Do we have many air defense systems? SAM "Strela-10", SAM "Bagulnik" and ZAK "Derivatsiya-PVO"


Photo: Press service of the Southern Military District


Do we have many air defense systems? We continue the conversation about domestic air defense systems. Today we will consider short-range air defense systems that are currently in service and that have no detection radars in their avionics. We will try to adhere to the same order of presentation as in the article "Why do we need so many air defense systems?"but there will be some retreats along the way.

"Arrow-10"



Photo: Evgeny Erokhin

The development of the Strela-10SV air defense system began in the late 1960s. This complex, which was adopted in 1976, was supposed to replace the short-range air defense system of the Strela-1 regimental unit mounted on the BRDM-2 chassis. As a base for Strela-10SV, it was decided to use the MT-LB tracked lightly armored multi-purpose tractor. Compared to the Strela-1 air defense system, the Strela-10SV complex had enhanced combat characteristics. The use of 9M37 missiles with thermal and photo-contrast channels increased the likelihood of damage and noise immunity. There was an opportunity to fire at faster targets, the borders of the affected area expanded. Using the MT-LB chassis made it possible to increase the ammunition load (4 missiles in the launcher and 4 additional missiles in the fighting compartment of the vehicle). Unlike Strela-1, where the muscular power of the gunner-operator was used to turn the launcher toward the target, the launcher deployed on Strela-10SV with an electric drive.

Two variants of the Strela-10SV combat vehicles were serially produced: with a passive direction finder and millimeter-range radio range finder (command vehicle) and only with a radio range finder (fire platoon vehicles). Organizational platoon Strela-10SV (command and three to five subordinate vehicles), together with a platoon of ZRPK Tunguska or ZSU-23-4 Shilka, was part of the missile and artillery battery of the anti-aircraft battalion of the tank (mechanized rifle) regiment.

The Strela-10 air defense system was repeatedly modernized. The Strela-10M complex included 9M37M missiles. The homing head of the upgraded anti-aircraft missile selected the target and organized optical interference by trajectory characteristics, which allowed to reduce the efficiency of thermal traps.

In 1981, mass production of the Strela-10M2 air defense system began. This option received equipment for automated target designation from a battery control unit PU-12M or control unit of the air defense regiment PPRU-1, as well as target designation equipment that provided automated guidance on the target launcher.

Do we have many air defense systems? SAM "Strela-10", SAM "Bagulnik" and ZAK "Derivatsiya-PVO"
Photo: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation / mil.ru

In 1989, the Strela-10M3 complex was adopted by the Soviet Army. Fighting vehicles of this modification were equipped with new sighting and search electron-optical equipment, which provides an increase of 20-30% in the detection range of small targets, as well as improved guided missile launch equipment, which made it possible to reliably capture the target with a homing head. The new 9M333 guided missile, compared with the 9M37M, had a modified container and engine, as well as a new GOS with three receivers in different spectral ranges, with logical target sampling against the background of optical interference along trajectory and spectral features, which significantly increased the noise immunity. A more powerful warhead and the use of a non-contact laser fuse increased the likelihood of a miss during a miss.

9M333 missiles have a starting weight of 41 kg and an average flight speed of 550 m / s. Firing range: 800-5000 m. Defeat of targets is possible in the altitude range: 10-3500 m. The probability of hitting a fighter target with one missile in the absence of organized interference: 0,3-0,6.

In the late 1980s, the Strela-10M4 complex was created, which was supposed to be equipped with a passive sighting and search system. However, due to the collapse of the USSR, this SAM did not become mass, and the achievements gained during its creation were used in the modernized Strela-10MN. The complex has a new thermal imaging system, a target acquisition and tracking machine and a scanning unit. But, apparently, the modernization program affected no more than 20% of the complexes available in the troops.

At present, the Russian armed forces have approximately 400 Strela-10M short-range air defense systems (M2 / M3 / MN; about 100 in storage and during modernization). Complexes of this type are in service with the air defense units of the ground forces and marines. A certain amount of SAM "Strela-10M3" is available in the airborne troops, but their parachute landing is impossible. In 2015, air defense units received more than 30 modernized short-range anti-aircraft missile systems Strela-10MN.


Photo: Vitaliy Kuzmin

However, the reliability and combat readiness of the complexes that have not undergone major repairs and modernization leaves much to be desired. This applies to both the hardware of the air defense system and the technical condition of the chassis, and anti-aircraft missiles, the production of which ended in the first half of the 1990s. According to some reports, during the training and control firing at the firing ranges are not rare cases of failure of missiles. In this regard, anti-aircraft missiles that are outside the warranty storage period and have not undergone the necessary service in the factory will have a less likely chance of hitting the target. In addition, the experience of local conflicts in recent years has demonstrated that the use of zone assessment equipment in real-life conditions for real purposes unmasks the complex and, with a high degree of probability, leads to the disruption of the combat mission, or even the destruction of air defense systems. Refusal to use a radio range finder increases stealth, but also reduces the likelihood of hitting a target. In the near future, our armed forces will part with a significant part of the Strela-10 family complexes. This is due to the extreme wear and tear of the air defense systems themselves and the impossibility of further operation of the obsolete 9M37M missiles.

