ZRPK "Shell-S" received a new hypersonic missile

ZRPK "Shell-S" received a new hypersonic missile

The Russian anti-aircraft missile and cannon system (ZRPK) "Shell-S" was equipped with the latest hypersonic missile. About this in an interview with TASS said the chief designer of air defense systems of the Design Bureau of Instrument Engineering named after Shipunova Valery Slugin.


According to the designer, the Pantsir-S air defense missile launcher received a hypersonic missile capable of speeds up to 5 Machs. The missile was developed recently, successfully passed all tests and was introduced into the armament of the complex.

There are two missiles, they are fighting with a whole range of targets. One standard, another developed recently, it is hypersonic - its speed is 5 Machs and more. This missile flies faster to the target, which significantly increases the rate of fire of the complex, as the firing channel is freed faster. In addition, you don’t have to put a lot of explosives in the warhead to disperse the fragments - higher impact speed, higher efficiency of the fragments

- he said.

In his interview, Slugin noted that the Pantsir-S missiles were not equipped with homing heads. According to him, at the ranges at which the complex operates, the tasks of hitting the target are solved by the telecommand system of the missile from the complex.

The Pantsir-S anti-aircraft missile and gun complex is designed to cover objects from air attack weapons in the near zone of destruction. The complex is able to hit targets at any time of day in any weather with high efficiency. In addition to the destruction of air attack weapons, it can also hit ground (surface) targets.

Last year, it was reported that the state tests of a new version of the Pantsir-SM air defense missile system, intended for the Russian army, were announced. In contrast to the Pantsir-S1 air defense system already in service, the new complex received a new missile and a new multifunctional aiming station with a phased antenna array that allows you to "see" targets at ranges up to 75 km. Sighting range of the new complex increased to 40 km. The complex is capable of recognizing and hitting all types of unmanned aerial vehicles.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

184 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vol4ara 29 January 2020 10: 26 New
    • 12
    • 57
    -45
    So the problems in Syria were related to missiles or to vulnerability to the reb?
    1. Zaurbek 29 January 2020 10: 29 New
      • 7
      • 33
      -26
      Likely with the Radar .... on SM already put the PAR.
      1. spectr 29 January 2020 11: 31 New
        • 11
        • 9
        +2
        The headlamp is already on C1. And nobody will tell about the problems, because some decision was made to ban the publicity of such information in order not to discredit the products of the Russian military-industrial complex.
        But as far as I heard the director (chief) of the Tula Design Bureau walks “with fingers wide apart” when it comes to the product’s work in Syria.
    2. Pavel57 29 January 2020 10: 30 New
      • 48
      • 14
      +34
      In Syria, the complex showed its best side.
      1. Vol4ara 29 January 2020 10: 31 New
        • 17
        • 93
        -76
        Quote: Pavel57
        In Syria, the complex showed its best side.

        Throw a video for you? Or head to the sand your creed?
        1. Thrall 29 January 2020 10: 36 New
          • 52
          • 8
          +44
          Quote: Vol4ara
          Throw a video for you?

          This is where an Israeli missile gets into the Syrian Shell without crew and ammunition?
          1. Vol4ara 29 January 2020 10: 39 New
            • 13
            • 78
            -65
            Quote: Thrall
            Quote: Vol4ara
            Throw a video for you?

            This is where the Syrian Shell without a crew was shot down?


            Firstly, it sounds like a cheap excuse, the problems of the Sheriff Indians do not care. Secondly, in the video is a shell without a crew? For me, there are 2 rockets in milk and a spike in the side, and then the second
            1. Thrall 29 January 2020 10: 43 New
              • 52
              • 7
              +45
              Namely, without a crew. On the video just before getting to the complex, a fighter runs up. According to the Syrians, 1 soldier died.
              1. Vol4ara 29 January 2020 10: 47 New
                • 16
                • 67
                -51
                Quote: Thrall
                Namely, without a crew. On the video just before getting to the complex, a fighter runs up. According to the Syrians, 1 soldier died.

                Tricky Jews watched until the last until the commander, out of need, moved away? And who shot then? The spirit of the car? 2 rockets who fired?
                1. Thrall 29 January 2020 10: 52 New
                  • 51
                  • 4
                  +47
                  Quote: Vol4ara
                  Tricky Jews watched until the last until the commander, out of need, moved away? And who shot then? The spirit of the car? 2 rockets who fired?

                  Is it difficult to read the comment of the author of the channel that posted your video? smile

                  The carapace is in the stowed position. Not a battle!
                  1. Vol4ara 29 January 2020 10: 55 New
                    • 5
                    • 65
                    -60
                    Quote: Thrall
                    Quote: Vol4ara
                    Tricky Jews watched until the last until the commander, out of need, moved away? And who shot then? The spirit of the car? 2 rockets who fired?

                    Is it difficult to read the comment of the author of the channel that posted your video? smile

                    So I about the same, the phrase "he is trying to repel the attack" says that the shell without a crew?
                    1. Thrall 29 January 2020 10: 56 New
                      • 43
                      • 5
                      +38
                      Quote: Vol4ara
                      So I about the same, the phrase "he is trying to repel the attack" says that the shell without a crew?

                      ADMS Tor !!!
                      1. Vol4ara 29 January 2020 11: 01 New
                        • 33
                        • 16
                        +17
                        Quote: Thrall
                        Quote: Vol4ara
                        So I about the same, the phrase "he is trying to repel the attack" says that the shell without a crew?

                        ADMS Tor !!!

                        Yes shit came out, I admit my mistake
                      2. Thrall 29 January 2020 11: 03 New
                        • 25
                        • 2
                        +23
                        The dispute is closed, comrade good
                      3. krot 29 January 2020 16: 18 New
                        • 6
                        • 0
                        +6
                        Throw a video for you? Or head to the sand your creed?

                        And you do not know how many Israeli targets attacked the Shell? They developed tactics to defeat our complex - just take the number of kamikaze drones! And unfortunately, on the shell, rockets do not breed by budding. The defense must be echeloned and not one warrior in the field ..
                        Not a single drone, not a single rocket from the city fell on Khmeimim (and more than a hundred have already been fired at the base), and this is the merit of the Shell.
                      4. SovAr238A 30 January 2020 19: 09 New
                        • 0
                        • 4
                        -4
                        Quote: krot

                        Not a single drone, not a single rocket from the city fell on Khmeimim (and more than a hundred have already been fired at the base), and this is the merit of the Shell.


                        And where is it then?

                      5. Magog 30 January 2020 22: 20 New
                        • 5
                        • 0
                        +5
                        1. The nature of the damage is similar to a defeat in flight, otherwise the whole apparatus would be cut off with fragments. And the car returned to base!
                        2. The area under the aircraft (Su-24) resembles asphalt. In Syria, it will melt under the hot sun. Most of these shots from this base are concrete.
                        3. Where is the explicit reference to the image from the Khmeimim base? Board number "29" can somehow be traced?
                      6. The comment was deleted.
                      7. Magog 30 January 2020 22: 55 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        The selection of images from the Khmeimim base comes across clearly provocative. Look at the very end with the characteristic inscription “Airplanes of the Russian Aerospace Forces after the mortar shelling of the Khmeimim air base in Syria”, and in the picture there is an apparatus with the identification “Tridents”: their militia famously battered! For some reason, I can’t post a photo, it doesn’t work when I select the “from a computer” setting ...
      2. thanks 29 January 2020 11: 57 New
        • 10
        • 1
        +9
        Vol4ara (Alexander), there is fakeIn addition, with gluing! Shell-C1 anti-aircraft missiles, like other air defense systems, cannot have such a 180 degree maneuverability ...
      3. Stalllker 29 January 2020 11: 59 New
        • 15
        • 1
        +14
        And that just destroyed one car ??? Since the Jews are so lucky, why didn’t they destroy all the other shells ??? The shells have positive and negative results, but what about our partners with these indicators !!! ??? As far as I remember, they managed to the fullest
      4. Sirocco 29 January 2020 13: 03 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        Quote: Vol4ara
        First sounds like a cheap excuse

