Thor - 2019

54


Photo by IEMZ Kupol JSC

2019 year was filled with events related to Russian anti-aircraft missile systems. Moreover, this concerned not only long-range air defense systems (C-300 and C-400), but also their downstream associates. Short-range air defense systems of the Tor family almost every month occupied the top lines of informational tapes.

So, in 2019, information on the participation of the Tor-M2 air defense system in the counter-terrorist operation in Syria was officially confirmed. It became known that, providing the air defense of Khmeimim, the "dome" complex destroyed about a hundred air attack weapons that attacked the base. According to the results of the battles, the Tor-M2 air defense missile systems not only confirmed the declared characteristics in real battles, but was also recognized as the optimal means of combating small-sized low-flying targets. As a result, as reported by the media with reference to an unnamed source in the commander-in-chief of the Navy, the 1096th anti-aircraft regiment of the Black Sea fleet, providing air defense of Sevastopol, it was decided to rearm not on medium-range complexes, but on the Tor-M2 air defense system.

In June, at the Army-2019 forum, a prototype of the Tor family of air defense systems was presented on the chassis wheeled chassis of the Bryansk Automobile Plant. This was another demonstration of the capabilities of the Torov air defense system to interface with the most diverse chassis of the customer’s choice.

In July, at the training ground on Novaya Zemlya, the Northern Fleet air defense forces conducted large-scale exercises using the Arctic version of the Izhevsk anti-aircraft missile system. During the exercises, the Arctic SAM "Tor-M2DT" once again proved that it is able to provide real protection for administrative and military installations from modern air attack weapons in this remote Russian region. On 30 on November 2019 of the year, the Northern Fleet air defense units equipped with the Tor-M2DT air defense missile systems took up combat duty.

In October 2019, the Tor-M2 air defense missile system, consisting of 12 combat vehicles and controls, was shipped to the 726 training center for the Air Defense Forces for training and rearmament of the 245 anti-aircraft missile battalion 42 of the motorized rifle division of the Southern Military District.

It is worth noting that air defense systems are not only the most important component of ensuring the security of Russia, but also an important tool of geopolitical influence. An example of this is the joint Egyptian-Russian exercise "Arrow of Friendship 2019", which took place on October 26 - November 7 at the training ground of the tactical training center of the air defense forces of the Arab Republic of Egypt. They also involved the Tor-M2E anti-aircraft missile systems that are in service with the Egyptian armed forces.

The manufacturer and developer of the Tor family air defense systems is the Izhevsk Electromechanical Plant Kupol (part of the Almaz-Antey aerospace defense concern). This year, the enterprise completed the execution of the state contract under the state arms program 2011-2020. All six divisions of the Tor-M2U and Tor-M2 air defense missile systems were delivered to the troops on time or ahead of schedule. The reliability of the enterprise, the high quality of its products became the basis for the conclusion of a new contract within the framework of GPV-2018-2027, which was signed between the enterprise and the Russian Ministry of Defense 19 this September in Izhevsk in the presence of Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Kupol undertook to manufacture Tor-M2027 and Tor-M2DT air defense systems for a total value of almost 2 billion rubles by 100. Such a long-term contract was concluded with the country's defense industry enterprise for the first time.

SAM systems of the Tor family are the main, but not the only military products manufactured by the Kupol. The plant is actively expanding its line of defense products. In 2019, the debut of the latest developments of the IEMZ Kupol - UMTK Adjutant and BM Typhoon-Air Defense - took place. These products are developed by the enterprise on an initiative basis, but in close interconnection with specialists of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation under the general leadership of the Almaz-Antey concern. Universal target training complex "Adjutant" is designed to create a complex, as close as possible to the combat target situation during training calculations of anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems and systems. In 2019, with the help of UMTK Adjutant, the target environment was created during the tests of the newest Russian S-300В4 air defense system, during training firing of the Tor-M2DT air defense system on Novaya Zemlya, and during other tests and exercises. Another "dome" defense product, BM "Typhoon-Air Defense" is designed to provide mobility and increase the combat effectiveness of anti-aircraft guns MANPADS. On prototypes of these machines, Russian anti-aircraft gunners successfully performed during the Clear Sky contest of the 2019 Army International Games, which was held in China.