When evaluating the combat value of non-upgraded systems of the Strela-10 family, it should be taken into account that the target is visually detected by the complex operator, after which it is necessary to orient the launcher in the direction of the target, wait for the target to be captured by the GOS and launch the missile. In conditions of an extremely fleeting confrontation between air defense systems and modern means of air attack, when an enemy attack often takes a matter of seconds, the slightest delay can become fatal. The big drawback of even the latest Strela-10M3 air defense system developed in the USSR is the inability to work effectively in night and adverse weather conditions. This is due to the absence of a thermal imaging channel in the sighting and search system of the complex. Currently, 9M37M and 9M333 anti-aircraft missiles do not fully comply with modern requirements. These missiles have insufficient maneuverability for the current conditions, small boundaries of the affected area in range and height. The affected area of ​​all modifications of the Strela-10 air defense system is significantly shorter than the range of use of modern aviation anti-tank missiles, and the tactic of “hitch” used by helicopters in the fight against armored vehicles significantly reduces the possibility of firing due to the long reaction time. The likelihood of defeating aircraft flying at high speed and performing anti-aircraft maneuvers with the simultaneous use of heat traps is also not satisfactory. Partially, the Strela-10M3 air defense missile systems were managed to be fixed in the upgraded Strela-10MN complex. However, the "fundamental" flaws of the complex, the first version of which appeared in the mid-1970s, are unable to completely eliminate modernization.


Photo: Vitaliy Kuzmin

Nevertheless, subject to the modernization of Strela-10 air defense systems, they still pose a real danger to air attack systems operating at low altitudes and will remain in the army until they are replaced by modern mobile systems. In 2019, it became known that the Russian Ministry of Defense signed a contract worth 430 million rubles for the modernization of the later versions of the Strela-10 and 9M333 SAM systems. In this case, the life of anti-aircraft missiles should be extended to 35 years, which will allow them to operate at least until 2025.

SAM "Archer-E"



Photo: Show Observer TVM

To compensate for the inevitable "natural decline" of the Strela-10 air defense system, several options were considered. The budget option is to use the MT-LB chassis in combination with the Sagittarius near-field complex. In 2012, an export modification of such a complex was presented in Zhukovsky at the forum "Technologies in Mechanical Engineering".


Photo: kbm.ru

The mobile air defense system, which received the designation “Archer-E,” is equipped with an optical-electronic station with a thermal imaging camera that can operate at any time of the day. To destroy air targets, SAMs from the Igla and Igla-S MANPADS with a firing range of up to 6000 m are intended. But, apparently, our Ministry of Defense was not interested in this mobile complex, and information on export orders is also not available.

SAM "Ledum"



Photo: Igor Korotchenko, i-korotchenko.lj.com

Another complex based on MT-LB was Bagulnik air defense system, which in the past was offered to foreign buyers under the name Pine. In fairness, it is worth saying that the development of the Sosna / Bagulnik air defense system was very delayed. Experimental design and development work on this topic started in the mid-1990s. Ready for use in the arsenal of the sample appeared after about 20 years. However, blaming the creators of the complex would be incorrect. In the absence of interest and funding from the customer, the developers could do little.

For the first time, for domestic anti-aircraft systems, the Bagulnik SAM uses the method of transmitting commands to direct anti-aircraft missile guidance aboard a laser beam. The hardware of the complex consists of an optoelectronic module, a digital computing system, launcher guidance mechanisms, controls and information display. To detect targets and aim anti-aircraft missiles, an optoelectronic module is used, which in turn consists of a thermal imaging channel for detecting and tracking a target, a direction finder for a rocket tracking, a laser range finder and a laser rocket control channel. Optoelectronic station is able to quickly search for a target at any time of the day and in any weather conditions. The absence of a surveillance radar in the complex eliminates unmasking high-frequency radiation, and makes it invulnerable to anti-radar missiles. A passive detection station can detect and track a fighter target up to 30 km away, a helicopter up to 14 km, and a cruise missile up to 12 km.

Destruction of air targets is carried out by 9M340 anti-aircraft missiles, which are located in transport and launch containers, in two packages on the sides of the optoelectronic module in the amount of 12 units. 9M340 missiles used in SAM is two-stage and is made according to the bicaliber scheme. The missile consists of a detachable launch accelerator and marching stage. Within a few seconds after launch, the accelerator informs the rocket of a speed of more than 850 m / s, after which it is separated and then the marching stage continues to fly by inertia. This scheme allows you to quickly disperse the rocket and provides a high average speed of the rocket over the entire flight area (more than 550 m / s), which, in turn, dramatically increases the likelihood of hitting high-speed targets, including maneuvering ones, and minimizes the flight time of the rocket. Due to the high dynamic characteristics of the used missiles, the distant border of the Bagulnik’s zone of destruction in comparison with the Strela-10M3 air defense system has doubled and amounts to 10 kilometers, reach in height - up to 5 km. The capabilities of the 9M340 missile make it possible to successfully hit helicopters, including those employing “jump” tactics, cruise missiles and jet planes flying with enveloping terrain.