        While you look like a cheap framer here.
        American experts called the Russian air defense system an “ideal weapon” to repulse massive enemy attacks using UAVs. So, on January 20, The National Interest magazine published an article in Russia Just Might Have the Perfect Weapon to Crush 'Swarm' Attacks, which states that such an effective short-range defense system like in Russia does not exist in the United States. At the same time, it was emphasized that the Russian military understood on time that ground-based air defense is more effective and cheaper.
      5. Leon68 29 January 2020 13: 26 New
        • 14
        • 0
        +14
        And why shove here the video compiled from different sources and fragments?
        Here is an interview with the designer of the Shell on the destruction of the installation:
        "According to Slugin (product designer), the" Shell "of the Syrian armed forces managed to hit eight targets, having consumed the entire ammunition. The combat crew left the air defense system and stood nearby - waiting for a transport-loading vehicle.
        "It was impossible to do this - it was necessary to immediately withdraw the combat vehicle from the position after the ammunition was shot, immediately, then everything would be fine," said Slugin. "
      6. Gogia 29 January 2020 17: 00 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        And how many spikes came to him? one on one goal? Strongly doubtful. And this is just one video. By the way, it can be seen that at least three or 4 spikes were going on. and it’s not clear why the gun didn’t work. Just for spikes, she is certain death. At the end of the video, the car stands still with the driver’s door open, the guides do not move - i.e. obviously either on the march or BC ended.
        1. 3danimal 29 January 2020 20: 44 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          According to several videos from the exercises (available), it follows that the cannons on the Shell are the least threat to small-sized targets.
    3. Zaurbek 29 January 2020 12: 12 New
      • 3
      • 7
      -4
      This video has nothing to do with it.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. vitinka 30 January 2020 12: 46 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      the other day I read about this shell, he shot down 8 out of 10 missiles and more and was left without ammunition, the crew stupidly waited until the lift-up was brought up to places to leave the position. here is the ego and SPYKE covered.
  2. Nastia makarova 29 January 2020 11: 54 New
    • 8
    • 10
    -2
    get 100 minuses
    1. Vol4ara 29 January 2020 13: 58 New
      • 8
      • 5
      +3
      Quote: Nastia Makarova
      get 100 minuses

      They say for 100 minuses a cow is selected :)
      1. Nastia makarova 29 January 2020 14: 10 New
        • 5
        • 8
        -3
        here you are left without a cow
        1. Vol4ara 30 January 2020 09: 10 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: Nastia Makarova
          here you are left without a cow

          I didn’t have it :) and this fully reflects the meaning of + and - on this site
          1. Nastia makarova 30 January 2020 09: 29 New
            • 2
            • 5
            -3
            there will be many minuses that will be banned
            1. Vol4ara 30 January 2020 09: 37 New
              • 3
              • 3
              0
              Quote: Nastia Makarova
              there will be many minuses that will be banned

              I'm not so busy not to find 5 minutes to register. Although here I will register whether I’ll vryat. Perhaps only the "history" section survived
              1. Nastia makarova 30 January 2020 10: 24 New
                • 2
                • 5
                -3
                but I like this site)))
                1. 2 Level Advisor 30 January 2020 13: 57 New
                  • 2
                  • 2
                  0
                  and your comments are Anastasia, usually no more than 5 words, rather replicas) however - your right wink
                2. Nastia makarova 30 January 2020 14: 02 New
                  • 1
                  • 5
                  -4
                  brevity is the soul of wit!!!! I don’t like to paint and there’s no time to answer any
    2. Nikolaevich I 29 January 2020 15: 54 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Vol4ara
      They say for 100 minuses a cow is selected :)

      Well, a cow is not an apartment ... you can survive!
  • Alexandre 29 January 2020 13: 36 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    You're baldly arrogant! But in fact, what can you say about this? I'm talking about the video. Or rather, what do you know about this?
  • sivuch 29 January 2020 15: 11 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And why do you think that only this video got into the pipe?
  • loki565 29 January 2020 11: 07 New
    • 16
    • 3
    +13
    As for me, it’s necessary to remove the cannon armament from the shell and put a package of 24 rockets, as in this version
    1. BARKAS 29 January 2020 14: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      To make everything clear, the interview at VO must be fully laid out.
      https://tass.ru/interviews/7623815?utm_source=warfiles.ru
      1. loki565 29 January 2020 15: 03 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        To make everything clear, the interview at VO must be fully laid out.
        https://tass.ru/interviews/7623815?utm_source=warfiles.ru

        I did not read this interview, but I saw a similar video on the ARMY. RU
    2. Magog 29 January 2020 15: 27 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Another variant of the "Shell" is a purely cannon one, only with a larger caliber (57 mm). Shells with a remote (programmable) fuse. Although, duplicate a similar development ("Derivation"), apparently there is no point.
      1. Nikolaevich I 29 January 2020 15: 57 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Magog
        Another variant of the "Shell" is a purely cannon one, only with a larger caliber (57 mm).

        Only it will be called differently ... for example, MAD-FIRES!
        1. Magog 29 January 2020 16: 14 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Interestingly, are there any references to the effectiveness of the combat use of large-caliber artillery (for example, the naval AK-130) on air targets with similar ammunition? Maybe you should not "fence" all these rocket "nails"?
          1. Nikolaevich I 29 January 2020 17: 20 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Magog
            links to the effectiveness of the combat use of large-caliber artillery (for example, naval AK-130) for air targets

            Actually, in the internet, in my opinion, there were articles about the effectiveness of firing at air targets with the use of a caliber of 127 mm, 130 mm right from the 2MB period ... In the modern period, there were reports about the development of guided 127-mm artillery shells, which could be used against air targets ... The project that I "touched" is designed for different calibers; but in the "first place" it is planned to use a 57-mm caliber with a further "decrease" to 20-40 mm ...