The company also carries out the modernization of previously manufactured complexes. Among them, the OSA "Wasp", also noted in the tapes News 2019 year. In November, a video appeared on the Internet about the destruction of the Osa-AKM air defense system of the Apache attack helicopter. This event confirmed that the Wasp remains a formidable adversary for modern air attack weapons. At IEMZ Kupol, a program was developed to modernize this complex to the level of Osa-AKM1, which can significantly increase its combat capabilities.
    Our news channels

    Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

    54 comments
    Information
    Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    1. sen
      +1
      10 December 2019 06: 15
      The best car in its class. It is also necessary to make a marine option.
      1. NKT
        +11
        10 December 2019 10: 12
        Marine option - Dagger.
      2. sen
        +1
        11 December 2019 06: 26
        I meant that the Dagger-type air defense system is not in service with new frigates and corvettes, only ships of the old construction have it.
        1. NKT
          +1
          11 December 2019 10: 06
          So now there is a bunch Broadsword + Redoubt or more "simple" - Pantsir-M or Flexible.
          There is Still-1 (an analogue of land Beech), but it only stands at 11356.

    2. 0
      10 December 2019 06: 26
      Torah-Daggers must be developed, and not all kinds of Armor there. In the direction of versatility (ground targets) and an increase in ammunition, up to transportable containers with external control. If you saturate a tactical zone with such URC, then ...
      1. +8
        10 December 2019 06: 39
        The Shell has a great advantage - the price of missiles is much lower.
        Shooting air defense systems against ground targets is a very expensive pleasure, while for ships the use of SAMs as a situational replacement for anti-ship missiles is justified (almost all ship anti-aircraft missiles can fire at surface targets), but not at ground.
        1. -3
          10 December 2019 09: 57
          Air defense should not be built on the "cheap for cheap" principle. It is necessary to start from the cost of the protected object. There will be a large series - the prime cost will be low, but please do not forget that the price and the prime cost are different things. Sotitki the same for 2000 USD. started selling, and now they are 10.
          1. +3
            10 December 2019 10: 16
            There is a cost / efficiency parameter, but there is no "cheap for cheap" principle and there is no need to start from the cost of the protected object - because the objects can be completely different.
            For a large series, large investments are needed and, more importantly, a large sales market, there is no market with cell phones with missiles.
            1. -2
              10 December 2019 10: 38
              Don't watch RBC until lunchtime! The weapon has no price. If the "gadget" has a price, then it is no longer a weapon. Weapons can have a material consumption and a "man-intensity", and not only in the sense of man-hours, but also "mental capital". Horse! Half a kingdom for a horse! They don't heat boilers with banknotes and don't shoot at targets with chrome boots. These are different worlds. Parallel universes.
              1. +1
                10 December 2019 10: 46
                Hey prrr! Slow down the horse, otherwise you have already rode off to a parallel universe and return your roof from another world, otherwise you feel it took you somewhere)))
                1. -3
                  10 December 2019 11: 16
                  Respected! Not on a cart! Prrr! Not so - the horses are a little slower, a little slower ... Culture, tact to you in the New Year, "poetry", so to speak! The holiday is just around the corner! And tighten up the philosophy.
              2. +4
                10 December 2019 12: 53
                Quote: pmkemcity
                The weapon has no price. If the "gadget" has a price, then it is no longer a weapon. Weapons can have a material consumption and a "man-intensity", and not only in the sense of man-hours, but also "mental capital".

