Military Review

ZRPK "Pantsir-C1": Tula went beyond reality

96

In the joint project "Tula News”And“ Tula Business Magazine ”-“ Weekly Bulletin ”published an article“ Secrets and Problems of Existing Modifications of “Shell-S1 / 2”. What are the media silent about? ” Judging by the headline, one could expect a detailed analysis of the problems of the Pantsir ZRPK from the article. Instead, the author criticizes the Izhevsk air defense system "Tor". In the garden of elderberry, in Kiev, uncle. The shell has problems, but we criticize the torus. One could, of course, not pay attention, especially since the Tula bulletin is for internal use, so to speak. Yes, the trouble is: a variety of media began to “copy-paste” the article intensely. And she went far beyond Tula. Although this is not the main thing, let them print themselves. But in the Tula article heaped up such an incredible amount of lies that you just can not pass by. Among other things, the almost helplessness of Russian equipment in front of Western air attack weapons and the "standard" of the western air defense systems are being asserted. This is not even about the Torah and the Shell, but about Russian weapons at all. Therefore, the article requires a detailed analysis.


"Black myth" about the "dead funnel"


Referring to the Syrian experience, the “newsletter” writes:

... the unique quality of the Tula air defense systems, unavailable, for example, by the Tor-M1V / 2U military self-propelled air defense system. We are talking about the ability of the “Shell” to intercept small-sized 122 mm NURS type 9M22U Grad systems, 227 mm URS M31A1 GMLRS MLRS / HIMARS systems, as well as tactical ballistic missiles MGM-140B / M57 (ATACMS Block IA), approaching to covered objects at diving angles of the order of 80–85 degrees with speeds from 600 to 1300 m / s. The interception of the aforementioned high-speed elements of high-precision weapons, which directly attack the air defense systems themselves or the objects they cover under such steep diving angles (80-82 degrees), became possible due to the integration of not only dual-band centimeter-millimeter 1RS1 radar guidance systems into the Pantsire-C2 weapon control systems / 1RS2-1E “Helmet”, which differ in a very mediocre angular viewing area (in the range from 0 to 45 °), but also in multispectral optoelectronic sighting systems 10ES1 / 10ES1-E / ... / (which) can boast a huge viewing angle range from -5 to +82 degrees. Conclusion: equipping the 10ES1 / 10ES1-E with optical-electronic sighting devices not only increased the noise immunity of the Pantsir-C1 air defense missile system, but also partially relieved them of the critical drawback inherent in the Tor-M2U air defense system - the presence of a huge “dead funnel” in the upper hemisphere above complex position. In "Shell-C1" this "funnel" has only a 16-degree angle of solution, while in complexes of the "Tor-M1V / 2U" family, its angular raster can reach 52 degrees!

(The spelling, punctuation and original classification of the author are hereinafter fully preserved.)

In reality, the tracking zone at the elevation of the radar of guidance of the air defense systems of the Tor-M family is from -5,5 ° to + 85 °. That is more than that of the Pantsir-C1 air defense system. The detection zone at the elevation angle of the SOC SAM of the Tor-M family is 0-64 °. Angle tangent 64 ° - 2,05. This means that the near line of capture for tracking a target flying at an altitude of 12 km is 6 km. The detection range of the SOC SAM systems of the Tor family is 32 km. Even if the SVN flies at a speed of 1000 m / s, the Thor will have 26 seconds to take it “in the crosshairs”. Despite the fact that the reaction time of the complex is 6 seconds. Well, after the target was taken by the guidance station, even diving at an angle of 85 ° does not present a problem for the Tor-M2 air defense system. As for the OEC ZRPK “Pantsir”, this is an extremely weather-dependent guidance system, which the Tula themselves admit - and even in the article under consideration. At the same time, the combat work of the air defense systems of the Tor family does not depend on weather conditions or the time of day.

In an irrepressible thirst to find (at least on paper) a “hole” in the domestic short-range air defense, the author turns to very exotic Western air attack weapons:

It is logical to assume that the Tor-M2U air defense systems dispersed over a vast area of ​​the theater of operations, acting alone, without full separation from other types of friendly air defense systems, will be completely defenseless against air attack weapons attacking "at the crown". Such means include not only the aforementioned unguided and guided missiles, but also ALARM anti-radar missiles from the British company BAe Dynamics, the terminal portion of the flight path of which passes in several stages:
- climb to a height of 12 km / ... / above the estimated location of the enemy air defense systems; parachute deployment and slow descent with barrage and simultaneous scanning of the earth's surface for radar; shooting a parachute, launching an accelerating solid-propellant solid-propellant rocket of the combat (2nd) stage, followed by a dive to a detected radiation source.
It is logical to assume that the survival rate of the Shell-C1, in the event of an ALARM anti-radar missile strike, will be several orders of magnitude higher than the similar coefficient of the Tor-M1 / 2B self-propelled air defense systems.

As shown above, the "Shell", if it differs from the "Thor" in terms of the presence of a "dead zone", is only for the worse. So in reality, the "survival rate" (in Russian - combat stability) SAM "Tor-M2" is higher than that of the SAM "Shell P1". Including thanks to the lightly armored hull on a tracked chassis, noticeably less susceptible to small-caliber and fragmentation weapons than an unarmored hull on wheels.

As for UR ALARM, even a descent at an angle of 90 ° does not provide her with the possibility of defeating the Tor air defense missile system, as well as the Pantsir air defense missile defense system.


The author does not notice a logical contradiction: if the location of the air defense system is known exactly, why look for it? And if the location of the air defense system is not exactly known, how can the missile defense be brought exactly to the “dead zone”, which at a height of 12 km near the Tor-M2 air defense system has a radius of only 1 km? If the SD is reduced strictly vertically, then what kind of barrage can be discussed? And if the descent angle is less than 90 °, then where is the guarantee that the SD will not go beyond the "dead zone" (which is constantly decreasing to a distance of 1 km from the complex and has a radius of only 3 meters at an altitude of 250 km)? And what will happen if the air defense system is in motion while UR ALARM is “parachuting”? He drove a kilometer, and shot down (a matter of minutes, no longer than parachuting from 12 km). To engage in parachuting in the area of ​​the air defense system is a very risky event.

But the main thing is not even that, but the fact that the “couch experts”, as usual, have very strange ideas about the tactics of using air defense systems. They regularly “disperse” them in such a way that the combat vehicles are completely alone. Meanwhile, the air defense missile systems are designed for military use as part of the unit (the basic tactical unit of the air defense system "Tor-M2", as well as the air defense system "Shell-S1" is a battery) and as part of the layered air defense system, where the systems and systems are short, medium and long mutually cover each other. The minimum tactical unit is the link (2 BM). And already when working in the "link" mode, the "dead craters" completely disappear.

You need to work together. And everyone should do their own thing. SAM S-300 and S-400 - shoot down strategic aircraft aviation and ballistic missiles (by the way: there is no data on the interception of the Pantsir-C1 air defense tactical ballistic missiles; this is a pure invention of the author of the bulletin). SAM "Buk" - to fight with planes and helicopters of tactical aviation outside the launch zone of the strategic missile forces. SAM "Tor" - to intercept high-precision and small-sized air-launched missile systems that broke through the first lines of defense. And "sofa experts" should lie on the couch. Desirable - in silence.