            Raytheon has tested the MAD-FIRES (Multi-Azimuth Defense Fast Intercept Round Engagement System, or multi-azimuth rapid interception and all-round defense system) system for the Advanced Defense Research Agency (DARPA), the defenseworld.net reports on May 7.
            MAD-FIRES interceptor shells are designed to provide self-defense, the system hits "multiple waves" of anti-ship missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and other threats, the company said on Monday.
            If used, this capability will combine the rate of fire of the gun mount with the accuracy of the missile attack, reports Raytheon.
            1. Magog 29 January 2020 17: 38 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              This is just a project. And I heard about such guided missiles for installations like AK-100, AK-130 back in the mid-90s.
          2. Private-K 30 January 2020 00: 26 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            So that such a diesel-punk monster crawls out? laughing
            https://topwar.ru/23277-sovetskoe-130-millimetrovoe-zenitnoe-orudie-ks-30-1948-g.html
            That is not better than rocket nails.
            1. Magog 30 January 2020 09: 07 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I didn’t mean “130 mm on the Shell”, but asked how effective the experience of using such artillery was for air targets, in particular in the Navy. On the "Shell" it is quite acceptable to consider 57 mm or even 30 - work on equipping the last caliber with a programmable fuse is underway. At this stage, I agree, firing even projectile bursts at an aerial small-sized target is not effective.
    3. 3danimal 29 January 2020 20: 52 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I completely agree. Station wagon must always sacrifice something.
      The “Shell” guns are 2 meters apart and each has a low rate of fire (for anti-aircraft guns).
      IMHO, the best option (at the current technical level) is "brother" on the same platform with AK-306 or an analogue. With its own radar and guidance through the heat / visual channel. With correctly distributed areas of responsibility, everyone will be most effective.
      1. loki565 29 January 2020 21: 22 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        On YouTube there is a video of how FOUR carapace at a firing range try to shoot down a target with guns, and this was not a cruise missile, but just a drone with a propeller. The result is sad, having spent the entire BC the target was not shot down, but was struck from the very first missile.
        1. 3danimal 30 January 2020 00: 34 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          I saw a couple of these, I regularly mention. Unfortunately, many simply have an impressive view of a machine bristling with “different weapons”, or refer to the impossibility of a mistake by Gryazev and Shipunov in the layout.
          1. loki565 30 January 2020 01: 34 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Rather, the matter is different, the shell was copied from the tunguska, and it had to go directly behind the tanks, covering them as air defense and also work on ground targets, for this guns were needed. By the way, guns work well on the ground and on static objects. But the shell mainly stands still and covers a stationary object, he doesn’t need guns for this, but an arsenal of additional missiles will not hurt.
      2. Magog 30 January 2020 09: 39 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        AK-306 is a six-barreled shell eater. Where so much space to find on the shell? If you look at the latest modification (2 X 2 X 30 mm), then with a rate of fire of 5000 rpm, the entire ammunition load (1400 shells will no longer fit!) Will go away ("into milk") in 15 - 20 seconds. In the Navy, under conditions of rolling, bad weather, and floating danger, the use of such (AK-306) assault rifles can be understood (and forgiven!), But on hard ground six trunks are too much ...
        1. 3danimal 30 January 2020 09: 52 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Compare with the consumption of shells from Shilka, ZSU "Volcano".
          Rate of fire is needed to create a "tight queue" against a fast-flying target.
          1. Magog 30 January 2020 09: 58 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            I do not question the "queue density" - a matter of efficiency. See comments above. "Shilka" and "Volcano" are products of their time, and are currently used against large low-flying targets (attack aircraft, helicopters) - or simply "on the ground."
            1. 3danimal 30 January 2020 14: 37 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              An alternative is shells with programmable detonation, but this is a more complex and expensive system.
              AK-306 (adaptable), IMHO, is optimal as a land 30mm "metal cutting".
              1. Magog 30 January 2020 18: 28 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                "Metal cutting" is again for large purposes. I believe the six-cut rotating barrel does not increase the accuracy of fire. The metal cut will be uneven! The complexity and high cost of using programmable shells is compensated for by a much lower expense (the turn is not 250 shots, but 5 - 10 with flying fragments at the lead), and in comparison with a hyper-super-rocket, a relatively short burst of shells can still be cheaper.
                1. 3danimal 31 January 2020 00: 15 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  A rotating barrel (more precisely - 6) is better than 2x spaced 2 meters apart. And gives the necessary performance and rate of fire. Air-cooled optimally - 500-600 rounds per barrel In a long line. As a result, we get 3000-3600 rds / min.
                2. 3danimal 31 January 2020 00: 20 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Systems with programmable shells (Russian), IMHO, are not ready at the serial level. Therefore, he proposed a reliable and proven solution.
              2. Magog 30 January 2020 19: 03 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                The main problem for the “Shell” today is a massive attack of drones, of which only a few are shock, the rest are just cheap boobs. But you have to shoot everything down. You can, of course, use EW tools to try to "plant" boobs if they have a radio control channel. And if it doesn’t work out? And the first step of artillery fire with programmable ammunition is 57 mm. "Tunguska", "Shilka" and the land semblance of AK-306 can only be useful in battle formations of motorized rifle brigades on the march (for this they were intended).
            2. 3danimal 31 January 2020 00: 25 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Like the AK306 / 630, the Falanks are also used for naval purposes in the navy. Also, the Shell missiles can be used in the form of ATGM with a high-explosive warhead.
              It seems that the Arrow + Shilka combination is still relevant and most effective, with network-centricity bonuses. And the main role of the MZA is air defense in the near field.
    4. Passing 30 January 2020 13: 52 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      And where is the missile version of the surveillance radar? What is the meaning of such a stripped-down option?
      1. 3danimal 30 January 2020 14: 38 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Perhaps a concept without a radar request
      2. Magog 30 January 2020 19: 23 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I have not seen such a “stripped-down version” (show the picture and name), but maybe such a “Shell” works in conjunction with the S-400, “S-350”, “Buk”, “Tor”, which have enough surveillance radars. “Tor”, by the way, can also be included in such a bundle without a radar review.
        1. Passing 30 January 2020 20: 03 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          yes a little higher look at the picture in the post loki565
          1. Magog 30 January 2020 20: 18 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            In the picture from the radar of the review, and in the "movie" - plots with a couple are visible (one of them without a survey radar). It’s necessary to understand that these are the options for picking up the “Shell” batteries. Reasonable approach. I'll look for articles.
            1. Passing 30 January 2020 20: 32 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              I’ll clarify just that, the radar of the review is the one that is “spinning”, the one that is between the launchers, that one, tracking and guidance. Neither in the picture nor in the video, in the version without guns, there is no surveillance radar, it is not clear why.
              1. Magog 30 January 2020 21: 39 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                I realized that in the “movie” the second car is nearby - a loading conveyor. You can hardly distinguish a crane on the platform. Too bad the battery idea is good.
  • Krasnoyarsk 30 January 2020 19: 35 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Pavel57
    In Syria, the complex showed its best side.

    I do not know how the complex showed itself in Syria, the information is contradictory. This is on the one hand, and on the second, no matter how hard the barmaley tried, but the “Armor” did not let a single UAV go to the base. But I'm not talking about that. I mean that - ZRPK "Shell-S" received a new hypersonic missile!
    DO NOT GET, but GOT! More often such news. And then everything will be received, developed, built, etc.
    1. Magog 30 January 2020 20: 56 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Excerpts from the article. "Shell-SM" was developed taking into account the experience of the combat use of "Shell-C1" in Syria. At the end of 2017, Sergei Shoigu said that in total in Syria, air defense systems destroyed 54 MLRS missiles and 16 unmanned aerial vehicles. April 14, 2018: according to official figures from the Russian Ministry of Defense, the Americans launched 103 cruise missiles, and Syrian air defense systems intercepted 71 ammunition. “Shell-C1” hit 23 targets out of 25. This year (2019), “Shell” went into battle on May 6 and, together with the Tor-M1 air defense system, shot down 27 missiles launched by militants along Khmeimim. According to the Russian military, not a single munition reached its target. Today, according to an expert, the military claims that the effectiveness of air defense missile systems is close to one hundred percent. Obviously, the new "Shell-SM" achieved almost absolute accuracy. ... the minister specified (Shoigu) that the Shell-SM will become an interspecific complex. "Shell-SM" will go not only to the air defense forces of the VKS, the complex will be installed on the ships of the Navy of some projects. Ground forces are not considering this complex for adoption into their arsenal of air defense structures.
      1. 3danimal 31 January 2020 00: 13 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        That story about 100 downed missiles (yeah, including using the S-200) is more like trying to pretend “it doesn't hurt”, having missed a few hard shots. Areas that were not attacked were named, added (to the list of targets), and it was stated that Assad’s air defense intercepted 100% of them. Inexpensive trick.
        1. Magog 31 January 2020 01: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Where is 100%? But you are not so frankly something! The article quite restrainedly reports about 70% for Assad and 25% for the Russian Shells. A small part of the Tomahawks erupted somewhere. There is something to work on after such tests by Syria!
  • voyaka uh 29 January 2020 10: 48 New
    • 23
    • 31
    -8
    "So the problems in Syria were related to missiles or to vulnerability to the reb?"
    ------
    And with that, and with another.
    There is no GOS on the rocket. It is very fast (this is a plus), but not very accurate.
    For those purposes for which it was originally developed: low-flying fighter jets and attack aircraft - a TTX was enough. That is, the low-flying F-16 it will bring down.
    But the complex is used as a missile defense.
    The goals are small.
    In addition, a compact jammer began to put on the means of attack. It “blurs” the target for a ground-based radar, the radar loses its target, and the missiles go expanding in spirals. What they saw in Syria.
    1. Vol4ara 29 January 2020 10: 51 New
      • 10
      • 67
      -57
      Quote: voyaka uh
      "So the problems in Syria were related to missiles or to vulnerability to the reb?"
      ------
      And with that, and with another.
      There is no GOS on the rocket. It is very fast (this is a plus), but not very accurate.
      For those purposes for which it was originally developed: low-flying fighter jets and attack aircraft - a TTX was enough. That is, the low-flying F-16 it will bring down.
      But the complex is used as a missile defense.
      The goals are small.
      In addition, a compact jammer began to put on the means of attack. It "blurs" the target for a ground-based radar, the radar loses its target, and the rocket goes expanding in spirals. What they saw in Syria.