                The materials and labor of specialists of the appropriate level has its price in the civilian market. Accordingly, the cost of weapons can be easily calculated.
                In a planned economy, one still has to take into account the removal from the civilian sector of an appropriate amount of material resources and labor. Moreover, this is unproductive expenses, because all those who are engaged in the production of weapons do not participate in the production of goods and services, but only consume what was produced by others.
                1. +7
                  10 December 2019 13: 41
                  The civilian market for weapons, or rather it will be said "weapons" does not exist. When the barrel is pointed at you and Chekhov's phrase "wallet or life" sounds, what do you think is the cost of the weapon? There is a trunk - there is life. And a wallet. And perhaps even a stranger. Life is priceless. even in the "civilian" market. One can part with a weapon only because of weakness, dementia, or ... because of drunkenness in the end. You can give (exchange for santas, etc.) when you have a lot.
                  I have a different opinion about "unproductive" expenses. The weapon itself is a waste of money. But in the complex, in the armed forces of a state, or a gang, for example, weapons are the same means of production as a shovel. There is a machine gun, and all the stalls are with you. There is an F-35, and all democracies bring you 2 percent of GDP.
                  It is fashionable now to talk about Russia's participation in world trade. Like, 2 percent and all that. And I will tell you that we are the main trade partners of all neighboring countries - USA 700, France 64, England 50, Germany 50, Japan 47, Korea 43, Italy 28, Australia 26, Canada 22, Turkey 20, Spain 18, Israel 16, Poland 12, Holland 12, Norway 7, Sweden 6, Greece, Belgium, Ukraine, Romania, 5 full-weight US dollars each. Total 1141 billion, if the calculator doesn't lie, and these are just our "best" friends! And we just offered them to buy our armed forces, the cost of which is only 61 billion .. Navar 1800 percent! This is business, I understand. Drugs and prostitution are resting. And these are just direct costs. How much was spent, for example, on infrastructure, on insurance of the same boats, on R&D, etc. (think the rest yourself). If it were not for Russia, civilized countries in their policies would still be wonderful to get along with bayonets and bullets (possibly rubber). So, we are like a thorn in the eye and an awl in the z ... (taken together). This is about the economy.
            2. +2
              10 December 2019 12: 38
              Quote: Sergey_G_M
              with cell phones there is a market with missiles no

              But it’s a pity that there is no civilian market.
              Business jets have already gotten tired - every half hour over the house another major takes off somewhere. Minor wakes up. I would buy a dozen "Needles" at a reasonable price.
          2. 0
            10 December 2019 11: 16
            And the object just may not be very expensive. Thor, after all, is covering the road, or so on, and no one will check which object is being hit now - maybe a truck that is cheaper than a rocket. And in any case, with a microscope, they hammer nails only in exceptional cases, and better with a hammer
          3. +5
            10 December 2019 16: 58
            Air defense should not be built on the principle of "cheap for cheap"

            Why shouldn't it? Here in Syria on Khmeinim swarms of drones from shit and sticks cost a couple of hundred bucks apiece. Our them are knocked down by obviously more expensive SAM Tori.
            The number of raids is increasing annually. So you need to look for a cheaper way to bring them down.
            1. 0
              11 December 2019 00: 17
              Already found, the AU220M gun where the projectile with remote detonation, although it is not clear why 30 mm was not done with this remote detonation.
              1. 0
                11 December 2019 10: 14
                Already done, just creating such a projectile in caliber 30mm is immeasurably more difficult
              2. 0
                12 December 2019 15: 57
                Quote: Igor K
                why 30 mm wasn’t done with this remote detonation.

                It's expensive - just to shrink. Even countries with own microelectronic base, they are not mass-produced. So, the samples ride on exhibitions, and that’s it.
                The minimum caliber in which dist. blasting is 35mm. But better than 40mm.
                Americans, for example, concentrated on 57mm shipbuilding.
            2. +1
              11 December 2019 00: 29
              Quote: illi
              The number of raids is increasing annually. So you need to look for a cheaper way to bring them down.

              Classic!

              "The best air defense is our tanks at the enemy airfield!" (from) laughing
        2. 0
          10 December 2019 12: 26
          Quote: Sergey_G_M
          then on land no.