Reality vs. Fantasy


Paying all the attention to the notorious "dead funnel", the author forgets about other key characteristics of the complexes he compares. But not only the elevation range determines the ability of air defense systems to intercept air targets. The effectiveness of combat work is determined by a huge number of factors. What are the final, integral indicators of the Tula and Izhevsk complexes? In 2009, demonstrative (in essence and according to the original plans, comparative) firing of the Tor-M2U air defense system and the Pantsir-C1 air defense system were carried out. Here is what Lieutenant General A. G. Luzan reports on their results:

The Tor-M2 air defense system and the Pantsir-C1 air defense system fired at the Saman target missile, which was created on the basis of the Osa air defense missile system and simulates a high-speed small-sized air defense missile in flight, and at the E-95 aerodynamic target equipped with a Luneberg lens to increase the effective scattering surface and simulating an ATGM carrier, a medium-sized cruise missile or a drone. Both Thor and Carapace shot at the Saman three times. “Thor” hit all three “Samanas”, missile consumption - 3. “Shell”, firing at three “Samanas”, fired 8 missiles, there were no defeats. At the same time, two targets of the E-95 "Shell" were hit at a rate of one rocket for each. The results of these ostentatious shots once again reliably confirmed the previously mentioned advantages of the "Tor" type air defense systems as the main means of combating high-speed small-sized airborne missiles in flight.

That is, in the course of these firing, the Pantsir-C1 air defense missile system confirmed its effectiveness only in intercepting medium-sized low-speed targets (maximum speed E-95 is 80 m / s, the average speed of the Osa launcher, on the basis of which the Saman was created, is over 500 m / s).


Such depressing results required a thorough analysis, the results of which were announced in 2012 at the XV scientific and technical conference “Actual Problems of Protection and Security”, held under the auspices of the Russian Academy of Missile and Artillery Sciences. The report of the candidate of military sciences V.V. Belotserkovsky and I. A. Razin (VA VPVO VS), in particular, noted:

low ability of the complex to fire targets maneuvering and flying with a heading parameter of more than 2-3 km.

Simply put, the Pantsir ZRPK is capable of hitting targets flying directly or almost directly at it - 4-6 km along the front. Indicated and reason:

... there are only two methods of pointing missiles (using the three-point method, using the half-straightening method) / ... / (with these pointing methods) the missile defense system for detonating warheads of missiles is only triggered when the target moves directly to the firing combat vehicle.

(The course parameter of the Tor-M2 SAM is ± 9,5 km, that is, it is capable of covering a front 19 km wide.)

The possibility of firing at targets flying at speeds of more than 400 m / s has not been confirmed, although a speed of 1000 m / s is given in the performance characteristics of the complex.

(In the TTX of the Tor-M2 air defense system, the maximum target speed is indicated at 700 m / s, but at the same time, according to one of the operators of the Belarusian Army, the Tor-M2U complex already successfully intercepted targets flying at a speed of 1000 m / s .)

The maximum firing range of 20 km is provided for aerial targets flying at a speed of no more than 80 m / s.

(Tor-M2 air defense systems at a distance of 15 km are guaranteed to hit a target flying at a speed of 300 m / sec.)
Etc. In total, the list of critical shortcomings of the Pantsir-C1 air defense missile system was 15 points, among which were problems with aiming missiles, problems with millimeter-range radars, and problems shooting at low-flying targets. And finally, a long time transfer from traveling to combat "Exceeds the stated 5 minutes (actually 8-9)" (deployment of the Tor-M2 SAM takes 3 minutes).

I would like to believe that these shortcomings ZRPK "Shell" are eliminated. But so far there is no reliable information about this. Military expert, chief editor of Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine Viktor Murakhovsky, referring to his sources - air defense officers, reports:

In Syria, it turned out that the "Shell" does not see small and low-speed targets, which include military UAVs.

According to him, the effectiveness of the Tor-M2 SAM system is 80%, while that of the Pantsir’s does not exceed 19%. Similar data were repeatedly published by other authors.

Despite this, the Tula people continue to disseminate fake information about the superiority of the Pantsir air defense system over the Tor air defense system. Alas, the principle of "trust, but verify" has not been canceled. But with the verification of the high TTX declared by the Tula KBP of their complex, everything does not go out very smoothly. So, at the beginning of 2020, already Indian media reported that "ZRPK" Shell "did not pass competitive tests." India chose the South Korean complex K-30 Biho. And this is really bad, because the “victory” over the “Shell” of a rather mediocre South Korean air defense system affects the reputation of Russian weapons in general.

"Cherry on the cake"


The “bulletin” author seems to be aware of the shortcomings of the Pantsir-C1 air defense missile system; he carefully invented the shortcomings of the Tor-M2 air defense missile systems (“human imagination is limitless”) - where should the “poor expert” go? “Abroad will help us!” The author predictably completes his opus, as they would say in the old days, with "worship of the West":

To date, the British Land Ceptor equipped with CAMM-ER missiles with active radar seekers, as well as the Israeli SPYDER-MR having an anti-aircraft modification of Derby air combat missiles with a similar guidance principle.

On what basis? And they have homing systems! The fact that at short range radio command guidance is superior to GOS, that GOS on western complexes do not have a good life, but they inherited them from the aviation SDs on the basis of which they were developed, does not concern the Tula “expert”. The indicated complexes have an ugly long deployment period - 15-20 minutes (!), Two to three times more than the “Shell”, and five to seven times more than the “Thor”. In principle, they cannot conduct combat work on the move (Russian MD systems have such an opportunity). Spider has problems intercepting low-flying targets: the lower border of the affected area is 20 meters (the Shell and Torah are 5 meters). Land Ceptor was tested only a year ago, and what it really is capable of is a big question. But all this, of course, is not important, since they are made in the West ...

On this, I would like to finish the analysis of the absurdities that enmeshed the media path of the air defense systems of the MD. But to finish is unlikely to succeed. Because articles like this one regularly appear on the pages of domestic information resources. Who orders them and why?
Author:
Photos used:
http://www.kbptula.ru/ru/fotogalereya/category/4-pantcir-c1
96 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Stalllker
    Stalllker 26 February 2020 05: 31 New
    10
    Here's what to compare "sneakers" and "shoes"
    1. figwam
      figwam 26 February 2020 12: 23 New
      +1
      The detection range of the SOC SAM systems of the Tor family is 32 km. Even if the SVN flies at a speed of 1000 m / s, Thor will have 26 minutes to take it “in the crosshairs”. Despite the fact that the reaction time of the complex is 6 seconds.

      Not 26 minutes, but 26 seconds.
      1. Svidetel 45
        Svidetel 45 26 February 2020 14: 12 New
        +1
        Or maybe 32 seconds?
        1. figwam
          figwam 26 February 2020 15: 05 New
          +1
          Quote: Svidetel 45
          Or maybe 32 seconds?

          Well, if you can’t subtract 32 from 6, then yes you will have 32 seconds.
          1. PSih2097
            PSih2097 26 February 2020 20: 25 New
            +2
            in general, the reaction time of the TOP is 6-7 seconds (although some individuals from the alumni can not cope in a minute), the detection range and the beginning of tracking the target in the region of 20 km ...
    2. Nikolay3
      Nikolay3 27 February 2020 03: 17 New
      -3
      Quote: Author Lev Frolov
      In reality, the tracking zone at the elevation of the radar of guidance of the air defense system of the Tor family is from -5,5 ° to + 85 °. That is more than that of the Pantsir-C1 air defense system. Elevation detection zone SOC SAM of the Tor family - 0-64 °. Angle tangent 64 ° - 2,05. And that means that the near line of capture for tracking a target flying at an altitude of 12 km is 6 km. The detection range of the SOC anti-aircraft missile system of the Tor family is 32 km. Even if the SVN flies at a speed of 1000 m / s, the Thor will have 26 seconds to take it “in the crosshairs”. Despite the fact that the reaction time of the complex is 6 seconds. Well, after the target was taken by the guidance station, even diving at an angle of 85 ° does not present a problem for the Tor air defense system ...