      Thank you, but did not already explain that all the destroyed shells without crews, tanks without shells, and all killed soldiers should be asleep. Promoting Assad's level of chemical attacks with bombs on the bed, only on the other hand
    2. loki565 29 January 2020 10: 56 New
      • 11
      • 2
      +9
      At such distances, the GOS is more likely evil for the complex. if they shoot at a single target, then yes the rocket will capture and hit it. And if the target is a group and flies with a minimum interval, then it is not a fact that each missile will disassemble its target, but they will not go all in one, plus the option of pointing an air defense flying at its own rocket is possible.
      1. Nikolaevich I 29 January 2020 16: 06 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: loki565
        shoot at a single target, then a rocket will capture and hit it. And if the target is a group one and flies with a minimum interval, then it’s not a fact that each rocket will analyze its target, but they won’t go all in one

        Chu ... but sho, don’t you remember about network-centric missiles? belay
        1. loki565 29 January 2020 16: 18 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          And the enemy EW type will not act on them? their filling will be clearly weaker than that of the ground-based complex. Yes, and they do not need at such a launch distance, it's not C400)))
    3. Pavel57 29 January 2020 11: 00 New
      • 19
      • 1
      +18
      There are no GOS on Torahs either, but they are even more accurate. Compact sources of interference will also create problems for GOS, in which the noise immunity is always lower than that of the radar complex.
      1. voyaka uh 29 January 2020 11: 38 New
        • 10
        • 10
        0
        "Compact interference sources will also create problems for the GOS" ////
        ----
        Not. On modern GOS - IR video.
        No electronic warfare does not interfere with them.
        A business:
        1) in price - GOS are expensive. The rocket is at times cheaper.
        2) in technology. Electronics should be tiny - very compact.
        1. Pavel57 29 January 2020 13: 48 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          There’s some kind of confusion - there are no infrared video of the GOS in the anti-aircraft theme.
          There are anti-aircraft missiles with TGS (thermal) in different countries, but they will not intercept a small drone - a quadrocopter and a Grad-type projectile, just the head will not see them.
          EWs do not interfere with them, but thermal traps and various kinds of emitters very much interfere.
        2. sivuch 29 January 2020 15: 14 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          IR (as well as UV and visible range) are not weatherproof + traps and jamming stations exist
      2. Nikolaevich I 29 January 2020 16: 18 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Pavel57
        Compact sources of interference will also create problems for GOS, in which the noise immunity is always lower than that of the radar complex.

        I’m a supporter of the GOS ... Here I read in VO “objections to the GOS”, and I go “upset” recourse and I’ll read it for prophylaxis “about the ISTC” ... and “I calm down”! yes
    4. Boa kaa 29 January 2020 12: 20 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      Quote: voyaka uh
      "So the problems in Syria were related to missiles or to vulnerability to the reb?"
      ------
      And with that, and with another.

      Most likely with the complex software and the speed level of the computer.
      Judging by the fact that D pg increased to 75 km, and the speed of missiles to 5M or more - our Kulibins did learn lessons and conclusions from work in Syria.
      And the fact that there is no GOS on the missile system, but only TU - this is for economic issues: to shoot with "millions of rubles", and not with thousands - well, really, "do you panam" is unprofitable!
      IMHO.
    5. NEXUS 29 January 2020 13: 17 New
      • 6
      • 3
      +3
      Quote: voyaka uh
      "So the problems in Syria were related to missiles or to vulnerability to the reb?"
      ------
      And with that, and with another.

      Bullshit. You stupidly overloaded with targets the Shell, standing without cover, and burned it. You don’t have to carry crap here, dear.
      1. voyaka uh 29 January 2020 13: 23 New
        • 4
        • 23
        -19
        There were only two goals. Two planning bombs. Both attacked one Shell.
        He fired rockets, but did not hit.
        1. NEXUS 29 January 2020 13: 27 New
          • 14
          • 2
          +12
          Quote: voyaka uh
          There were only two goals.

          No need to lie, dear ...
          Quote: voyaka uh
          He fired rockets, but did not hit.

          About the case when Spike worked on the Shell, ... there even the radar was not turned on at the Shell. And the very first case, so in general calculation, sorry, piss ran back.
          And I'm talking about the case when the Shell was fighting off, but it was stupidly overloaded and this can be seen in the video.
          1. Leon68 29 January 2020 13: 37 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Andrey, the second case is glued from different pieces - first there was the work of Thor, then they showed the shell on the video.
            1. NEXUS 29 January 2020 13: 40 New
              • 6
              • 1
              +5
              Quote: Leon68
              Andrey, the second case is glued from different pieces - first there was the work of Thor, then they showed the shell on the video.

              As far as sclerosis doesn’t fail me, there were 3 cases. The first, when the video clearly shows that the Shell was with a shot BK and the Syrians were stupidly standing at a tree, they were screaming. The second, when it fought back, but the targets were too dead. And the third, when the Israelis showed how Spike burned the Shell, ... but there even the radar was not turned on on the Shell.
          2. 3danimal 29 January 2020 18: 35 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            Again, the goals were simpler than the same HARM. With a speed of 2-3M in flight.
        2. sivuch 29 January 2020 15: 16 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          These are only those that were on the video. What came before this is circumcised. (The picture was transmitted all the way, not the last 20 seconds)
        3. Boa kaa 29 January 2020 21: 04 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: voyaka uh
          There were only two goals.

          Oh !? And here is what the creator of the Shell says, which, unlike you, is in the subject:
          Question: - The Israeli Defense Ministry published a video of the defeat of the Syrian Shell. You studied this episode, why did they manage to destroy it?
          The answer of the chief designer of the complex Valery Slugin:
          - This "carapace" of the Syrian armed forces managed to hit eight targets, and he just did not have any rockets left. The combat crew left the car and stood nearby - waiting for a transport-loading car with new ammunition. One man from the combat crew, as seen in the video, ran - he apparently had a phone in the car. It was impossible to do so - it was necessary to immediately withdraw the combat vehicle from the position after the ammunition was shot, immediately, then everything would be fine.
          https://tass.ru/interviews/7623815
          1. NEXUS 30 January 2020 13: 30 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: BoA KAA
            Oh !? And here is what the creator of the Shell says, which, unlike you, is in the subject:

            Sasha, shh ... let him tell this tale of his ... interesting to listen to these fantasies.
      2. 3danimal 30 January 2020 03: 29 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Of course, it’s impossible to “confuse” our weapons, there may be flaws in the chosen form of guiding missiles - after all, they were made by OUR KB ... The main thing here is not to go from logic to religion)
        Review the opponent’s arguments again. good
    6. alexmach 29 January 2020 13: 21 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      There is no GOS on the rocket. She is very fast (this is a plus), but not very accurate

      And what can you say about the shot down shells from Grad? Clearly, they do not maneuver and do not have interference supporters, but they are small and supersonic, everything is clearly in order with accuracy.
      1. voyaka uh 29 January 2020 13: 53 New
        • 3
        • 19
        -16
        Those targets that fly over it, the Carapace (covering objects) intercepts quite successfully. The problem is that he does not cope with goals when they attack himself (when he turns into a target).
        1. Sanichsan 29 January 2020 14: 30 New
          • 12
          • 0
          +12
          Quote: voyaka uh
          The problem is that he does not cope with goals when they attack himself (when he turns into a target).

