    +2
    Research Institute of Instrument Engineering (NIIP) named after V.V. Tikhomirov (part of the Almaz-Antey VKO Concern) at the round table of the scientific and business program of the Army-2017 international military-technical forum presented the concept of the new Ermak medium and short-range air defense missile system, which is intended for the echeloned defense of mobile land groups troops and ground targets from massive attacks of enemy air attack. Echeloned defense is achieved by interacting with the S-300 command posts, Tor-type combat vehicles, and Tunguska-type anti-aircraft cannon and missile systems.

    According to the developers, the new air defense system will include robotic launchers, a robotic target detection system, and short-range robotic modules. Thanks to the automation factor, it becomes possible to remotely control the system from combat control points. Points, in turn, also work in a fully automatic mode, and the operator makes only minor adjustments to their work.

    According to the stated tactical and technical characteristics, the highly mobile, noise-resistant air defense system of medium and short range Ermak will be able to detect aerodynamic targets at ranges of up to 250 km (Buk-M2 - up to 140 km), the near and far border of target destruction is 0,2- 120 km (the foreign air defense missile system MEADS has a destruction range of 3 to 100 km), and the lower and upper ones are 0,015-28 km (for Buk-M2 it is 0,015-25 km).

    The maximum number of ready-to-launch anti-aircraft guided missiles reaches 180 units. (at Buk-M2 - 80/48). At the same time, the Ermak air defense system is capable of firing at 48 targets (against 24 at Buk-M2).

    NIIP named after Tikhomirov proposes to rearm the air defense units of the Ground Forces at the Yermak air defense system by 2030.
    1. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 27 December 2019 16: 33
      0
      But what is it better than the connection beech3 + s300v4? the beech looks pumped over and the hole between the beech3 at 70 km and c300 from 120 (200) is seen not only by all. it is essentially not there. one shoots down carriers until they drop long-range ammunition; the second shoots down carriers and ammunition at a real battle distance. the sense of a range of 90-180 is very small, as it seemed.
  38. Nick
    Nick 7 December 2019 16: 36
    +3
    Hooray-non-patriotic author Damantsev, gives dreams and fantasies, Western futurists from the military-industrial complex, for reality fellow wassat negative stop soldier
  39. Oyo Sarkazmi
    Oyo Sarkazmi 7 December 2019 16: 45
    +1
    Uuuuu ... The intention to construct something, highlighted on some site, is issued as the unconditional victory of bloody democracy over the patriots !!!
    Here the Americans cannot bring a catapult of capacitors and 200 tons of wire to mind, and the ZADUMKA of a new rocket has already buried both the S-300 and the Shell.
    In general, I’m in touch from an all-weedy ...
  40. off
    off 7 December 2019 17: 19
    +1
    The concepts of opponent and competitor are two big differences .....
  41. peter rusin_2
    peter rusin_2 7 December 2019 17: 52
    +1
    Do not boast about going to the army, but returning from rati. While they create something there, ours in Syria are already fighting according to the network-centric principle of management.
  42. zombirusrev
    zombirusrev 7 December 2019 18: 06
    +1
    Citizens than this miracle conceptually differs from Chaparel air defense systems or Strela-10 air defense systems, in my opinion only by the size of SAM. In addition, as this miracle will detect the target except as a direction finder on a retractable tower. In general, this is Chaparel with a ZUR overgrowth.
  43. awdrgy
    awdrgy 7 December 2019 18: 11
    0
    The last "bunch" of the Norwegian military?)
  44. Usher
    Usher 7 December 2019 18: 37
    0
    Quote: Nick
    Quote: YOUR
    This phrase alone casts doubt on the author’s knowledge and exalts his verbiage. High-speed - wow, tactical - class and performing intensive anti-aircraft maneuvers - generally masterpiece

    I was especially touched by the passage about HIGH-SPEED KR. The author obviously does not know that our probable adversary, who is in the arsenal of the Kyrgyz Republic Tomahawk, is ALL subsonic.

    They still do not maneuver.
  45. Usher
    Usher 7 December 2019 18: 41
    +1
    The author does not understand what he is writing about. Replayed the game? What goals are maneuvering with 30g ??? I do not know such goals, cruise missiles are first subsonic and do not maneuver from the word at all, they fly along a given route. In the western part of Russia there are very few mountains, etc. And at a distance of 2-5km, the air defense systems occupy a dominant height.
    1. Mihail2019
      Mihail2019 7 December 2019 19: 41
      +1
      The author is simply a "balabol" and a graphomaniac.
      He writes a lot, successfully covers himself with information from Wikipedia.
      One problem - rarely goes out into the street, real life does not correlate with imaginary.
      Poor thing ..
  46. Alexander Naydenov
    Alexander Naydenov 7 December 2019 22: 17
    0
    if there was something like that for both the sons and the Geyropeans, then they would have long ago applied this in Syria. so so.
  47. lieutenant colonel
    lieutenant colonel 8 December 2019 08: 25
    0
    But does the TOR and the Shell work autonomously, and not in the air defense system, including the S-300 (409, 500) systems, fighter aircraft, with a set of the entire spectrum of the radar ?? And then, the Carapace and Thor are a missile-cannon complex. And the fact that the adversary (such a bastard!) Wants to put a rudder in the nozzle ... well ... let ... master the NATO 2% (and why not steering nozzles rd, why this screw-drive unit - it will dampen speed .. I don’t understand the progress of R&D)
  48. Bratkov Oleg
    Bratkov Oleg 8 December 2019 11: 21
    0
    Quote: YOUR
    It is written cool, but the question is, what does this mean ???????

    Means it's cool written!
    And finally, if you add to the air defense of Russia the eighties and nineties of the last century, when the Brezhnevs really undermined the economy ..... Yeltsins ... Russia is holding on well.
  49. Woland
    Woland 8 December 2019 13: 12
    0
    Between R&D and the finished product with the planned TTD, the distance is huge. Let's live, see
  50. iouris
    iouris 21 December 2019 12: 00
    -1
    The idea is interesting. The point is small: find the one who will finance the creation of new technologies and production.