      Author! Kindly link on the real escort zone in elevation of the radar guidance system of the "Tor" family of air defense systems - from 5,5 degrees. up to 85 degrees. I guessthat you could be wrong. +85 degrees cannot be at your antenna tilt of 5,5 degrees, according to the shape of the "Tor" tracking antenna.
      Quote: Author Lev Frolov
      As for the OEC ZRPK "Shell", then this highly weather dependent guidance systemthat the Tula people themselves admit - and even in the article in question.

      Author, can you explain your next thesis? Maybe this is not a big drawback in this particular case?
      Quote: Author Lev Frolov
      The author does not notice a logical contradiction: if the location of the SAM is known exactly, why look for it? And if the location of the air defense system is not exactly known, how to bring the missile defense exactly into the "dead zone", which at a height of 12 km near the air defense system "Tor" has a radius only 1 km? If the SD is reduced strictly vertically, then what kind of barrage can we talk about? And if the descent angle is less than 90 °, then where is the guarantee that the SD will not go beyond the "dead zone" (which is constantly decreasing to a distance of 1 km from the complex and has a radius of only 3 meters at an altitude of 250 km)?

      Author, in this case you are completely wrong! The radius of the "funnel" in the directional diagram of the antenna system for "Tor" is more than 3 km according to my data, and for "Pantsir-C1" the radius of the funnel in the directional diagram of the antenna system is less than 1 km at an altitude of 12 km. Be so kind as submit your links to your details!
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Nikolay3
        Nikolay3 27 February 2020 04: 33 New
        +2
        Quote: Nikolay3
        Be so kind as submit your links to your details! I meant - "in reality, the tracking zone in elevation of the radar guidance system of the Tor family is from -5,5 ° to + 85 °. That is, more than that of the Pantsir-C1 air defense system."
        .
        1. Nikolay3
          Nikolay3 27 February 2020 05: 10 New
          +3
          The author, and this is the data of the "Thor" affected zones:
  2. Nikolay3
    Nikolay3 26 February 2020 05: 32 New
    +4
    Quote: Lev Frolov
    "In Syria, it turned out that the" Shell "does not see small and low-speed targets, which include military UAVs"
    .
    Author! Not tired of stupid writing?
    topic: Do we have many air defense systems? ZPRK "Tunguska" and ZRPK "Shell"
    Bad_gr (Vladimir) - did your technical arguments end with you? They contradict themselves, showmen:
    So, according to the Telegram channel, in Syria, it turned out that these complexes practically "do not see" low-speed and small targets, which include unmanned aerial vehicles, but at the same time, they regularly record large birds flying around the base, which confuses operators.

    Now fake news has come into play. You forgot to write the initial paragraph of fake news, which puts all the points over i of this lie, picked up by the journalists of the Yellow Press in the person of Lenta.ru and Vpk.name:
    Quote: The rights to this material belong to Lenta.ru and are presented by VPK
    The well-known Russian military expert, editor-in-chief of the Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine, Viktor Murakhovsky, posted on his Facebook page the text of a publication from the Military Journalists Telegram channel, which speaks of the uselessness of the Pantsir-C1 anti-aircraft missile and gun systems covering the Russian airbase Khmeimim in Syria. A day later, Murakhovsky removed the post, which was noted by another military expert, Aleksey Khlopotov.


    Do not forget the fake video with the gluing of Israel will insert where the Shell-C1 rocket has incomprehensible maneuverability and at the beginning of the fake it flies on a rope - the Jews have already brought it to Wikipedia. Talking to you further, it makes no sense!
    Viktor Murakhovsky recalled that at the beginning of the Syrian operation of the Russian troops, there were unofficial rumors about the insufficiently accurate work of "Pantsir" on drones and other small targets. But today, According to the expert, the military claims that the effectiveness of the SAM system is close to one hundred percent.
    https://ria.ru/20190624/1555796206.html
    1. Nikolay3
      Nikolay3 26 February 2020 05: 50 New
      -2
      Least ESR Goal for the complex Shell: 2 cm² (0,0002 m2) [23]. This allows you to record small reconnaissance UAVs of short range. https://army-news.ru/2010/12/kompleks-pancir/

      Minimum ESR goals for the Tor complex: 500 cm² (0,05 m2). This allows you to record small reconnaissance UAVs of short range.
      http://web.archive.org/web/20140413131257/http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut0507/MAKS7/MAKS7005.htm

      Sensitivity in general complex "Pantsir-C1" is higher, therefore it "sees birds". This is not a disadvantage, but advantage of the complex Shell. SAM Tor will not find such small targets that can destroy the shell.
      "Armor" was a natural development of the Tunguska air defense missile system, which was put into service in 1982. During the time that has passed since the adoption of the Tunguska complex, the technical characteristics of air attack weapons have changed significantly. There were cruise missiles (CR) that fly at low altitudes and provide high hitting accuracy, remotely piloted aircraft (RPV), which have an extremely small signature in all radiation ranges. The flight speed of some types of targets increased to 1000 m / s. The missile armament of the Tunguska air defense missile system turned out to be ineffective in dealing with new threats.
      http://rbase.newfactoria.ru/missile/wobb/panz/panz.shtml
      1. Nikolay3
        Nikolay3 26 February 2020 06: 08 New
        +4
        Author! Deficiencies are always eliminated. And you keep writing outdated datathat is not proven. Do not forget about fake with the rights of the yellow press. Lifecycle write - nonsense completely illiterate. VO has become a liberal dump.
        1. Nikolay3
          Nikolay3 26 February 2020 07: 46 New
          -1
          Quote: Author Lev Frolov
          In 2009 were held indicative (in essence and according to the initial plans - comparative) firing of the Tor-M2U air defense system and the Pantsir-C1 air defense system. Here is what Lieutenant General A. G. Luzan reports on their results ...

          Quote: Author Lev Frolov
          Such depressing results required a thorough analysis, the results of which were announced in 2012 at the XV scientific and technical conference "Actual problems of protection and security", held under the auspices of the Russian Academy of Missile and Artillery Sciences. The report of the candidate of military sciences V.V. Belotserkovsky and I. A. Razin (VA VPVO VS), in particular, noted ...

          It is obvious that the author of the article deliberately spat on Russian-made equipment under the guise of "Peacemaker". Further about the 15th Conference "Actual problems of protection and security" at
          https://bmpd.livejournal.com/197121.html with their mistakes in Russian.