          I assure you that this is not the problem. the "experts" have a problem with a head that does not understand that a massive attack can push through almost any air defense. It is precisely because of problems with the head of experts that such difficulties arise in understanding the reasons for the defeat of the Shell during a massive attack and the reasons for the arrival of Palestinian water pipes in Israeli settlements through the "impenetrable" Iron Dome.
        2. Pavel57 29 January 2020 16: 34 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          The Shell has problems, but not the ones you mentioned.))))
      2. Victor_B 29 January 2020 17: 23 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: alexmach
        And what can you say about the shot down shells from Grad? Clearly, they do not maneuver and do not have interference supporters, but they are small and supersonic, everything is clearly in order with accuracy.

        But I’ll say that having no analogues in the world and the best possible “iron dome” works ONLY for such purposes and also RADIO-COMMAND, again to make it cheaper.
        And the respected voyaka uh (Alexey) praises him and justifies him for failures. The same as that of Pantsyr.
        At the same time, if the ISRAELI aviation (well, or the American / Egyptian / Jordanian), and not the slippers, had struck the installations of the iron dome, then there would be nothing to be proud of.
        And the carapace is holding a blow all the time!
  • Air force 29 January 2020 10: 59 New
    • 36
    • 4
    +32
    What are the problems of the Shell in Syria? He during this time shot down about 100 drones. Rather, the advertised “Patriots” are more likely to deal with missile attacks in recent times in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. This is, firstly, and secondly, the Shell is an excellent short-range complex that, in theory, should be in echeloned defense combined with other complexes. And the fact that you are boasting about some kind of video about how to destroy a single shell that was not controlled by Russian specialists and is not known whether it is ammunition or not, does not have any relation to the combat effectiveness of the Shell itself. But the downed 100 drones and repeated unsuccessful attempts to break into the defense of Russian bases in Syria, just says that the complex is excellent, and plus everything has the potential for improvement. You’d better send the video as the Hussites hit the Saudis with antediluvian missiles, and in response there is silence.
    1. bessmertniy 29 January 2020 11: 17 New
      • 11
      • 1
      +10
      The main "Shell" continues to improve and become even more effective. And this, frankly, pleases. hi
    2. Evil Booth 30 January 2020 15: 43 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      well, no, there are probably tens of billions of accounts in the world, and all of them are not edward snowden. your banal logic and formal erudition they do not like. one I don’t understand why you are 32 and not 32 as it would be recently. Really and kremleboty exist? although everybody and every user is a patriot, he is a patriot and citizen. Well, ExpertT
  • NEXUS 29 January 2020 13: 16 New
    • 9
    • 3
    +6
    Quote: Vol4ara
    So the problems in Syria were related to missiles or to vulnerability to the reb?

    With the fact that the Syrians, by virtue of their handshake, left the Armor without cover. That’s how the Israelites burned the Shell, overloading it with targets, and when it shot its BK, it was destroyed. That is, the problem is not in the complex, but in the fact that such complexes should cover each other, and especially at the time of reloading.
    And where are the problems with the radar and missiles? Overload any single complex with targets, and it will be burned.
  • voyaka uh 29 January 2020 10: 37 New
    • 21
    • 17
    +4
    "In addition, in the warhead of the rocket does not need to put a lot of explosives to fly apart fragments - higher impact speed, higher efficiency of fragments" ////
    -----
    What collision? Warhead explodes near the target.
    1. Thrall 29 January 2020 10: 39 New
      • 6
      • 3
      +3
      Quote: voyaka uh
      What collision? Warhead explodes near the target

      It also cut through my ears. Even climbed Google to hit a target ...
      1. Alexanast 29 January 2020 10: 51 New
        • 15
        • 1
        +14
        Perhaps it meant the impact of fragments with a target.
        1. Thrall 29 January 2020 10: 58 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          THX. The answer is Solomon good
      2. Nikolaevich I 29 January 2020 11: 16 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        And who "guaranteed" that the warhead must explode in front of the target, and not during "contact with the slowdown"?
        1. Sanichsan 29 January 2020 14: 33 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          And who "guaranteed" that the warhead must explode in front of the target, and not during "contact with the slowdown"?

          what you are describing is a British concept of air defense. with three submunitions that are false stuck in the engine and then explode. consider very effective ... the British consider ... laughing
      3. smart ass 29 January 2020 11: 17 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        Simple fragments already have a rocket speed and in the explosion before the target they still accelerate
        1. voyaka uh 29 January 2020 12: 16 New
          • 9
          • 5
          +4
          It can be both good and bad. recourse
          The interception of missile defense is on a collision course.
          If the rocket explodes on the side of the target, then many fragments flying forward and sideways are more likely to miss because of the high speed.
          When defeated after a target, the speed of the rocket is definitely an advantage. With the opposite course - it may be a disadvantage.
          1. Pavel57 29 January 2020 16: 36 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The spatter of fragments is always calculated from the velocity triangle of the target-rocket-fragments.
    2. cherkas.oe 29 January 2020 12: 09 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      This is not about the collision of a missile with a target, but about the speed of the damaging elements after undermining the warhead.
    3. alexmach 29 January 2020 13: 23 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      What collision? Warhead explodes near the target.

      Shards and targets.
    4. neri73-r 29 January 2020 13: 47 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      What collision? Warhead explodes near the target.

      Most likely we are talking about the addition of rocket speed and the speed of fragments after the explosion.
    5. Passing 30 January 2020 14: 02 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      We give the fragments less energy from the explosion, and we get the same total kinetic energy of the fragments, but the fragment expansion vector will change, it will be more extended in the direction of travel.
  • cniza 29 January 2020 10: 39 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    According to the designer, the Pantsir-S air defense missile launcher received a hypersonic missile capable of speeds up to 5 Machs. The missile was developed recently, successfully passed all tests and was introduced into the armament of the complex.


    The West will raise a howl, and we will succeed in further improving our weapons.
  • Sergst 29 January 2020 10: 50 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "In addition, in the warhead of the rocket does not need to put a lot of explosives to fly apart fragments - higher impact speed, higher efficiency of fragments" ////
    -----
    What collision? Warhead explodes near the target.

    Probably a collision of fragments with a target?
  • smaug78 29 January 2020 10: 57 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    The news is good, but now the main thing is to buy rockets.
  • svp67 29 January 2020 11: 03 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    hypersonic rocket
    This is a new "chip", as in its time, "nanotechnology" ...
    1. Sirocco 29 January 2020 12: 56 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: svp67
      This is a new "chip"

      As it was another chip, called a nail. Four "nails" are installed in one full-time launch container of the "Shell". Who will say something, is there?
      1. Nikolaevich I 29 January 2020 15: 46 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Sirocco
        Four "nails" are installed in one full-time launch container of the "Shell". Who will say something, is there?

        Developing ...
  • Yaro Polk 29 January 2020 11: 03 New
    • 6
    • 5
    +1
    This is a fundamentally different type of weapon, to make hypersound out of such a relatively small missile .... this is not for you ...... the Americans quietly licked with envy ..... I think the demand for this complex from other countries will increase multiply.
    Well done developers! Respect! fellow
    1. alexmach 29 January 2020 13: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      This is a fundamentally different type of weapon.

      Based on a 30-year-old rocket
      make such a relatively small rocket hypersound ....

      Very simple, in view of the fact that it is small. About 15 years ago, Shipunov, during his lifetime, promised to make a hypersonic version, offered a universal Hermes rocket ... He even showed Putin somehow.
    2. svp67 29 January 2020 20: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Yaro Polk
      This is a fundamentally different type of weapon, from such a relatively small rocket to make hypersound .... this is not for you ......