Photo: JSC "KBtochmash named after A. E. Nudelman"

In the process of combat work, the calculation of the Bagulnik air defense system searches for the target independently or receives external target designation via a closed communication line from the command post of the battery, other fire platoon combat vehicles, or interacting radars. After detecting the target, the optical-electronic module of the air defense system using a laser range finder takes it for tracking along angular coordinates and range. After the target enters the affected area, a missile is launched, which at the initial stage of the flight is controlled by a radio command method, which ensures the launch of missiles to the line of sight of the laser guidance system. After turning on the laser system, beam telecontrol is performed. The receiver in the tail of the rocket receives a modulated signal, and the rocket’s autopilot generates commands that ensure that the SAM is continuously held on the line connecting the SAM, the missile and the target.


SAM 9M340, bottom - transport and launch container

Conceptually, the 9M340 bicaliber missile launcher is in many ways similar to the 9M311 anti-aircraft missile used in the Tunguska air defense system, but uses laser guidance instead of the radio command guidance method. Thanks to laser guidance, the anti-aircraft missile has high accuracy. The use of special guidance algorithms, a ring diagram of the formation of a fragmentation field and a non-contact 12-beam laser fuse compensates for pointing errors. The missile is equipped with a fragmentation-rod warhead with a durable tip. Undermining warhead is carried out at the command of a laser fuse or contact inertial fuse. 9M340 missiles made according to the "duck" scheme, and has a length of 2317 mm. The weight of the rocket in the TPK is 42 kg. The crew is loading manually.

After the start of mass deliveries to the troops of the Bagulnik air defense system, it will be possible to reduce the extra units of equipment and personnel in the air defense units of the regimental and brigade level. Unlike the Strela-10M3 air defense system, the Bagulnik mobile systems do not require transport and loading and control and verification vehicles.

The public is presented with a variant of the Bagulnik air defense system on the MT-LB chassis. However, this does not preclude the future use of another wheeled or tracked base. Currently, options for placement on other chassis, for example, BMP-3 and BTR-82A, have been worked out. In the past, information was published that for the Airborne Forces on the basis of the BMD-4M, a short-range complex of "Poultry" is being created, which will include the 9M340 SAM. However, the complexity of creating an airborne mobile anti-aircraft complex is associated with the need to ensure the operability of fairly fragile nodes, electron-optical circuits and units of the complex after discharge on a parachute platform. Landing a multi-ton machine when landing from a military transport aircraft can be called soft only conditionally. Although the parachute system dampens the rate of descent, landing from above is always accompanied by a serious blow to the ground. Therefore, all vital components and assemblies should have a margin of safety much greater than in vehicles used in the ground forces.

ZAK "Derivation-Air Defense"



Photo: Uralvagonzavod

Most likely, paired with Ledum in the future will operate the artillery complex "Derivation-Air Defense". Since the mid-1990s, Russia has been quite actively experimenting with 57-mm artillery guns. Cannons of this caliber offered to arm the modernized version of the light floating tank PT-76. In 2015, the AU-220M uninhabited combat module was introduced for the first time, armed with an improved 57-mm artillery system based on the S-60 anti-aircraft gun. The AU-220M combat module was designed to arm the promising Boomerang armored personnel carriers and the Kurganets-25 and T-15 infantry fighting vehicles.

The 57-mm rifled automatic high-ballistic gun used in the AU-220M module is capable of making 120 aimed shots within a minute. The initial velocity of the projectile is 1000 m / s. The gun uses unitary shots with shells of several types. To reduce recoil the gun is equipped with a muzzle brake.

The military’s interest in the 57 mm automatic gun is due to its versatility. There are no infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers in the world whose armor at real combat distances is capable of withstanding the hit of a 57 mm shell. An armor-piercing projectile BR-281U weighing 2,8 kg, containing 13 g of explosive, at a distance of 500 m normally pierces 110 mm of armor. The use of a sub-caliber projectile will increase armor penetration by about 1,5 times, which will make it possible to confidently hit modern main battle tanks on board. In addition, the 57-mm automatic gun when firing at manpower successfully combines a fairly high rate of fire with a good fragmentation effect. The 281-kg fragmentation tracer grenade OR-2,8U contains 153 g of TNT and has a continuous destruction zone of 4-5 m.In terms of the 57-mm fragmentation grenade, it is justified to create anti-aircraft ammunition with a programmable remote or radio fuse.

For the first time, the new 57-millimeter Derivation-Air Defense self-propelled anti-aircraft gun was presented at the Army-2018 forum in the Pavilion of the Rostec State Corporation. Self-propelled artillery mount was made on the chassis of the well-proven BMP-3. In addition to the 57-mm automatic gun, the armament includes a 7,62-mm machine gun coaxial with a gun.


Photo: yuripasholok.livejournal.com
The combat module of the vehicle "Anti-aircraft defense" self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery complex

According to information published in open sources, the maximum range of destruction of air targets is 6 km, height - 4,5 km. Vertical pointing angle: - 5 degrees / +75 degrees. Horizontal guidance angle - 360 degrees. The maximum speed of the hit targets is 500 m / s. Ammunition - 148 rounds. Calculation - 3 people.