          Quote: livejournal
          However, to date, the developer has not eliminated the following main problems and disadvantages:
          1) real results of firing tests showed a low possibility of a complex for firing targets that maneuver and fly with a heading parameter of more than 2-3 km
          2) the possibility of firing at targets flying at speeds greater than 400 m / s has not been confirmed, although a speed equal to 1000 m / s is given in the technical characteristics of the complex
          3) the maximum firing range of 20 km is provided for aerial targets flying at a speed of no more than 80 m / s (on the E-95 target), since the available overloads of SAMs at this range do not exceed 5 units.
          4) the main disadvantage of a bicaliber missile ***** is the lack of an engine in the march stage of the SAM, as a result of which, within the declared damage range, the rocket will move with negative acceleration of the order of 50-30 m / s 2, which leads to the appearance of such non-linearities in the input signal missile control loop, which lead to an increase in errors of its guidance on actively maneuvering target
          5) the capabilities of the complex to defeat the TBR, OTR and their warheads when using a hypersonic missile with a warhead weighing 4 kg have not been confirmed
          6) the presence of only two methods of pointing missiles ***** (according to the three-point method; according to the half-straightening method) limits the capabilities of the complex to defeat various types of air-defense systems with difficult environmental conditions (maneuver, interference, NLC, a hovering helicopter, UAV, etc. d.).
          7) The system for controlling the detonation of the warhead of a hypersonic SAM, functioning according to the signal from the SAM system in accordance with the established range difference between the target and the missile, can be effective only when the SAM is guided ****** by the full straightening method, and when the SAM is guided by the "three points ”and half straightening only works when the target moves directly to the firing combat vehicle ZPRK
          8) in the aforementioned last case, the effectiveness of hitting a target may turn out to be low due to the phenomenon of ricocheting of the striking elements of the combat chat, since in this case their velocity vector will be directed at a small angle to the target’s surface
          9), effective coordination of missile defense missile equipment (the area of ​​operation of the non-contact target sensor, NDC and the area of ​​the strike of striking elements of warheads), as well as the prevention of the operation of NDC SAM missiles from the underlying surface when firing at the NLC, is not ensured
          10) the influence of weather conditions (rain, fog, hydrometeors) on the decrease in target detection range for the millimeter wave range developed by the RLSSSR in the 10-50 times is stronger than on the version of an air defense system with a centimeter wave radar, and this drawback cannot be compensated for by the presence of Patsir-S1 "optoelectronic kaal for supporting the CC, due to the negative dependence of the latter on weather conditions
          11) the large overall dimensions of BM ZRPK on a wheelbase, especially in height (in combat position 5,65 m), as well as the lack of armor protection of the fire set, equipment compartment (SOTs, SSSR, SUO) do not allow the use of air defense systems at the leading edge in combat and pre-battle formation covered forces
          12) the dimensions of the BM ZPRK in the stowed position on the wheelbase (4, 374 m) do not allow transporting it by rail, since the permissible loading height (1T) is 3,8 m, while dismantling the equipment compartment and loading it onto the platform for transportation with the help of a special crane it takes 3 hours for one BM, and also requires the presence of a special crane and equipment.
          Unloading and installation of the equipment compartment during railway transportation require the same labor costs (3 hours) and the presence of a special crane.
          13) BM dimensions increase labor costs for the engineering equipment of the launching position in comparison with other air defense systems (air defense systems) of military air defense
          14) the time of transferring the complex from traveling to combat when using the "OES Mode" (with thermal imager) exceeds the stated 5 minutes (actually 8-9 minutes)
          15) the loading time of the full ammunition with the help of TZM is quite large and is 25-30 minutes. https://bmpd.livejournal.com/197121.html with their mistakes in Russian.

          Dear forum users! You yourself can appreciate the illiteracy of specialists and not only in Russian. Further:
          Quote: Military Air Defense Review August 17, 2012

          Summarized:
          - in terms of efficiency-value "Shell-C1" COSTS;
          - active radar agents lead to unmask the complex;
          - to transfer the CEA complex to the domestic element base may need more than three years;
          - for the appropriateness of using the "Shell-C1" A lot of work will be needed to harmonize the various programs. https://topwar.ru/17841-zenitnyy-pushechno-raketnyy-kompleks-blizhnego-deystviya-pancir-s1-96k6.html

          The essence of "Peacekeepers" such as the author of this article and others is well shown. Ban the production of advanced weapons in Russia, for the sake of the West!
          1. GAF
            GAF 26 February 2020 19: 14 New
            +5
            Quote: Nikolay3
            There is a conscious spitting by the author of an article of Russian-made technology

            There was a similar impression. Only now the air base in Syria has repeatedly successfully defended from an attack of annoying ravens or something, and with the reeds in their hands?
            1. Dmitry Solovtsov
              Dmitry Solovtsov 27 February 2020 22: 09 New
              0
              Yeah, read the news here: https://www.spb.kp.ru/daily/26899/3944096/
              The command post is burning ... "faced with opposition from Russian electronic suppression systems and switched to manual control from the aircraft" - what kind of suppression is this that drones are switching to manual remote control? How is remote control even possible under active suppression conditions?
              When detecting control problems in drones, there is no self-destruction mechanism with a timer or an altimeter, for example? Strange ... And they could have been prescribed. And as soon as the gyroscope detects the movement of the drone with the engines turned off after landing - an explosion after 20s, for example, if the trip code is not given during the flight. Or right away. Or as soon as the altimeter + gyroscope fixes the landing - the same 20-50s and an explosion. As far as I remember, robotic drones are not yet choking ... And the altimeter with a gyroscope is even integrated into shitty smartphones, i.e. thing is inexpensive and standard. Software improvements - also require money 1 time for the programmer’s salary. Then they can be used for free and forever.
              And one moment. Drones, especially small ones, can be launched from any robotic ground platform, which will get closer to the base. And they will carry for example rockets. 1-2 things per nose ... Take off 100m within a radius of 1 km or even closer, visit, launch a rocket and quietly settle on the platform or simply fly along the previously prescribed random curve (+ -20m) towards the base to collect on yourself more air defense missiles (not at all cheap) - seconds. The price of such a drone is a penny compared to a rocket knocking it down, even if it is alone and hits.
              In general, while the drones are really somehow unreasonably used. But potentially - for modern air defense can become a big headache. It’s still they are rotorcraft, but it’s very likely that they will soon be reactive with the possibility of reactive maneuver (it’s also the space variant). And even if, to simplify the design, this maneuver will be in 1 plane and not too controllable due to the squibs, it will be that headache. How about modern rockets about shooting down targets moving away from the trajectory with acceleration up to 50g (albeit not for long)? I think very very ...
          2. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 26 February 2020 22: 18 New
            0
            Quote: Nikolay3
            Prohibit the production of promising weapons of Russia, for the sake of the West!

            Are you confused in manuals or not aware that the TOP is also the Russian system? Didn’t you really notice that the debate is about which system is more promising and useful than our army?
            1. Nikolay3
              Nikolay3 27 February 2020 03: 44 New
              -1
              Quote: Saxahorse
              Are you confused in manuals or not aware that the TOP is also the Russian system? Didn’t you really notice that the debate is about which system is more promising and useful than our army?

              Saxahorse, are you already confused in your training manuals? Read carefully what the argument is about and do not write nonsense! And learn to count the capture range of the ARGSN for small targets!
              1. surok1
                surok1 28 February 2020 10: 41 New
                0
                In the text along the way, all the indicators are fake, and the rhetoric, although with a zeal for intelligence, is more likely demagogic and biased. Such disputes should not be the subject of the average. Anyway, nothing objectively good will come of this. The author puts himself on a par with amateurs, involving them in the discussion. Such an impression.
    2. Tiksi-3
      Tiksi-3 26 February 2020 07: 54 New
      +3
      auto RU!!- Even if the IOS flies at a speed of 1000 m / s, the Thor will have
      26 minutes
      correct a mistake !!! I hope it is not necessary to prompt? laughing
  3. Olddetractor
    Olddetractor 26 February 2020 05: 32 New
    0
    articles like the one reviewed regularly appear on the pages of domestic information resources. Who orders them and why?