      Of course, an achievement, but even the "old" 57E6-E rocket in the "export" version had a maximum speed of 1300 m / s, but it does not quite reach hypersound ...
    3. Evil Booth 30 January 2020 15: 46 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      overall size is not that important. especially since here 40 km is a rocket even smaller and the accelerator is even larger than that of that of 20 km. the export shell of everyone and always generally carries missiles so to speak simply. Wh with adnality in the region of 10 and a ceiling of 10 but not 15. look at the public of the contracts. there M and not E missiles.
  • Operator 29 January 2020 11: 09 New
    • 6
    • 11
    -5
    Until they introduce a ZR with ARGSN, there is nothing to talk about.
    1. loki565 29 January 2020 11: 16 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      at such distances it is ineffective
      1. Operator 29 January 2020 12: 54 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        I’m sorry - with a semi-active RGSN.
    2. _Ugene_ 29 January 2020 11: 19 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      have already implemented the S-350 Vityaz
      1. alexmach 29 January 2020 13: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And there, by the way, the melee rocket has a thermal seeker
    3. Saxahorse 30 January 2020 00: 18 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Operator
      Until they introduce a ZR with ARGSN, there is nothing to talk about.

      ARGSN for missile defense is not yet rolling. You saw the size of the radar of the same Shell? And it will have to be shoved into a tiny rocket head and powered by a finger-type battery. Do you really think that he will continue to see? The missile will simply lose its target right after launch.

      For good, both Shell and TOR-u need to increase the number of guidance channels. So that not 2-4 missiles, but immediately 12 pieces in parallel. The radar then sees them all, the bottleneck is the control channels.
      1. Nikolaevich I 30 January 2020 01: 01 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Saxahorse
        ARGSN for missile defense is not yet rolling. You saw the size of the radar of the same Shell? And it will have to be shoved into a tiny rocket head and powered by a finger-type battery.

        MNTK interceptor missiles ... "caliber" -40-50 mm ... semi-active "radar" GOS of the millimeter range, is .... active "radar" GOS.MM is being developed (tested ...)
        1. Saxahorse 31 January 2020 00: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          MNTK interceptor missiles ... "caliber" -40-50 mm ... semi-active "radar" GOS

          Nobody argues, there are such. And against what goals? She will see the airship from far away, of course (or B-52), but the stealth missile and even the "stealth" will not make out until it stumbles.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    4. Evil Booth 30 January 2020 15: 47 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Well, well)))))))))))) why? what for?
  • Gust 29 January 2020 11: 14 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    A new rocket is good. And where are the promised "nails" of the near radius?

    There are no complexes immune to interference. It all depends on the skill of calculation and the algorithms / ranges of anti-missile guidance systems. In the case of jamming of the SSC, optical / infrared sighting is possible.
  • nod739 29 January 2020 11: 23 New
    • 1
    • 12
    -11
    its speed is 5 Machs and more. This missile flies faster to the target, which significantly increases the rate of fire of the complex, as the firing channel is freed faster

    T. Ye. Is she already giving out 5 mach at the table?
    He just did what he said?
    1. alexmach 29 January 2020 13: 29 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      He just did what he said?

      You obviously did not understand. Where did you even read about the "trunk"? What other trunk is it?
      1. nod739 30 January 2020 17: 45 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        slip of the tongue, not the trunk, the "channel"
        This missile flies faster to the target, which significantly increases the rate of fire of the complex, as the firing channel is freed faster.

        explain to me that I did not understand how the speed of 5M in flight increases the rate of fire due to the quick release of the firing channel?
        1. alexmach 30 January 2020 23: 52 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          This will become easy to understand if you figure out what a shooting channel is all about. The shooting channel is not a barrel.
          The carapace works with radio command guidance. The radar and the optical guidance system detect the targets, track their movement as well as the movement of the missiles fired at them, and transmit missile correction commands. All this takes certain resources, computing resources on the machine, antennas transmitting commands to missiles and the like. These resources needed to direct the fired missile at the target essentially make up this firing channel. The shell is a multi-channel complex, can fire up to 4 targets at a time, respectively, has 4 channels of fire. The faster the rocket flies, and the faster it hits the target (well, or misses), the faster it frees those resources that were spent on its guidance.
          That is, relatively speaking, if earlier a rocket flew to a maximum range of 10 seconds, then when reflecting a mass raid at the rate of 1 missile per target (and in my opinion there may be 2 missiles, but let's now count one at a time) to fire 12 targets 12 missiles spent at least 30 seconds of time. If a faster missile flies to the same range in 5s then it will take at least 12 seconds to fire the same target at 15 targets. That's the increase in fire performance due to an increase in the speed of missiles.
          1. nod739 31 January 2020 16: 19 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Live and learn! was wrong, now what is it about! thank!
        2. Nikolaevich I 31 January 2020 01: 16 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: nod739
          how does the speed of 5M in flight increase the rate of fire due to the quick release of the firing channel?

          Not only ... "Hypersonic" speed increases the probability of hitting a target! Roughly speaking, the “target” barely has time to “think about maneuvering evasion,” as the pretender is already!
  • rocket757 29 January 2020 11: 37 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Nobody dares to check our air defense. But when someone wants to live in peace, you need to create, purchase, full-fledged air defense ... you have a shortage, you will also sleep. Yes, it is expensive, but so peace of mind is more expensive!
  • Pashhenko Nikolay 29 January 2020 11: 38 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Hypersonic speed is considered to be from 6150 km an hour or more. So do not label hypersound with or without. But in any case, an increase in speed even by 200 km an hour from the old one is an indisputable plus. Moreover, now achieving even a small increase is not so simple.
    1. Genry 29 January 2020 13: 14 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay
      Hypersonic speed is considered to be from 6150 km per hour or more.

      Correct: 5M or more.
      Mathematically, it depends on the density of air (pressure, temperature, humidity) and the higher the height - the lower the absolute speed.
      Physically attached to the start of the ionization process.
  • aloleggry 29 January 2020 11: 54 New
    • 0
    • 5
    -5
    Not understood. Somehow the news does not look modern. Where are two years of reasoning that we are developing a super-hypersonic nano-rocket that has no analogues in the world, for which it has great export potential? So, just right in the forehead - put into service. What set, well done, very happy.
    1. alexmach 29 January 2020 13: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Where are two years of reasoning that we are developing super-hypersonic nano-rocket,

      You missed it. The hypersonic rocket was to the shell was announced a long time ago.
  • Lontus 29 January 2020 13: 05 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The gun is clearly superfluous in the Shell.
    It is better to make a separate cannon system of near air defense with the possibility of external target designation ..
    1. Ros 56 29 January 2020 13: 52 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Well, yes, yes, how Shipunov, Gryazev and Alexei did not consult, that’s the trouble. fool
      1. Evil Booth 30 January 2020 15: 49 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        drinks s300v4 yes it has 9,5 max. for 5 years now, as all the milestones officially re-new BK and devices. that and c300 for a long time pm1 / 2 any those that were built under the USSR. By the way, they psiali that they say the FSE had rotted for about 10 years, however, as much as 6 were found in Syria.
    2. Nikolaevich I 29 January 2020 15: 49 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Lontus
      The gun is clearly superfluous in the Shell.
      It is better to make a separate cannon system of near air defense with the possibility of external target designation ..

      Duc ... project MAD-FIRES to help you!
      1. Lontus 29 January 2020 17: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        Quote: Lontus
        The gun is clearly superfluous in the Shell.
        It is better to make a separate cannon system of near air defense with the possibility of external target designation ..

        Duc ... project MAD-FIRES to help you!

        I didn’t understand - how should MAD-FIRES adjustable shells help me?
        1. Nikolaevich I 29 January 2020 17: 28 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Lontus
          I didn’t understand - how should MAD-FIRES adjustable shells help me?

          But you "wanted" to make "a separate cannon system of near air defense with the possibility of external target designation .."
    3. Pavel57 29 January 2020 16: 38 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The Americans did just that at one time: Separal separately, Volcano separately.
      1. Lontus 29 January 2020 17: 25 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Pavel57
        The Americans did just that at one time: Separal separately, Volcano separately.