To detect air and ground targets day and night, an optoelectronic station is used in its capabilities similar to that used in the Sosna air defense system. The detection range of an air target of the “fighter” type channel in the overview mode is 6500 m, in the narrow field of view mode - 12 000 m. Accurate measurement of the coordinates and speed of the target is carried out by a laser range finder. On a combat vehicle, for obtaining external target designation from other sources, telecode communication equipment is installed. The defeat of air targets should be carried out by a fragmentation shell with a programmable fuse. In the future, it is possible to use a guided projectile with laser guidance, which should increase the effectiveness of the complex.


It is stated that ZAK "Derivation-Air Defense" is able to deal with combat helicopters, tactical aircraft aviation, drones and even shoot down rockets of multiple launch rocket systems. In addition, the 57-mm quick-firing installations are able to successfully operate on small-sized high-speed sea targets, destroy armored vehicles and manpower of the enemy.

To ensure the combat operation of the Derivation-Air Defense systems, a transport-loading machine is used, which provides ammunition for the main and additional weapons of the combat vehicle and for refueling the barrel cooling system with liquid. TZM is developed on the basis of the Ural 4320 high-terrain wheeled chassis and is capable of transporting 4 ammunition.

Currently, in the anti-aircraft division of the motorized rifle brigade, the state is supposed to have 6 Tunguska air defense systems (or ZSU-23-4 Shilka) and 6 Strela-10M3 air defense systems. Most likely, after the start of large-scale production of new anti-aircraft missile and anti-aircraft artillery systems, the Sosna air defense missile defense system and the Derivation-PVO air defense missile defense system will become part of the anti-aircraft divisions in the same proportion.

New systems designed for arming air defense units of the ground forces of regimental and brigade level are sometimes criticized for the lack of active radar equipment in the onboard equipment that allows for independent search for targets. However, when conducting military operations against a technologically advanced enemy, self-propelled air defense systems and anti-aircraft missile systems that are in the same battle formations with tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, when the radars are turned on in the immediate vicinity of the military contact line, will inevitably be detected by enemy electronic intelligence equipment. Attracting unnecessary attention to yourself is fraught with the destruction of anti-radar missiles, artillery and guided tactical missiles. It should also be understood that the primary task of air defense units at any level is not the destruction of enemy aircraft, but the prevention of damage to covered objects.

Unable to detect mobile anti-aircraft systems by radar receivers, the pilots of enemy aircraft and helicopters will not be able to take timely evasion maneuvers and jamming devices. It is difficult to imagine that the crew of an anti-tank helicopter or a fighter-bomber, suddenly discovering nearby explosions of anti-aircraft shells, will continue to carry out further combat missions.

It is possible that the determining factor in the fate of the new anti-aircraft artillery complex was the experience of using air defense systems in protecting Russian military installations in Syria. In the past few years, the Pantsir-C1 air defense missile system, deployed at the Khmeimim base, has repeatedly fired on unguided rockets and drones launched by Islamists. At the same time, the cost of the 57E6 anti-aircraft missile with radio command guidance is hundreds of times higher than the price of a simple Chinese-made drone. The use of expensive missiles against such goals is a necessary measure and economically unjustified. Considering that in the future we should expect an explosive increase in the number of small-sized remotely controlled aircraft above the battlefield and in the frontline, our army needs an inexpensive and simple means of neutralizing them. In any case, a 57-mm fragmentation projectile with a programmable remote or radar fuse costs many times less than the 57E6 SAM from the Pantsir-C1 air defense system.

To be continued ...
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. honest people 13 February 2020 18: 44 New
    • 19
    • 5
    +14
    Respect to the author!
    1. Orkraider 13 February 2020 21: 02 New
      • 9
      • 2
      +7

      hi
      I join the newcomer. As they say, by mouth newbie laughing verbs the truth.

      Sergey, just great!

      Thank you very much for your clear and capacious analysis, as well as a separate merci, for writing about the combination of ZAK “Derivatsiya-PVO” with SAM “Bagulnik”.
      Not just like that, I asked about your opinion about Derivation-Air Defense, in the last part. For me personally, after your answer, the point has finally been put in the discussion of this complex.
      It’s nice to understand that in proving the plus of the lack of radars in battle formations, in connection with the priority of the destruction of air defense systems in the advancing order, I was still right.

      when turning on radars in close proximity


      Attracting unnecessary attention to yourself is fraught with the destruction of anti-radar missiles, artillery and guided tactical missiles. It should also be understood that the paramount task of air defense units of any level is not to destroy enemy aircraft, but to prevent damage to covered objects.


      Golden phrases that you can take and quote. With your permission ))

      Thank you, look forward to continuing!
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Gregory2 13 February 2020 22: 22 New
        • 2
        • 4
        -2
        Quote: Orkraider
        It should also be understood that the paramount task of air defense units of any level is not destroying enemy aircraft, and the prevention of damage to covered objects.

        Orkraider! The most important and effective is the destruction of carriers along with weapons, otherwise there will not be enough shells or the ability to intercept weapons (carriers). From here and damagecovered by the object will increase. You object to yourself, supporting the author’s incorrect statement. An example is the Israeli air raid on Syrian installations.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Orkraider 14 February 2020 00: 09 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Quote: Gregory2
            Quote: Author Sergey Linnik
            Отказ from use rangefinder enhances stealth but also reduces the chance of hitting a target.

            Quote: Orkraider
            It's nice to understand that proving about the plus of the lack of radars in battle formations, in connection with the priority of the destruction of air defense systems in the advancing order - I was right after all.