          It depends on what purpose .. For example, if an anti-aircraft missile destroys a tank is it justified? Or a Grad launcher? Or a warehouse with ammunition .. here is just a question of the possibility of this .. And yes, the question has long been tormented by the question why one universal missile cannot be left in the air defense of the near zone .. On shells, Tunguska, Torah, and others .. I won against the shell with a tangible advantage .. the cost of missiles is not a fact that it is radically different .. Then I think it's about lobbying and the interests of the manufacturer .. but the fact that the troops are not the most effective weapon then this is the case ..
          1. +2
            10 December 2019 12: 48
            In order for a missile launcher to destroy a tank, it must be pointed at this tank - a new GOS with the ability to recognize ground targets (multispectral), a new navigation system (ANN with correction), a new warhead must be developed for it, which, when unified, will lose its effectiveness in terms of air targets and etc. - such missiles were developed, it turns out a very expensive missile.
            I would not say that Thor is better or worse than the Shell, or vice versa, these are different systems - object and military.
            And about the fact that Thor showed himself better in Syria it is such, to draw conclusions on the video in YouTube, given that the war is being conducted not only on earth but also an unpromising information lesson.
          2. 0
            11 December 2019 09: 54
            How will an anti-aircraft missile destroy a tank? To do this, for this, for starters, it is necessary to have a completely different warhead — cumulative, if you make warheads suitable for both SC and CC, then this may be technically possible, but it will affect overall efficiency.
            Universal rocket - and which one? radio command, or IR or laser command? each has its own advantages and disadvantages.
            What Thor won in Syria - my grandmother saw in a sieve. This is mainly information from insiders who give a tooth, which is true. That's just impossible to verify in principle. By the way, not Thor in general, but specifically Tor-M2, which then (in April 2018) had just appeared. But ordinary Torahs - M1 and M1-2 were not sent there for obvious reasons.
            That the Thor missiles are more expensive, there is no doubt at all, the question is how many times. If at 3-4 - it still went nowhere, but if at 10, as they say on some forums, tady oh. The problem is exacerbated by the small (so far) circulation of 338 missiles, which negatively affects the price.
            That lobbyism exists - who would argue. For example, I don’t think that this KBP shoved KAMAZs as a base for the Shells - they didn’t spoil their products. That is, there were lobbyists above them. Well, it would be naive to think that only the Shell has lobbyists, and the Dome does not have them
            1. 0
              11 December 2019 10: 03
              Quote: sivuch
              How will an anti-aircraft missile destroy a tank?

              There were precedents, tanks were fired at from MANPADS and it was quite guided by a running engine, as a result, the tank was at least out of order .. There will obviously be more warheads from TORA or Carapace, the cost of a tank is 1.5-10 million dollars "Caliber" costs 1 million dollars an anti-aircraft missile is clearly cheaper (well, if not from the s-400.500) if they teach you how to hit, then it is quite profitable to use it on armored vehicles ..
              1. -1
                12 December 2019 16: 08
                Quote: max702
                if you learn to hit it is quite advantageous to use armored vehicles

                Everything has already been invented before us ...
                ADATS, Chrysanthemum, still Israel successfully rivets a family of universal rockets.
    3. +4
      10 December 2019 06: 28
      "and the developer of the air defense system of the" Tor "family is the Izhevsk Electromechanical Plant" Kupol "" - once thought that the developer of the TOP was NIEMI (up to the TOP M1 for sure). General Designer Veniamin Pavlovich Efremov, Chief Designer of the complex - Joseph Matveevich Drize. And only later, in the process of the epic of merger (acquisition) and the creation of the ALMAZ-ANTEI concern, the developers from NIEMI switched to IMZ.
    4. 0
      10 December 2019 06: 52
      "In November, a video of the destruction of the Osa-AKM air defense missile system of the Apache attack helicopter appeared on the Internet" - at the time when I watched this video, it was said that none of the parties to the conflict had confirmed the reliability of the video.
      1. +2
        10 December 2019 11: 11
        What Apache shot down - already confirmed, but Osa or Rapira - is still unclear
        1. 0
          10 December 2019 12: 37
          Well, yes, I didn’t see a wasp there either. A proof proof will not be difficult to throw off? Today I went over this news once again - everyone is referring to that video on Twitter.
    5. +1
      10 December 2019 08: 26
      Against UAVs it is cheaper to use the new SAM Posna
      1. +2
        10 December 2019 09: 48
        Quote: Esaul
        Against UAVs it is cheaper to use the new SAM Posna

        Is not a fact ! stop
      2. +1
        10 December 2019 22: 24
        Even cheaper - the Beryoza air defense system. Works exclusively in fog. Poles in Smolensk will confirm.
    6. +1
      10 December 2019 08: 31
      Do not stop there! The best air defense in the troops and the fleet!
    7. 0
      10 December 2019 08: 43
      30 December Northern Fleet air defense units equipped with the Tor-M2DT air defense missile defense system took up combat duty.