        My thought was that someone in the world should do this,
        and the fact that it was in the Russian system that the Shell would be better to separate the cannon and rocket weapons into different machines.
        1. Pavel57 30 January 2020 16: 11 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Shilka and Arrow were also separate.
      2. Evil Booth 30 January 2020 15: 49 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        it’s necessary to smear it in the Jewish dome for 40 cars and to work in the sector only.
  • Guards turn 29 January 2020 13: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The Pantsir ZRPK plan to equip a small-sized missile to combat drones. The Pantsir-S anti-aircraft missile system can be equipped with a new development capable of increasing the ammunition of one complex when firing at small targets and reducing the cost of their destruction. We are talking about a small-sized missile to combat drones.

    According to TASS, the chief designer of air defense systems of the KBP them. Shipunova Valery Slugin, the development, production and testing of new missiles will take about three to four years. At the moment, research is already underway.

    Now the ammunition of the Zanzavod missile system "Shell" consists of 12 missiles and 1 shots to the cannon, which can destroy more than 400 targets. Small missiles can be four times larger - they will be the same length as standard ones, but smaller in diameter.

    Valery Slugin also noted that the targets of a small-sized low-speed drone are destroyed at distances of about 5-7 km, and using standard missiles to destroy such targets is expensive, so the production of a small-sized missile is economically feasible.
    1. Pavel57 29 January 2020 16: 39 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The future shell will then carry 2-3 types of missiles.
      1. Guards turn 29 January 2020 18: 02 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The Pansir-S transport-loading vehicle can become a transport-combat vehicle. The Pantsir-S transport-loading vehicle can be converted into a transport-combat vehicle, which will make it possible to deploy twice as much ammunition on it.

        About this publication TASS told the chief designer for air defense systems KBP them. ac. Shipunova Valery Slugin.

        According to him, re-equipment is possible due to the installation of a simplified control system. Target designation will be conducted from the main vehicle, but the transport and combat vehicle will be able to fire itself.

        Re-equipment will make it possible to install on an improved transport and combat vehicle not 12 missiles, like the standard "Shell", but 24.
    2. 3danimal 30 January 2020 03: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Better and true let these guns be removed, capable of wasting the ammunition for small targets.
  • Ros 56 29 January 2020 13: 50 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Here barmalei and NATO will rejoice for us. lol laughing lol
  • Nikolaevich I 29 January 2020 14: 05 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It turns out that this is a missile with a range of up to 1 km that was previously "promised" to "Shell-C30" ... And the complex gets a "new" name - "Shell-C1M ..."
  • sivuch 29 January 2020 14: 15 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    it is for seed
    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3885505.html
    Extended meeting of the Board of the Ministry of Defense of Russia
    Speech at the College of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, Army General Sergei Shoigu.
    . This year, sheltered shelters for operational-tactical aviation were commissioned at the Khmeimim airfield. A modern ship repair complex has been completed in Tartus.
    Russian military facilities are reliably covered by air defense systems and electronic warfare systems. This year alone, they shot down 53 unmanned aerial vehicles and 27 shells of MLRS terrorists.
    Since 2015, Syrian air defenses have repelled 83 air strikes by coalition forces led by the United States, as well as Israel and terrorist attacks. At the same time, they destroyed 217 cruise missiles, 38 guided aerial bombs and 25 drones.
    Unlike the Patriot systems in Saudi Arabia, Russian air defense systems bring down at least 72 percent of precision weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles in every massive strike. At the same time, along with the modern Russian "Shells" and "Bukami", the obsolete Soviet S-75, S-125 and S-200, which were restored and modernized with the participation of Russian specialists, form the basis of Syria’s air defense
    Actually, one figure is important - 72%
    1. voyaka uh 29 January 2020 15: 22 New
      • 4
      • 13
      -9
      "Russian air defenses bring down at least 72 percent of precision weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles in every massive strike" ///
      ----
      Always 72-75 percent shot down, and always all ground targets destroyed by air strikes laughing
      Win-win situation. good
      ----
      "Actually, one figure is important - 72%" ///
      ----
      Less than 70% is impossible - there is no bonus. Therefore, the figure 72-75 appears.
      100% can’t be written - otherwise they will ask: why do ground targets die out? smile
      1. sivuch 29 January 2020 16: 16 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Do you have any other information? For example, how many missiles were used up and how many were hit? And what goals were planned to hit and which are actually destroyed? So far, the logic was only this - that’s what we showed, it was planned. Only once there was some kind of failure - this is when they wrote about 6 destroyed air defense batteries (without saying which ones) and dozens of destroyed targets. I remember that Professor Pan promised to roll up new photographs of the destroyed Shell. But I think this is Bennett’s puncture - they didn’t have time to explain to him that it’s better to be silent than to brag.
        For me personally, it is clear that not all missiles are shot down by air defense, and you can only argue about%. It is clear that we have to increase the outfit of forces and weed out unimportant goals.
        1. Vitaly gusin 29 January 2020 22: 28 New
          • 0
          • 5
          -5
          Quote: sivuch
          And what goals were planned to hit and which are actually destroyed?

          How much was planned?
          This can be reported to YOU ​​at the General Staff of the Defense of Israel.
          But what struck it please
          Syrian attacks in 2019 by the IDF or attributed to the Israeli army
          2019 year

          20 November. The IDF attacked dozens of military targets in Syria belonging to the Iranian Quds Forces and the Syrian army. Significant damage has been done. Israel claimed responsibility for this strike, stressing that it is a retaliatory action after rocket fire on Israeli territory from Syria.
          19 November. Explosions in the area of ​​Damascus airport. SOHR states that IDF attacks were in response to rocket attacks on Israeli territory. Israel does not take responsibility.
          12 November. In the Al-Mazeh district of Damascus, an airstrike was struck at the home of the commander of the Al-Quds Brigades (Islamic Jihad) Akram al-Ajuri. He was wounded, his son Muadj and Abdullah Yusuf Hassan, who were activists of the Islamic Jihad, were killed, six more were injured. Israel did not take responsibility for this blow.
          28 September. An airstrike was inflicted on the positions of the Al-Hashd al-Shaabi group in the area of ​​the Al-Bukamal border crossing.
          18 September. An airstrike was inflicted on the positions of the Al-Hashd al-Shaabi group in the area of ​​the Al-Bukamal border crossing. According to Sky News Arabia, at least 10 people were killed.
          16 September. An airstrike was inflicted on the positions of the Al-Hashd al-Shaabi group in the area of ​​the Al-Bukamal border crossing. According to SOHR, at least 10 people were killed.
          on September 9. An airstrike was struck against Iranian and pro-Iranian forces in the Al-Bukamal region, in eastern Syria, near the border with Iraq. Israel did not take responsibility.
          24 August. The IDF Air Force attacked targets in the village of Akraba, located southeast of the Syrian capital. The attack was directed against fighters of the Al-Quds Forces of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and Shiite militias supported by Iran, who were preparing a terrorist attack against Israeli targets.
          15 August. Syria announced the reflection of a missile strike on a target in the region of Masyaf.
          August 1. The SANA agency reported an IDF missile strike on a target west of Kuneitra.
          24 of July. The Syrian state agency SANA reported that the IDF hit a target in the province of Daraa in the south of the country.
          18July. According to a statement by the Syrian Ministry of Defense, IDF airplanes and Israeli Navy ships launched rocket attacks on targets in the vicinity of Damascus, as well as in Homs. Numerous casualties and dozens of injured are reported. Caused significant damage to military installations. One of the Syrian air defense missiles fell on the territory of Northern Cyprus.
          12 June. The Syrian state agency SANA reported that the IDF launched a missile strike on a target in the area of ​​the settlement of Tel al-Hara (Daraa province).
          3 June. Damascus claims the IDF attacked targets at the T4 military airfield east of Homs. According to SOHR, the warehouses and military bases of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were attacked, at least five were killed.
          2 of June. In response to the shelling of Israeli territory, the IDF attacked military facilities in Syria. The IDF Air Force attacked several military facilities of the Syrian army: two artillery batteries, a number of observation and reconnaissance posts, and an SA-2 air defense battery. SANA reports of three killed and seven wounded Syrian troops. SOHR claims that the IDF also attacked the facilities of the Iranian army and Hezbollah, south of Damascus.
          27 May. In response to the shelling of an IDF aircraft located in Israeli airspace, a strike was inflicted on an air defense installation in the Kuneitra region. The Syrian military reported that a soldier died as a result of the attack and two more were injured. SOHR announces two killed Syrian troops.
          18 May. Syrian media and SOHR report another IDF strike on targets south of Damascus.
          17 May. Syrian state media reported several rockets fired from Israel from Kuneitra. SOHR claims that there were at least three explosions southwest of Damascus, where the Hezbollah base and the pro-Iranian militia are located.
          13 April. Syrian state-run media reported attacks on the site near the city of Masyaf west of Hama. According to the Syrian opposition, the Hezbollah base was attacked. Destroyed buildings and six wounded are reported.
          27 March. Syrian state media reported attacks on the military airfield and Sheikh Najar industrial area near Aleppo. The SANA news agency wrote that, presumably, we are talking about an attack carried out by the Israeli Air Force.
          11 February. Syrian state-run media say IDF tanks fired on targets in Kuneitra province. Unofficial Syrian sources report that the attacks were carried out on Hezbollah positions both from the ground and from the air. The fact of the strike is confirmed by the Israeli leadership.
          21 in January. The IDF inflicted a massive attack on the facilities of the Iranian armed forces in the vicinity of Damascus, in addition, Syrian air defense was attacked, trying to interfere with the actions of the Israeli Air Force. Caused significant damage. SOHR reports dozens of killed Syrian and Iranian military.
          20 in January. Damascus and Moscow say the Israeli air force attacked targets near the airport near Damascus, but this attack was repelled by Syrian air defense. Israel does not comment on this information. Soon after reports of the attack, the Israeli missile defense system intercepted a missile launched from Syria.
          12 January. Syrian media report an attack on objects in the vicinity of Damascus and in Kisoua. According to SANA, weapons depots were attacked. Opposition sources claim that Iranian cargo aircraft were eliminated at Damascus airport. On January 13, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed the attack on Iranian warehouses in Syria.
          And since 2015, 354 hits
          Quote: sivuch
          Actually, one figure is important - 72%