            Orkraider, you and the author are in conflict! And only right in their minds and no more ...


            By no means.
            I explain:
            The absence of radar means at the Derivation-Air Defense and Ledum does not allow them to be detected and hit in priority, for the suppression of any air defense and radar equipment, always, in priority over other goals. Therefore, my phrase must be correctly read and understood: undetected and not suppressed air defense systems, an unpleasant surprise. And this is a big plus of these systems.
        2. Orkraider 13 February 2020 23: 59 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          hi
          An example is the Israeli air raid on Syrian installations.

          A very bad example.
          You confuse object air defense and military air defense. In this article and in this discussion, we are talking about the Air Defense Forces, which covers the units of the brigade, battalion and company units of the ground forces. Moreover Short-range military air defense.. Destruction of carriers is the prerogative of other complexes.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. Orkraider 14 February 2020 09: 19 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              hi


              [quote] [quote = SETTGF]hi Dear Orkraider (I)! I do not confuse object air defense with military air defense. The expression of the author (you took it as a correct example):
              [quote = Posted by Sergey Linnik] .... [/ quote] [/ quote]

              Dear SETTGF, I didn’t answer you, but to Gregory2:

              [quote = Gregory2] [quote = Orkraider] It should also be understood that the paramount task of air defense units of any level is not destroying enemy aircraft, and the prevention of damage to covered objects. [/ quote]
              Orkraider! The most important and effective is the destruction of carriers along with weapons, otherwise there will not be enough shells or the ability to intercept weapons (carriers). From here and damagecovered by the object will increase. You object to yourself, supporting the author’s incorrect statement. An example is the Israeli air raid on Syrian installations. [/ Quote]

              But, since we started the dialogue, I will answer.
              I agree with your phrase that if you do not endanger the media from which the attacks are launched, then they will continue to be hit.
              But, to create a threat to the carriers, other air defense systems of a slightly different range were imprisoned.
              The complexes specifically discussed in this part of the review, first and foremost, should cover the units on the march and deployment. That is what, as I think, the author tried to convey. And I absolutely agree with his phrase:
              [quote] The paramount task of air defense units at any level is not to destroy enemy aircraft, but to prevent damage to covered objects. [/ quote]

              Do not bring down, but do not allow. And this is done, for example, both by medium-range and long-range launches on carriers, and hidden inside covered forces - by complexes that stop the erupted threats, both of barrage of ammunition and of drones.

              And here it is important to “hide” it so that at the right moment they are intact, not knocked out and able to cover.
              1. zyablik.olga 14 February 2020 09: 35 New
                • 6
                • 1
                +5
                Quote: Orkraider
                Dear SETTGF, I didn’t answer you, but to Gregory2:

                Forgive me for interfering, but in vain you are "tossing beads." no
                SETTGF и Gregory2 is the same character known on the site as I. Vasya. He is constantly banned for rudeness, insults and inciting ethnic hatred. Do not pay attention to him.
                1. Orkraider 14 February 2020 11: 28 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  hi
                  Thank you, I didn’t know.
                  With the permission of Sergey, this is for you:
                  love
                  1. zyablik.olga 14 February 2020 11: 42 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    Thank you! smile Sorry I don’t know your name. request
          2. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 15: 43 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Orkraider
            Destruction of carriers is the prerogative of other complexes

            not at all. The main enemy of the units you have indicated is combat helicopters and attack aircraft. And the task of military air defense is either to disrupt their combat mission, or destroy the carrier. Shooting down ATGMs, UAB and other ammunition that has already been dropped is obviously a losing option, it will lead to damage. The best option is to prevent the carrier from shooting back.
        3. pmkemcity 14 February 2020 06: 15 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Quote: Gregory2
          The most important and effective is the destruction of carriers along with the means of destruction,

          The most effective is the destruction of the basing areas of the "carriers" and their production sites. And even more effective is the destruction of "decision centers."
          1. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 15: 44 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: pmkemcity
            The most effective is the destruction of the areas where the “carriers” are based and their places of production. And even more effective - the destruction of "decision centers"

            this is no longer an air defense task
  2. dgonni 13 February 2020 19: 30 New
    • 8
    • 5
    +3
    The key to solving the problem of providing air defense in the form of derivation lies in the last lines of the article. The presence of a radio-controlled or programmable fuse in the caliber of a projectile 57mm. But they are not there. Therefore, the derivation in the proposed form is not viable as a means of defense.
    1. lucul 13 February 2020 20: 15 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      Therefore, the derivation in the proposed form is not viable as a means of defense.

      Come on, you will have programmable shells. The lack of radar can be compensated by the inclusion of Derivations in a network-centric network.
    2. Orkraider 13 February 2020 21: 26 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: dgonni
      The key to solving the problem of providing air defense in the form of derivation lies in the last lines of the article. The presence of a radio-controlled or programmable fuse in the caliber of a projectile 57mm. But they are not there. Therefore, the derivation in the proposed form is not viable as a means of defense.

      hi

      Look at the evolution of the Strela-10SV air defense system. What characteristics the operation began with and how the complex came out in the latest versions.