    Great question! You can learn a lot from the media, especially if you skillfully "pull" the topic
  4. mark1
    mark1 26 February 2020 05: 46 New
    +3
    And "sofa experts" should lie on the couch. Desirable - in silence.

    Well, at least not in a coffin and white slippers ...
    But then the question that I constantly ask and for which a decent part of the sofa-expert community minuses me was outlined - why do we need two complexes that are close in characteristics? There is no need for them to be completely unnecessary (I’m well divan, which I don’t hide and don’t know a lot of things), but no one can intelligently explain their need for parallel coexistence
    1. surok1
      surok1 28 February 2020 10: 43 New
      -1
      One complex for yourself, the other for export.))
  5. svp67
    svp67 26 February 2020 05: 49 New
    +4
    Every "sandpiper" its "swamp" praises ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 February 2020 08: 26 New
      11
      Quote: svp67
      Every "sandpiper" its "swamp" praises ...

      Everything is a little worse.
      Tula people are trying to break into someone else's sandbox.
      1. svp67
        svp67 26 February 2020 08: 31 New
        +4
        hi
        I don’t think that they will succeed ... The "Shell" is still assessed as "object", it is unlikely that they will be able to move the "Thor" and stand next to him in the "military" system
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 26 February 2020 08: 39 New
          +4
          Quote: svp67
          The "shell" is still assessed as "object", they are unlikely to move the "Thor" and stand next to it in the "military" system

          The army is not the first time to buy what it does not need.
          Even if you look at the "Pantsir" itself - the KamAZ chassis, which is prone to overturning, is not at all in the subject. And I'm more than sure the military didn't like it. But nothing, bought
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 27 February 2020 18: 34 New
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            Even if you look at the "Pantsir" itself - the KamAZ chassis, which is prone to overturning, is not at all in the subject.

            So when "Pantsir" was ordered, there were no other domestic options. Almaz-Antey bought BAZ only at the end of 2015.
            Moreover, the "Pantsir" was taken by air defense troops. And their cross-country requirements are less stringent.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 27 February 2020 18: 22 New
          0
          Quote: svp67
          I don’t think that they will succeed ... The "Shell" is still assessed as "object", it is unlikely that they will be able to move the "Thor" and stand next to him in the "military" system

          So the "Shell" will move not "Thor", but "Tunguska".
          And the chassis has army "Armor" 146% will be different - because the cross-country ability of the military air defense complex must correspond to the cross-country ability of the escorted equipment.
  6. Alien From
    Alien From 26 February 2020 06: 00 New
    +7
    Competition is good, slander is bad!
  7. Amateur
    Amateur 26 February 2020 06: 01 New
    +1
    Because articles like this one regularly appear on the pages of domestic information resources. Who orders them and why?

    And why do they replicate and comment?
    Both systems are commercially successful, but are starting to compete. Because of this, the chicken coop principle begins to operate:
    climb higher, peck neighbor, put on the bottom.
  8. gmb
    gmb 26 February 2020 07: 18 New
    0
    As far as I understand, two complexes are for completely different tasks, and the requirements should be different, but here they require the sprinter and the staire to jump from the pole.
    1. Aag
      Aag 11 May 2020 19: 53 New
      0
      Comrades, gentlemen, comrades-in-arms and compatriots! As it turned out, the PRO-, air-defense branch in the military was strong! hiOnce caused such a resonance.
      But IMHO: I think it is good form, on this resource, to popularize the topic under discussion. Based on the above comments, I dare to assume that the specialists are "bothering" not only Uzbek specialists evaluate it, but people of, so to speak, related specialties.
  9. Vladivostok1969
    Vladivostok1969 26 February 2020 07: 30 New
    +4
    The detection range of the SOC SAM systems of the Tor family is 32 km. Even if the SVN flies at a speed of 1000 m / s, Thor will have 26 minutes to take it “in the crosshairs”. Despite the fact that the reaction time of the complex is 6 seconds.

    At a speed of 1000m / s in 26 minutes, the target will be very far away. Or am I missing something?
    1. surok1
      surok1 28 February 2020 13: 32 New
      -1
      Do you think it protects only itself, or some extended object?
      1. Vladivostok1969
        Vladivostok1969 29 February 2020 06: 07 New
        -1
        Are you friends with math? At what distance will the object fly in 26 minutes at a speed of 1000 m / s. Despite the fact that the range is 32 km. School is grade 4.
        1. surok1
          surok1 4 March 2020 07: 14 New
          0
          Do you care about typos? I’m talking about the fact that the distance from the radar to the missile can be more than from the missile to its target and there are less seconds in reserve.
  10. rocket757
    rocket757 26 February 2020 07: 36 New
    0
    I doubt that the military will buy only because it is NECESSARY!
    In any case, two competing systems are an incentive for them to make their systems better.
  11. oracul
    oracul 26 February 2020 07: 43 New
    +3
    It’s one thing to simply say that a hybrid war or a proxy war is being waged against Russia, and it’s another to realize that there is a real confrontation, as they say, a check by fighting with losses, failures and victories. Syria provides valuable practice of the use of air defense systems, allows them to modernize and improve. And in Soviet times there was fierce competition among arms manufacturers, to say nothing of the current market economy. At the same time, one should take into account the most powerful technical capabilities of the intelligence services and their interest in industrial espionage, attempts to infiltrate the defense industry through dummies owning shares, and cast doubt on our ability to create new and effective types of weapons. And therefore, the role of the media, which is contemplating their public discussion, of the TTD is very doubtful, since it facilitates the work of Western, and not only, special services.
    1. Nikolay3
      Nikolay3 26 February 2020 08: 02 New
      -3
      oracul (leonid), right to the point!
    2. surok1
      surok1 28 February 2020 13: 34 New
      -1
      And including this resource.) Foam so to speak.
  12. mark2
    mark2 26 February 2020 07: 58 New
    0
    Why argue? Just look at the statistics of attacks on the Khmeimim base in Syria by drones and the result of the work of the shell and everything will become clear.
  13. Ros 56
    Ros 56 26 February 2020 08: 59 New
    0
    Someone can imagine something like this before WWII. These hacks would be instantly shot. No wonder both the T-34 and KV for Hitler came as a surprise.
    Even if there are problems, and they certainly are, as in any complex matter, how can this be brought up for external discussion? For such things, you need to cut a small piece of wood for each scribbler and use a hand-held jigsaw to fell two cubes a day on the nose. Maybe then the brains will start to work. What kind of savagery inside our liberals, they don’t see the edges at all.
    1. Avior
      Avior 26 February 2020 09: 26 New
      +4
      Before the war, the latest equipment was not sold abroad to the right and left.
      That’s for sure they would have been shot.
      1. My doctor
        My doctor 26 February 2020 13: 36 New
        +3
        Quote: Avior
        Before the war, the latest equipment was not sold abroad to the right and left.
        That’s for sure they would have been shot.