      If the article is about 2019, then 30 December not yet come. request
      Suggest a different date or will step in
    8. +2
      10 December 2019 10: 12
      Perhaps the most important element of layered air defense. Well done creators. Well done!
    9. 0
      10 December 2019 11: 17
      And who is the author of this article?
    10. +3
      10 December 2019 13: 09
      SAM "TOR" - my "favorite" air defense system! Sometimes I try to imagine what he will be able to become in 3 years ... 5 years ... 7 years .... Of course, "TOP" has excellent potential for improvement for many years in the future!
      1. +1
        10 December 2019 14: 19
        Let’s do this - do not compare with the carapace wink .
        So far, the ideas are - 1) 2-band pyramid instead of CHP and SOC - no need to rotate the tower and Sotsk itself.
        2) Rocket with GOS + analogue of nails for self-defense
        1. 0
          10 December 2019 14: 50
          If you use an analogue of "nails", then this is immediately an inclined start from a turntable, which buries the idea with a non-turntable pyramid or limits the angles of launch.
          1. +1
            10 December 2019 16: 51
            https://forums.airbase.ru/2019/06/t57184_59--novyj-tor.html
            Well, this is so if intelligible documentation on the export version with 9M338 is ready.
            Go..left has ideas on an ultra-small missile with a diameter of 82 mm and a range of about 3 km for shooting down all kinds of small drones with the support of the “big” missile command system, but this is all interesting if the customer is interested and has sufficient funding. No one else will develop anything at his own expense. Although this is all interesting. Not compatible containers are discussed, but individual containers.
            Not compatible containers are discussed, but individual containers.
            I mean - can one or another container be pushed into the module? It seems to be understandable.
            There are always options. A thin rocket has a length that is several times shorter, that is, it will be irrational to install their group TPK in place of a long 3-meter one. You can provide a special place for TPK thin.
            1. +2
              11 December 2019 01: 56
              Quote: sivuch
              Go..leva has ideas for an ultra-small missile with diameters of 82 mm and a range of about 3 km to shoot down all sorts of small drones with the support of the "big rocket" command system

              82 mm? I am "familiar" with projects of "small" zur "caliber" 80 mm based on MANPADS ... Anti-aircraft "nails" for "Pantsir" are designed for "caliber" 57-60 mm ... (I assume-57 mm ... )
            2. 0
              12 December 2019 16: 16
              Quote: sivuch
              There are always options. A thin rocket has a length that is several times shorter, that is, it will be irrational to install their group TPK in place of a long 3-meter one. You can provide a special place for TPK thin.

              Canadians when they wanted to modernize their ADATS, put in place one large container - a short one, for 7 small missiles.

              I think the approach is correct.
              True there is a hefty rocket, caliber 150mm
        2. +2
          10 December 2019 16: 01
          Quote: sivuch
          Let’s do this - do not compare with the carapace wink .
          So far, the ideas are - 1) 2-band pyramid instead of CHP and SOC - no need to rotate the tower and Sotsk itself.
          2) Rocket with GOS + analogue of nails for self-defense

          1. Yes to compare? We do not compare! stop 2. Well, I don’t know, I don’t know ... what me, like, everything. while (!) suits ... Although, here you can offer something, but not necessarily a "pyramid"! 3. Zuras with GSN-O, YES! But with the "nails" ... here it will be a little more difficult! To do "small" zur with a vertical start ... so far, only Americans can afford! (It turns out a little expensive ... and the "budget" essence of the "nail" is lost ...). Actually, there are some notions ... but they must be "coughed!" fool
        3. 0
          11 December 2019 00: 32
          And let's compare a little bit! fellow
      2. 0
        10 December 2019 17: 15
        The range must be raised unequivocally: on the other side there were ATGMs with a range of 28 km, which means we need a missile with a range of 30-40 km. You can also add an artillery air defense machine with a control unit from an ordinary Torah (well, with an optical channel).
      3. 0
        11 December 2019 04: 16
        I agree with you. It was not for nothing that Belarusians chose Tor-M2U to protect the Ostrovets (Belarusian) NPP.
    11. 0
      10 December 2019 15: 39
      All this is good. But here it is:
      The Kupol undertook to manufacture Tor-M2027 and Tor-M2DT air defense systems by 2 for a total value of almost 100 billion rubles.
      When will the calculation in rubles end and a report in pieces will appear?
    12. +2
      10 December 2019 20: 41
      The carapace is good, and Thor is better.
      1. +2
        11 December 2019 00: 22
        Much better.
    13. +4
      11 December 2019 00: 47
      Let’s do this - do not compare with the carapace


      A little higher they suggested not to compare the TOR with the Carapace, so immediately for some reason I wanted to compare a little. laughing

      The advertisements at the Shell are simple, but the TOP is as if in the background today. But in vain perhaps.