      It will be similar here, too, with the dimensions of 57 mm, this possibility is quite real (this is problematic in 30 shells), because
      our chips are the largest in the world
      . Moreover, solutions based on a fragmentation projectile with a programmable fuse have been tested and are already undergoing tests. The concern "Techmash" is engaged.
  3. exo
    exo 13 February 2020 19: 34 New
    • 12
    • 0
    +12
    The article “Why do we need so many air defense systems?” Served as a detonator for a series of very serious articles on the topic of our air defense. For what, to both authors, Thank you!
  4. knn54 13 February 2020 20: 00 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Air defense does not happen much.
  5. RUSLAN 13 February 2020 21: 30 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    An excellent series of articles! Respect to the author!
  6. Nikolay R-PM 13 February 2020 21: 40 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    taking into account the fact that the probable enemy has an advantage in fact in the number of anti-tank helicopters and attack aircraft, and anti-bombers, as well as special modifications of “anti-radar aircraft” (“wild weasels”), aiming at a target by flying in a beam is not without rational grain. in my opinion, without external target designation, the effectiveness of such a complex will not be high enough, but in this case the enemy will hunt for a surveillance radar. on the other hand, even if the surveillance radar is destroyed, the Ledum and derivation will not be blinded at all. in addition, it should be noted that guidance of zuras by means of a beam does not exclude the use of ground targets, which theoretically increases the tactical flexibility of using rosemary.
    1. garri-lin 13 February 2020 21: 52 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Ledum needs to increase ammunition. One and a half, two times. So that he could intercept a massive volley. MLRS.
      1. JD1979 14 February 2020 00: 09 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: garri-lin
        Ledum needs to increase ammunition. One and a half, two times. So that he could intercept a massive volley. MLRS.

        Yeah, and as many lasers that the channel match, and i9 to heap all this to calculate.
        1. garri-lin 14 February 2020 09: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          This is complete absurdity. Installation will not be alone.
  7. Ingenegr 13 February 2020 23: 46 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Good job. Interesting article. Thanks to the author.
  8. alexmach 13 February 2020 23: 59 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    It is not entirely clear why to replace the universal air defense system of the Tunguzka with less specialized Derivation and Ledum. It turns out that one machine is changed to 2. Shilok in the troops, by and large, is not there anymore.
    1. tima_ga 14 February 2020 00: 59 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The article has the answer to your question. Tunguska, as a universal complex, is inferior to new machines both in rocket and cannons. Theoretically, a complex with 9M340 missiles and a 57mm cannon can be delivered to Tunguska, but it will be a completely new heavy machine (new R&D), more expensive than two separately and not landing in principle.
      1. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 15: 47 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: tima_ga
        Theoretically, a complex with 9M340 missiles and a 57mm gun can be delivered to Tunguska

        why the gun is precisely the caliber of 57 mm ??? Is it possible that a line of 35- or 40-mm shells is not enough for a drone or a helicopter? Yes for the eyes. As well as light armored vehicles, if there are BOPS in the BC
        1. alexmach 15 February 2020 15: 55 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          why the gun is precisely the caliber of 57 mm ??? Is it possible that a line of 35- or 40-mm shells is not enough for a drone or a helicopter?

          In Russia, there are no guns in the callig 35 or 40 mm. When firing at aerial targets, we are not talking about getting in line, but about covering the fragments with a cloud.
          1. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 15: 59 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: alexmach
            In Russia, there are no guns either in callig 35 or 40 mm

            Right. And this is the failure of our gunsmiths when the KBP belly sat on the topic of creating small-caliber APs. It is necessary to create the necessary art system, and not to dance from what is what. Otherwise, we will always be catching up.
            Guns with a caliber of 35 - 40 mm have an optimal ratio of efficiency, rate of fire, ammunition, weight and damaging effect.
            1. alexmach 15 February 2020 16: 04 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              This is not a problem for gunsmiths. It is not up to the KBP to decide which cannon the troops need, but the troops to issue an assignment to the industry. Including taking into account economic feasibility.
              1. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 16: 15 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: alexmach
                Not KBP should decide what kind of gun the troops need

                I agree, the decision is theirs. But the powers of the Chief are to convince the military, to show, to prove, the need for this system. There were many examples ...
        2. tima_ga 15 February 2020 17: 00 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          In a smaller caliber, it’s more difficult to make a guided munition with a programmable remote or radar fuse, and this is the future and it would be nice to start going now ... Especially since there are 57mm developments, but 35-40mm would have to start from scratch while the gain in comparison with the mastered 30mm is minimal. What for...
          1. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 17: 41 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: tima_ga
            In a smaller caliber, it is more difficult to make a guided munition with a programmable remote or radar fuse, and this is the future

            then let's go straight to 100 mm. Looking to the future.

            40 mm is called the "golden caliber." The projectile has sufficient power, is still not so large (in comparison with the 57- and 76-mm) and heavy (which means you can have a relatively large ammunition ready to fire, rather than a miserable 100 with something 57-mm rounds), a remote fuse can be built in without problems, the gun still has an acceptable rate of fire (much higher than 120 rounds / min) .. This is a compromise between mutually exclusive requirements, in which the artillery system does not suffer much from the combat or weight characteristics

            Quote: tima_ga
            35-40mm would have to start from scratch

            without creating a new one, you will remain an outsider. In the west they make automatic guns with a caliber of 50 mm, tank guns with a caliber of 130 and 140 mm, although these calibers were never standard in any army and were never widely used. End justifies the means.