        Before the war, the latest technology of the USSR did not interest anyone. Even more, the Union was not afraid to sell its new designs.
        1. Ros 56
          Ros 56 26 February 2020 14: 24 New
          -1
          That's why they didn’t fear that they didn’t know a damn thing about the T-34, Katyusha, Il-2, etc. The surprise was even more unpleasant for the Germans, it was Hitler who coiled his intelligence.
          1. surok1
            surok1 28 February 2020 13: 38 New
            -1
            During the war, pluralism is less.
    2. My doctor
      My doctor 26 February 2020 13: 32 New
      +2
      Quote: Ros 56
      Someone can imagine something like this before WWII. These hacks would be instantly shot. No wonder both the T-34 and KV for Hitler came as a surprise.

      Seriously? fool This is exactly what happened everywhere. Anonymous letters and denunciations were at that time the main tool in the rivalry between the design bureau. The accusatory article in the newspaper it was a coffin lid, it is almost a sentence.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 27 February 2020 18: 36 New
      0
      Quote: Ros 56
      No wonder both the T-34 and KV for Hitler came as a surprise.

      They didn’t. Intelligence reported on both the T-34 and the HF.
      Another thing is that this information did not reach the troops on time. smile
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 28 February 2020 07: 36 New
        0
        So who owned such information, a cleaning lady in the Reich Chancellery?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 28 February 2020 15: 40 New
          0
          Quote: Ros 56
          So who owned such information, a cleaning lady in the Reich Chancellery?

          Abwehr and headquarters. But they did not manage to bring information to the field units.
  14. V.I.P.
    V.I.P. 26 February 2020 10: 06 New
    -1
    In my opinion, the usual competition. They want to move the TOP and get into the niche of the military air defense. At the same time, there is a video "Military Acceptance" where the Pantsir was tested. It is interesting that the drone that was launched by the TV people, the shell from the cannon could not shoot down even after 3 attempts. It was seen how the presenter got ready to shout "no analogs" but came out a bummer. I was only able to shoot it down with a rocket (it makes no sense to compare the cost of a drone and a rocket). In general, it is not clear for what purposes his cannons work ... ... And about foreign means of fighting mines, MLRS missiles. In my opinion, the Israeli Iron Dome is more successful. The system intercepts both mines and shells, which have been in operation for a long time, and works during shelling from Palestine. As a rule, there are no Jewish victims for a long time, how they began to use it ... Interestingly, it determines the flight path of all shells even in a MLRS salvo and does not shoot down missiles that fly into the desert or places where there are no people, for example. Shoots down selectively, those that have an immediate threat. It is economically profitable and will be able to repel a massive raid without spending missiles simply.
    1. persimmon ufimtsev
      persimmon ufimtsev 26 February 2020 17: 06 New
      +2
      V.I.P. - why lie then? The drone was then shot down by a cannon and not from the 3rd time. I just read that the Iron Dome of 50 missiles missed 45, missed 5.
    2. surok1
      surok1 28 February 2020 13: 43 New
      -2
      Do the birds probably always fly to a specific target? And Nurses are also not flying into the white light.
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 29 February 2020 19: 28 New
        0
        Quote: surok1
        And Nurses are also not flying into the white light.

        quite often it happens - into the white world as a pretty penny. Have you watched footage from Syria, from which launchers and what do the barmaley sometimes shoot with? From handicraft launchers and cylinders - you can only shoot "somewhere in that direction" - with predictable accuracy.
        Second: even "branded" MLRS, when shooting at areas (and an air base, for example, an area target), are smeared by tens or hundreds of meters.
        1. surok1
          surok1 4 March 2020 07: 11 New
          0
          They should be smeared precisely at such a value, statistically distributed over the area. It is important to keep this setting when shooting from far away.
  15. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 26 February 2020 11: 10 New
    +7
    I have already stated more than once that I consider myself a "fan" of the TOR air defense missile system! So ... "hands off the" TOR "!" TOR "in offense will not give!" But I'm not going to "paraffin" "Carapace" either! The author, for example, cites "test results of 2009" and "fragments" from the "devastating" (anti "armor" ...) article, either 2011 or 2012 ... But this article, in turn, has been subjected to "severe criticism" over the years ... yes , and a lot of "water" has "flowed under the bridge" since then! Complex "Pantsir" all these years, nevertheless, has been improved and improved (albeit "by" eliminating the identified shortcomings ...)! Does the Pantsir air defense system need modernization? Certainly in my opinion! The elimination of the identified shortcomings did not lead to the elimination of "generic defects" of the zur complex - "weakness" against energetically maneuvering air targets.! To a certain extent, this drawback should be neutralized (or reduced ...) by the new hypersonic zurs of the complex ... But, in my opinion, in vain the developers did not undertake to equip the "Pantsir" zurs of the DPU! This would increase the effectiveness of "non-motorized" zur against maneuvering targets!
    In the best "position" are the complexes "TOR" with missiles equipped with engines operating "on the march" and with a more "advanced" system of "radio guidance"! The introduction of the 9M338K SAM into the TOR spacecraft significantly increases the capabilities of the TOR air defense system ... I would like to draw the readers' attention to the possibility (whether it is theoretical .... whether it is "hypothetical" ... whether it is practical ... but the possibility!) Of equipping the air defense system "TOR" zuram with GOS on the basis of already (!) Developed "products"! These include zur 9M100 and R-77ZRK! The performance characteristics of these missiles and the type of launch are "similar" to those of the 9M331, 9M338 ...
    Often they "ask": are there two (2) "identical ... similar" air defense systems? But this is far from the case! SAM "Pantsir" copes well with the role of "object air defense" ... is the main means of protecting the S-300/400 (and maybe in the future and the S-500 ...) from, for example, anti-missile missiles ... SAM "TOR" will show itself better as a means of military air defense ... Moreover, I consider "TOR" more "adapted" for firing on the move! As for the "Shell", there were always doubts, even in spite of the assurances that "Shell" was "mogot"! Especially, doubts come to life about the "Shell" with hypersonic missiles ...
    Yes ... some "well-known to a wide range of VO readers" authors now and then scare us with the ALARM PR-rocket! But then let them, at the same time, answer: the shikoko of these "terrible" missiles for NATO armament? For example, I don’t know .... probably, many readers of VO do not know either ... because, in "due time" (back in the late 90s), part of the "alarms" were used up, part of the "warranty period" ... It was then that the English military shouted that they had nothing to fight with! Relatively few alarms were produced! And there was even a speech that it was not worth resuming the production of "alarms", but rather to buy the latest modification of the American "harms"! Now, I don't remember how the "Wishlist" ended with the British military PR-missiles, but the questions remain!
  16. Operator
    Operator 26 February 2020 11: 34 New
    -5
    "Thor" and "Carapace" are both bad for dealing with small-sized air targets - the cost of the first missiles is orders of magnitude higher than the cost of targets, the second is not able to shoot down at least something.

    They taxi penny SAM missiles with semi-active RGSN.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 26 February 2020 12: 01 New
      +5
      Quote: Operator
      They taxi penny SAM missiles with a semi-active RGSN

      Here, just something MNTK is hardly "penny"! No. The bottom line is that some "can afford" ... and others cannot!
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 26 February 2020 22: 31 New
        +1
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        Here, just something MNTK is hardly "penny"!