      Several parameters attract attention. For example, both Shell and TOR have 4 guidance channels. And the reaction time seems to be the same. Carapace - 4-6 seconds, TOR-a - 4.8 sec. But at the same time they work in different ways. Judging by the descriptions, the Carapace captures targets sequentially, one after another. And for each spends these same 6 seconds. But the TOP is on the contrary, it immediately selects a package of 144 goals (max.) And selects from them the 10 most dangerous, which it simultaneously captures. Hence the unexpectedly big difference in fire performance. Shell-C1 - no more than 10 targets per minute, Tor-M2 - suddenly 16 targets per minute, one and a half times more.

      And the high accuracy of TOR-a separately draws attention. If the Shell, when shooting at small targets with an EPR of 0,03 - 0,06 m², promises a probability of at least 0,7, then the ASEZ when shooting at the same target with a 9M338K rocket confidently gives a probability of destruction of 0.98, and it is noted that 2/3 of the targets are hit by a direct hit rockets. The accuracy is simply magnificent, it is no coincidence that the creation of the best weapon against a massive blow is proposed to dance from the TOP.

      I hope there will be more articles about this interesting car.
      1. 0
        11 December 2019 08: 51
        About the range did not mention in their express comparison))
        1. 0
          12 December 2019 01: 14
          Quote: Tamer
          About the range did not mention in their express comparison))

          And with range there is a problem, and for both cases. For example, for the Shell, the 9M335 missile has a strike altitude of 5 ... 6000 and for the 57E6E rocket (2006) it is 15 ... 15000 meters. Can you see the ambush? The first missile takes low 5 meters but not high, only 6 km, and the second high 15 km but also lower sharply worse - 15 m. But Caliber, for example, boasts a height of 10 meters in the last section of the trajectory .. And the enemies have such missiles and especially UAVs there is.

          In general, you still need to guess which rocket to load into the cartridge :(
      2. 0
        11 December 2019 10: 12
        And after that, you write that Thor has no ads?
        For example, where did you get this terrible figure for 144 goals?
        Next, which Tor with which Shell are we comparing? And then, after all, Tor-M2 appeared only last year, and before that there were only Torahs with 8 missile BZ. By the way, I don’t remember how much the second Torah takes to reload? the first with 8 missiles had about 25 minutes. And a small clarification - the descent without a TZM-ki is impossible for Thor in principle, so God forbid that it breaks or gets stuck, the wheel one is. At the expense of parallel capture - I also doubt that if I find the relevant information, I will post it. It’s just still important in which sector the goals are located, because in the event of leaving the sector this is a failure of capture. For one purpose, this is insignificant - you can turn the turret with CHP, and when there are several, excuse me. Option: 4 targets fly, 2 left, 2 right - everything, come.
        Accuracy without indicating the range is, excuse me, filkin letter .338K - is it with a blunt nose and IR guidance at the final stage? So they didn’t bring her, NYA. Only a blunt nose remained.
    14. +1
      11 December 2019 11: 07
      https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=20384&page=3

      That is (there is even such an exercise), it can hit the PRR and its carrier, if of course it stupidly enters the air defense coverage area. There is a true limitation. The angle between the goals should not exceed 15 degrees. In an interference environment, in my opinion, it works fine because it has eight-channel selectivity. Of all the air defense systems, he is IMHO, the best in this regard. A typical target for firing on Emba is a shell from Grad. Efficiency, oddly enough, is still estimated by experts as 79 when firing one missile and 98 two. Practical shooting confirms this.
      ---- I.e. a volley of two SAMs for two purposes takes 6s? - I correctly understood the cycle: target detection, APU transfer, launch of the first missile, launch of the second missile? Or should there be an additional reconnaissance of the goal between starts? If the first algorithm is correct, then a full salvo of 8 seconds
      This is about the early Torahs, the second, it seems, is better. In general, there a man tells a lot of interesting

    "Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

    “Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"