            Quote: tima_ga
            the gain in comparison with the mastered 30mm is minimal.

            why such a bold statement? Longer firing range, much more damaging effect. In addition, we do not have modern 30-mm effective shells (the industry has not yet mastered them), so 30-mm guns are ineffective, and we don’t lose anything especially when we reject them
            1. tima_ga 15 February 2020 18: 30 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              You write about the "golden caliber", I do not consider myself a guru in this matter, but I have never heard such a thing. Who calls it 40mm? Our "sworn friends"? So they already ate not a single dog on PR and far ahead of us in this matter, they will make candy out of any “g”. However, perhaps you are right and 40mm is called somewhere ...
              One of the reasons that the calibers in the "West and East" are different is the difficulty in using captured weapons and ammunition (plus the tradition of an inch system, etc.), so we have different calibers. What should we look in their direction? We have whole lines in factories for our traditional calibers sharpened.
              You are rightly saying that now the customer and designers have stepped up their interest in calibers that "have never been standard in any army and have never been widely used." The security of objects is growing - more powerful means of destruction are required. So we remembered 57mm (as an analogue of 50mm in the west), which in the 50s, due to technological issues and excessive power, could not be realized on high-speed automatic guns (then Shilka with 23mm was enough).
              Now the security, speed and range of use of weapons of the target has increased; technology allows you to make a gun at 57mm quick-fire; technology allows counting on the development of moderately expensive intelligent ammunition in this caliber.
              From the 30mm line you gave the line to the target and you look: it’s touched / not touched, if you haven’t touched the turn and yet, until you have covered yourself ... We don’t consider the modern 57mm as a continuation of the ZSU-57-2, no. Only as a complex with an eye on intellectual ammunition, when with the consumption of two such shells you have a probability of hitting the target at the level of 0,8-0,9.
              And the fact that our industry does not offer such ammunition now does not mean that they cannot be developed in the short term if there is interest and financing from the customer.
    2. Nikolaevich I 14 February 2020 01: 45 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: alexmach
      It is not entirely clear why to replace the universal air defense system of the Tunguzka with less specialized Derivation and Ledum.

      I think that your "proposal" makes sense! It would be nice to take into account that there were “rumors” on the Internet that the Zur “pine” was originally developed for the “Tunguska” (as an addition to the ammunition intelligence)! And also, a “radio-controlled” zur was developed with a range of up to 10 km and a height of 6 km ... One might think of “anti-aircraft nails” for the “tunguska”! It’s good to think: is it possible to move the Tunguska to a cheaper base (chassis)? (It is possible that the design bureau also offered the “option on wheels”, but now I don’t remember about it!)
      1. zyablik.olga 14 February 2020 02: 20 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        It’s good to think: is it possible to move the Tunguska to a cheaper base (chassis)?

        As far as I know, the Pantsir complex was developed as a wheeled version of the Tunguska, and was intended to accompany transport convoys and cover objects in the rear.
        1. Nikolaevich I 14 February 2020 05: 08 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Initially, the project on the "Shell" was referred to as "Tunguska-3" ... "Primary" "Shell" and, for example, "Shell-C1" differ "yak heaven and earth"! But, actually, almost from the very beginning, the “Shell” was “conceived” as “a module installed on various chassis and even without it ... (stationary)”!
        2. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 17: 45 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: zyablik.olga
          As far as I know, the "Shell" complex was developed as a wheeled version of the "Tunguska"

          do not confuse wax и object Air defense. Tunguska - military, Shell - object complex. And the shell not designed as a replacement Tunguska. They have completely different tasks.. At the first - to accompany mechanized columns, at the Shell - the cover of long and medium-range air defense systems and administrative and rear objects
      2. alexmach 14 February 2020 09: 39 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        So I recall that it was about the modernization of the Tunguska, at least in terms of missile weapons and guidance systems. With a 57 mm cannon, it is expected that it will be more effective than the Tunguzka guns, and that it may not fit on the Tunguzka platform. Although I also agree - it is not clear how much cannon systems are needed now.
        1. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 15: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: alexmach
          With a 57 mm cannon, it is expected that it will be more effective than Tunguzka guns

          here the grandmother in two said that it was more effective at a low-flying suddenly appearing target - a swarm of small-caliber shells or a queue from a not-so-fast, but larger-caliber gun. I would put it first. NATO pilots in the first Iraqi as hell from incense shied away at a height, only seeing the "Shilka" welding on the ground
          1. alexmach 15 February 2020 15: 57 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            a swarm of small-caliber shells

            Flying "into the milk"?
            to or from a not very rapid-fire, but larger-caliber gun

            With programmed backing and ready-to-use striking elements?
            1. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 16: 05 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: alexmach
              a swarm of small-caliber shells

              Flying "into the milk"?

              why in milk? 57-mm gun, how is it pointed? A 35 mm submachine gun will also be brought in.