        Well, yes, by their standards the ISTC for $ 16000 is a penny. However, the Jewish Tamir for $ 30-40 thousand is even more expensive.
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 28 February 2020 15: 13 New
          +2
          Quote: Saxahorse
          However, the Jewish Tamir for $ 30-40 thousand is even more expensive

          That's how it is ... but, you see, they perform in different "weight categories"!
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 29 February 2020 00: 39 New
            -1
            MNTKs no longer perform. Postponed until new ideas appear in radars and antennas.
      2. surok1
        surok1 28 February 2020 13: 56 New
        +1
        Do you guys think that a drone can be intercepted by a drone and it doesn’t have to be a kamikaze? It’s enough to shoot with an immobilizer, some sticky rubbish, you can use manure, just aptly.
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 28 February 2020 15: 08 New
          +2
          No question ! "Drone against drone" ... "Drone-fighter with" anti-drone ", for example, a missile ..." - this is also known! But we discussed specific air defense systems (!) And zurs "to them" as a more universal a tool capable of hitting not only drones, but also eres, artillery shells, mines; as well as aircraft and helicopters ...
          1. surok1
            surok1 4 March 2020 07: 17 New
            0
            Read about "Derivation", it shoots fragmentation with a delay, probably it's ideal against drones.
    2. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 26 February 2020 22: 29 New
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      They taxi penny SAM missiles with semi-active RGSN.

      It seems this has already been discussed. The sensitivity of GOS deployed on small-sized missiles is not enough to confidently capture small targets. Even for MHTK with their meager range of 3 km. The MHTK (Miniature Hit-to-Kill) program failed.
      16.10.2019/XNUMX/XNUMX Qualification efforts for the MHTK missile have been suspended, said Scott Arnold, vice president of Lockheed Martin and deputy integrated air defense and missile defense business with the missile and fire control business. The company did not have an interception test, but it was able to conduct some tests of the MHTK rocket until the army decided to suspend the program.

      The Army could take the technology developed as part of the MML effort and incorporate it into a future launcher. General Gibson noted that the MML "did not have sufficient base to provide long-term potential."


      The Americans decided to temporarily buy two batteries of the Iron House. The Jewish Tamir rocket is more similar to the TOP rockets. It is essentially a hybrid, has an active seeker, but most of the trajectory is controlled by an inertial system with radio command correction. The GOS turns on at the last meters for the execution of this very "Hit-to-Kill".
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 4 March 2020 06: 53 New
        +1
        Quote: Saxahorse
        The sensitivity of GOS deployed on small-sized missiles is not enough to confidently capture small targets.

        And, nevertheless, "a little" strange ... Only in 2018 they tested the "updated" interceptor missile of the MNTK, while stating that the results were recognized as successful ... "Small size", for example, "Rike" (40 mm ) does not interfere with the plans of the Americans to install a laser seeker on the ammunition and, then, to take it into service ... The same thing happens with the Chinese, with their ammunition of 40-60 mm ... But what about, again, American, 12,7 , XNUMX-mm bullet with laser homing? Somewhere, in my "archive" there should be material with data on the divergence of direct and reflected laser beams ... then you can estimate "something" ... By the way, one of the versions of the MNTK provides for a laser seeker
        1. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse 4 March 2020 22: 47 New
          0
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          And, nevertheless, "a little" strange ...

          But why. At first we decided that they could handle it. Then we realized that it wasn’t working out. The question is in the distance. What works in focus on the stand, works much worse from afar and in the air. The GOS itself works, it just doesn’t get close on an inertia accurately and close, it still required a radio command system on the march. And there is no place for her in the ISTC.
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 5 March 2020 02: 41 New
            +1
            Quote: Saxahorse
            still required a radio command system on the march. And there is no place for her in the ISTC.

            It is unlikely that the MNTK needs a radio command system ... Judging by your words, you, first of all, mean the option with an active seeker ... But for this option, it is enough to enter a semi-active homing mode using the same (!) Seeker .. that is, a 2-mode radar seeker (semi-active homing mode + active homing mode ...) ... otherwise, at first, only the seeker's "receiver" works ... an external radar illumination is used ... at the "end of the route" it turns on "transmitter" seeker ... target destruction is carried out in the active homing mode.
            1. Saxahorse
              Saxahorse 6 March 2020 00: 09 New
              0
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              .But for this option it is enough to introduce a semi-active homing mode using the same (!) GOS ... that is, a 2-mode radar GOS

              I will not think of them. I retold the opinion of the commentators of the news about the closure of the program. The developers themselves do not admit what they miscalculated.

              I can only recall that the very idea of ​​the ISTC was to maximize the cost of the system. This dual-mode seeker and high-power backlight radar do not fit very well.
  17. serezhasoldatow
    serezhasoldatow 26 February 2020 19: 00 New
    +2
    I tried to read the article ... The result is nonsense easier to carry than a log.
  18. Empire soldier
    Empire soldier 26 February 2020 20: 08 New
    +1
    Dear author! Are you seriously reviewing the crafts of Zhenya Damantsev? As the Chinese say: "If a dog barks at you, do not get on all fours and bark back!" Well, how can you!
  19. Ura Karbovnichiy
    Ura Karbovnichiy 26 February 2020 21: 03 New
    +2
    That's how all the technical information was transferred to foreign analysts.
    Money will be transferred to the authors later.
    1. Pavel57
      Pavel57 26 February 2020 21: 22 New
      +1
      Too much classified information.
  20. Hitmaster
    Hitmaster 26 February 2020 21: 16 New
    0
    And this is also about the chassis of the "Pantsir" they did not say where it does not smell like import substitution, not to mention the high center of gravity of the entire complex, which monstrously complicates its movement off-road! I am generally silent about the accuracy of the guns. They can only shoot at helicopters point-blank, and the drone can only accidentally hook.
    1. surok1
      surok1 28 February 2020 13: 59 New
      0
      If you untwist the flywheel, the super-flywheel, it can stabilize the position and how the battery can work.
  21. IL-64
    IL-64 27 February 2020 07: 01 New
    +2
    I didn’t understand everything, so I’ll ask. Is it all gone or not?
  22. IL-64
    IL-64 27 February 2020 07: 05 New
    +1
    I would very much like to read comments not from experts and production representatives, but from people who have / know experience in real combat use
  23. Fulcrumxnumx
    Fulcrumxnumx 27 February 2020 13: 07 New
    0
    I read, analyzed, laughed and came to the conclusion that although the author is aware of the technological parameters of both complexes, he is not at all ready to objectively consider the shortcomings inherent in the guidance system of the Tor-M1 / 2 air defense missile systems in comparison with the "Pantsirev" optical electronic complex 10ES1 (including a smaller angle-view sector of the radar detector, excluding the timely detection of missiles attacking at angles of more than 65 degrees). Extremely "smiled" at his opus about the absence of "dead craters" over the "Tor-M1 / 2" air defense missile systems and about their invulnerability to anti-radar missiles ALARM, which, by the way, are capable of "entering" the very invisible "crater" above the upper lines of interception of missiles 9M331 (at altitudes over 10 - 12 km). Moreover, an anti-aircraft missile system that does not have a missile defense system with active radar seeker, a priori is not invulnerable to air attack weapons attacking from the upper hemisphere. A much higher potential in the fight against precision weapons of this type is possessed by the S-350 "Vityaz" air defense missile system entering the combat units of the VKS, equipped with 9M96E / DM missiles with active radar seeker. There can be no question of any "dead funnel" here.