          And now YOUR turn is to write the important figure 72% that brought down ץ
          And how the taxpayer will apply to organize an exhibition of everything that they shot down (as they did in other countries) and transported around the country, as it was already, but with different equipment
          1. Evil Booth 30 January 2020 15: 53 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            The link to save and to igil is the same thing. By the way, why didn’t you google what they used to stuff? maybe even f16 shot down? or not? why do they put truancy in the "Kiev" military registration and enlistment office?
            1. Vitaly gusin 30 January 2020 16: 15 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Evil Booth
              vbschetto

              AT ALL need to write in RUSSIAN LANGUAGEthat would understand you! !
      2. Pavel57 29 January 2020 16: 41 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        When Israel lost 1971% of its planes in 10, pilots refused to fly.
        1. voyaka uh 29 January 2020 16: 48 New
          • 4
          • 6
          -2
          Correctly. First, it is necessary to suppress missile defense, and only then bomb the ground forces. This is what the pilots said.
          It was the great losses in aviation from Egypt's anti-aircraft missile systems in 1973 that forced Israel to deal closely with methods of suppressing enemy air defense. What was achieved in 1982.
          1. Pavel57 29 January 2020 16: 50 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            It should also be added that in a normal war you can always get a blow at your airfields.
            1. voyaka uh 29 January 2020 17: 00 New
              • 4
              • 4
              0
              It is truth too. Aircraft must be kept in concrete silos. And as dispersed as possible. In Israel, the second point is complicated - there is no place.
            2. 3danimal 30 January 2020 03: 35 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              But it works both ways, right?
      3. Evil Booth 30 January 2020 15: 52 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        always everything. thank you blasted. especially all this when 56 missiles barely broke up a building of such a size that they stupidly turning them there to turn around tightly ... and so on all the time. there are already 50 US oilmen officially injured today and there are hundreds of blows ... destruction0) empty sheds. EMPTY and that's for sure.
  • sivuch 29 January 2020 15: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    If the speed is greater, then the dead zone will increase. That is, nails and / or shells with timers are all the more necessary
  • Gogia 29 January 2020 17: 07 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Vol4ara
    So I about the same, the phrase "he is trying to repel the attack" says that the shell without a crew?

    Here. And now see the summary from Libya where the Emirate's Shells have already shot down a couple of very expensive UAVs (these are not Turkish crafts) MQ-9 Reaper Italy and MQ-9 Reaper USA. They plant bayraktars regularly.
    In Syria, shells of more than 100 UAVs were controlled - and small and inconspicuous ... Of course, they work in conjunction with the TOP, but also beautifully.
  • old friend 29 January 2020 17: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    For a long time I want to ask - why ammunition is only 12 missiles? Why not 18 or, in general, 24? This would greatly increase the chance of survival in a massive attack.
    1. 3danimal 30 January 2020 03: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Because a considerable part of the place and weight is occupied by low-effective guns in modern conditions. Well, so as not to overwhelm the complex.
  • Pension 29 January 2020 18: 15 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    ZRPK "Shell-S" received a new hypersonic missile

    Faster would be a series .. In Syria, they are waiting for us very ours, to pay for IL)))) hi
    1. Vitaly gusin 29 January 2020 20: 08 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      Quote: Pension
      In Syria, they are waiting for us very much to pay for IL

      So already settled
      Only YOU did not understand this!

  • Vitaly gusin 29 January 2020 20: 03 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Vol4ara
    They say for 100 minuses a cow is selected :)

    Don’t strain yourself like that.
    Now they will put MINUS and I will be the record holder of -60000
    And the cows are safe and milk flows like a river.



    TEL AVIV, May 12. / Corr. TASS Andrey Shirokov. The Israeli army attacked the Syrian anti-aircraft missile-cannon complex (ZRPK) "Shell-C1", as it was used to fire Israeli fighters.
    This was reported on Saturday by a TASS correspondent in the army press service.
    "The installation, attacked by the Israeli Air Force, fired rockets at the Israeli Air Force in order to bring down them," said the agency’s interlocutor. The Israel Defense Forces will continue to oppose anyone who tries to harm the State of Israel and its inhabitants. "
    Early in the morning of May 10, Iran’s Al-Quds forces launched 20 rockets, as well as shells along the front lines of the Israel Defense Forces in the Golan Heights. Soon after, the Israeli Air Force bombarded dozens of Iranian targets in the Arab Republic and Syrian air defense installations.
    "The video captures the moment when the Israel Defense Forces attacked the SA-22 complex during an attack directed against Iran’s military facilities in Syria (NATO’s name is Shell-C1 - approx. TASS)", - said in a comment on the video.
    Bibi Netanyahu was put on trial for cases MUCH lower than the level of falsification and riveting of personnel.
    The media is just waiting for the puncture at the highest level.
    1. Ua3qhp 29 January 2020 20: 17 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      For small UAVs, a separate machine suggests itself - an "arsenal" with "nails" and a vertical launch. Management from the main machine. Such a tented gazelle, and in it 96 "nails"
  • jura-19 31 January 2020 08: 07 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    mythical hyper rockets are already sculpting like hot cakes .. in the trend of Putin, an hour is hyper and before it was nano
    1. agond 31 January 2020 09: 44 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In Europe, special double-barreled shotguns are often used when hunting small birds, one barrel is smooth, the second is rifled, both shoot with small shots, the first shot is made from a rifled barrel in which the container with the shot is unwound from rifling, and at the exit the shot diverges with a uniform cone, which greatly simplifies the task to get into a flying bird at a close distance, if it didn’t hit, then a second shot from an ordinary smooth trunk at a greater distance. If we consider that in the Shell the guns are needed mainly to protect the Shell itself from missiles and UAVs, then it is better to shoot at them with cartridges with "buckshot" in the vicinity, and then rockets, then instead of two 2A72 guns. you can post one that at least somehow will facilitate the entire complex