    Apparently, the author just wanted to troll the Tula air defense systems, as well as make another blunder of a cheers-patriotic delirium ....
    1. surok1
      surok1 28 February 2020 14: 03 New
      -1
      I said and say, a lone Russian is easy to offend.)) A lone Thor is easy to shell.
  24. Cer59
    Cer59 27 February 2020 18: 41 New
    -1
    AND SO SO WAITED !!!! we begin to scum their .... oh so harmonious ... I fucking actually fucking fucking. I know one thing: the Kolomna KBM gave the country the first Pturs, the first missiles of portable air defense systems. it is only thanks to his missile achievements that the Tula live, no one disputes their advantage in the artillery systems. but it’s better for the cow to keep silent on the rockets. I understand for a civilian tire is better than a caterpillar, but in combat conditions, how? reducing the pressure in the tire drastically reduces its service life, not proved by me. Now a little about the Torah what is the discontent of the moron? in that the carapace did not go out apparently to those parameters that they wanted.
    To me, the growing horseradish in the garden gives an answer, yes rivet a trailer, a container with 20, 30, with 100 missiles and a couple of trinity you can and a quartet of control machines to him or them. the problem is closed vertical take-off from the container standing in the pit will appeal to everyone.
    was amazed at the reloading of the Grad at one time. dibilism each missile separately ..... but why can't the pioneers entrust this business? and the suspension of ammunition for airplanes and helicopters, fart steam? Why the hell do we need launchers now? container - data entry - volley at least one at least all.
    eh, we had a lot of problems with the military-industrial complex and it does not become smaller. I remember about the t-34 .....
    1. Simara
      Simara 1 March 2020 17: 49 New
      0
      As for the TPU from the trailer or stupidly on the ground, I suggested I remember in another topic on occasion to oversaturate the air defense system with targets, in other words, when the air defense itself is attacked by more targets than its bq. The question is that the missiles are expensive and generally poorly guided. I haven’t heard anything good on shells yet. And the problem of a cheap drone and an expensive missile is solved on the spot by the commander of the calculation of air defense. It was his head that should hurt whether the Chinese deshmansky drove with an expensive mortar attached with a mortar mortar or still give her the opportunity to fly to the command post and jerk. In fact, links and excerpts to the original article generally create a feeling of trolling. Still articles from Yandex would be discussed here
  25. Alex Lushnikov
    Alex Lushnikov 28 February 2020 03: 11 New
    +1
    Well, Thor refers to military air defense, the shell to the object, why swear then), the tasks are different ...
    1. Simara
      Simara 1 March 2020 17: 50 New
      0
      Tasks may be different, but money from one source)
  26. SID
    SID 28 February 2020 13: 03 New
    0
    Auto RU:
    Thanks for the good article. Separate - for humor!
    hi
  27. surok1
    surok1 28 February 2020 14: 31 New
    +1
    To intercept drones, I suggest bird-drone drone. In service with the drone is a cylindrical shot container with a net, in the head of which weights are charged with a reamer. The container is lined up and down so that the drone does not get into its own network.
    On missiles, the seeker on the missile is closer to the object and at some distance sees the object better than the radar. And the computational path, the guidance path there is less. And the more accurate the guidance, the smaller the warhead can be. Between fired and forgotten and fired and led, maybe fired, let and forgot. This is my incompetent opinion.
    And I will offer absolutely exotic. Taxiing by deviation of the nose cone, which is a cone on the supersonic.
    1. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 29 February 2020 00: 44 New
      0
      Everything you have proposed is already used in various systems. So far so-so results ..
    2. Simara
      Simara 1 March 2020 17: 51 New
      0
      For example, 400 drones flies to position c60, how many "bird catchers" with an operator do you need?)
      1. surok1
        surok1 4 March 2020 07: 02 New
        0
        I read about "Derivation". I myself had the same in my head. For example, how to detonate projectiles directionally, providing the desired solid angle of the shrapnel.
        1. Simara
          Simara 6 March 2020 07: 23 New
          0
          It’s just to set up the detonation of a projectile with a buckshot at a distance of 50 meters and then in increments of 50 meters, well, you were kind of putting up a pipe on buckshot or shrapnel, though all this should be done automatically when the shells are loaded. And stupidly cone buckshot cover drone. Or just put on some distance and wait for when the drone approaches the affected area. The caliber is bigger just so that the fractions are bigger and there is a place for equipment in the projectile with a reserve. Although the Germans remember and used 88 mm. True, such a complex is purely for the fight against a drone which is still unclear whether it will be used or not a little expensive. So either use the shell with its 30mm machine gun, make a shell under it with shot on the goose and heavier. Or create another unmatched machine with a caliber of 50mm and above from scratch.
          1. surok1
            surok1 10 March 2020 14: 36 New
            0
            If it’s stupid, without a number, the shell should have a combat capacitor and a time-setting, precision one. Well, a comparator with a switch. That is, two contacts. You can add a third to the heap, for electroslip. All this must be fit into the dimensions of the projectile. In addition, there is less caliber of the projectile, less shrapnel mass and this is a matter of rate of fire. As you know, all this is deeply non-standard. Ammunition requires separate production.
            And the gun too.
  28. Zhevlonenko
    Zhevlonenko 29 February 2020 07: 52 New
    0
    Knowing the Indians, one can assume why they refused to buy shells, again wanted to turn on the "merchant" regime, but they were denied the supply of critical technologies. Let's see how things go
  29. V.I.P.
    V.I.P. 29 February 2020 16: 19 New
    -1
    Well, now the Turks also burned a shell with a beech in Idlib .... Interestingly, if instead of 2 cannons put one six-barreled from the sea AK-630, the shell can defend itself from missiles? Or what do the Syrians do, if there are no missiles in the ammunition, drop the car and run away?
  30. Simara
    Simara 1 March 2020 17: 55 New
    0
    The best air defense from a massive attack of the position of troops or air defense when 100500+ drones and missiles fly from all sides at the same time is an air blast of a low-power nuclear charge, therefore, you must invest in protecting drugs and equipment from emi or be able to disconnect everything at once in a couple of seconds on command. And after undermining the air charge, especially if the targets were seen and those attacked at distant approaches, continue the task.
  31. Simara
    Simara 1 March 2020 18: 13 New
    0
    Regarding the drones, I remember at the beginning of the era of aviation they tried to shoot at them with large calibers with buckshot. But what about a quick-firing gun with a suitable caliber and shot and with automatic aiming like a silk? Shotgun is in every way cheaper than a smart projectile thread, but the range is not so hot but the speech is in the near air defense zone and the situation when the drone leans out into focus. Immediately shilka gives short bursts of buckshot for all purposes. As if small-sized targets but also inactive ones .. and a burst of 3-4 shells with a 45mm caliber and heavier buckshot and, with good nayal speed, will give a good chance to shoot down. Like geese only in large caliber. I saw in YouTube muzzle-loading guns for hunting ducks, added on, a boat and a volley of fractions of 40-50 ducks))
  32. Chaldon48
    Chaldon48 2 March 2020 01: 23 New
    -1
    Each sandpiper praises its swamp!
  33. leon1204id
    leon1204id 10 March 2020 20: 30 New
    0
    The discussion is very interesting, however, I would like to know how the Israelis are destroying our "Armor". RF claims that it is Syrian. Well, it's still our weapon! Maybe you're out of ammunition? Maybe the Syrians just went to the toilet, or the Israeli electronic warfare worked out, or the Pantsir missiles do not see? It's easier to keep a smart look and say that sofa experts do not need to worry, well, it’s a shame for ours, although I’m not an expert. If anyone has any ideas or infa, please share. hi
    1. Retriever
      Retriever 23 May 2020 19: 23 New
      0
      A more interesting question is how the Israelis and the same Turks manage to conduct surveillance and video recording of the shell. I think answering this question, you can not ask the question of how they destroy them.