              Quote: alexmach
              With programmed backing and ready-to-use striking elements?

              in caliber 35 - 40 mm this can be done realistically. There are foreign samples.
        2. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 15: 56 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: alexmach
          it’s not clear how much cannon systems are needed now

          are needed. The gun has a minimum reaction time compared to missiles. I found the enemy, then you can shoot. Effective against a suddenly appearing target - you can simply not have time to launch a missile before the target leaves the affected area. The rocket has a dead zone, the gun does not have one. The gun has the ability to fire at ground targets and manpower of the enemy (anything can be in battle)
          1. alexmach 15 February 2020 16: 01 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            The gun has a minimum reaction time compared to missiles. I found the enemy - here you can shoot

            Even a gun in his direction to deploy / point is not necessary? I don’t see the reason why the gun should surpass missile weapons in terms of reaction time.
            The rocket has a dead zone, the gun does not have one

            Yes there. but the effective range of shooting is less than the range of modern aviation weapons.
            The gun has the ability to fire at ground targets and manpower

            For an air defense system, such a possibility is secondary and in no way can be a selection criterion.
            1. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 16: 12 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: alexmach
              Even a gun in his direction to deploy / point is not necessary?

              necessary, of course) So PUs with SAM in the described air defense systems also need to be deployed towards the enemy. Out of place out of place)

              Quote: alexmach
              I don’t see the reason why the gun should surpass missile weapons in terms of reaction time.

              and you read specialized literature. SAMs lose on this indicator anti-aircraft guns.

              Quote: alexmach
              but the effective range of shooting is less than the range of modern aviation weapons.

              of course. That is why they began to create air defense missile systems - at first there is shelling of missile targets, then they shot through the remaining assault rifles. Or immediately with automatic weapons, if the target appeared suddenly and close - for example, a helicopter on a jump.

              Quote: alexmach
              For an air defense system, such a possibility is secondary.

              this is like a nice bonus. In principle, some types of missiles can also be fired at ground targets, but they are unlikely to succeed in manpower.

              The summary is that the cannon and missiles have their advantages, and working in conjunction perfectly complement each other, creating a continuous zone of destruction against a wide range of targets.
              1. alexmach 15 February 2020 16: 23 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                and you read specialized literature. SAMs lose on this indicator anti-aircraft guns.

                It is interesting what year this conclusion is and based on an analysis of which air defense systems and which automatic devices it is concluded.
                The summary is that the cannon and missiles have their advantages, and working in conjunction perfectly complement each other, creating a continuous zone of destruction against a wide range of targets

                Then it’s not clear why to create 2 separate cars. They would develop the theme of the Tunguzok and the carapace ... well, except that these 2 cars greatly benefit in mass and mobility.
                1. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 16: 31 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: alexmach
                  I wonder what year this conclusion is and based on an analysis of which air defense systems and which automatic weapons the conclusion is made

                  the anti-aircraft machine is ready to fire as soon as the target is escorted and entered the affected area. SAM (for example, with TGSN), you must first "hook" the target, only after this is possible to start. This is a few extra seconds.

                  Quote: alexmach
                  Then it’s not clear why to create 2 separate cars.

                  I also do not really understand the division of cars into a purely cannon and air defense systems.
                  1. alexmach 15 February 2020 16: 55 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    SAM (for example, with TGSN), you must first "hook" the target

                    But the conversation is not about TGSN. For the near zone, we have either radio command or, as described in the article, laser-guided missiles. They do not need to “capture” the target; they only need to receive a control signal.
                    Moreover, there is a 9m100 rocket with infrared seeker and mortar launch. She obviously does not capture the target before the start.
                    Therefore, I ask in which year such a conclusion was made and based on the analysis of which particular missiles ...
                    In the general case, in my opinion, the rocket of the same conditional Carapace may well be ready to launch at the same time as the cannon ready to fire.
      3. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 15: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        It is possible that the design bureau also offered a "variant on wheels"

        "wheels" will not be able to accompany the tracked vehicles. Rather, not always and not everywhere. This is a minus. Complexes of military air defense should be on the goose
  9. Nikolaevich I 14 February 2020 01: 32 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    They rely too much on the 57-mm artillery system as a means of air defense! Hello! The "common sense" in using this very "derivation" can only be seen as in the main armament of an infantry fighting vehicle to destroy ground targets! The possibility of using it as an air defense system is “welcomed”, but for self-defense in a pinch ... In the recent past, a 57-mm anti-aircraft gun would be a good anti-helicopter weapon (with "old", hellfires ,, ...), but due to the adoption of more long-range, "autonomous" helicopter anti-aircraft missiles by NATO, the advantages of the 57-mm caliber as an "anti-aircraft" are significantly lost ...
    1. riwas 14 February 2020 05: 59 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      It is said that the “Derivations-Air Defense” is focused primarily on small UAVs:
      Considering that in the future we should expect an explosive increase in the number of small-sized remotely controlled aircraft above the battlefield and in the frontline, our army needs an inexpensive and simple means of neutralizing them. In any case, a 57-mm fragmentation projectile with a programmable remote or radar fuse costs many times less than the 57E6 SAM from the Pantsir-C1 air defense system
      1. Nikolaevich I 14 February 2020 07: 20 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        Quote: riwas
        It is said that the “Derivations-Air Defense” is focused primarily on small UAVs:

        I'll tell you too!
        In Russia, a robotic MLRS is being created.



        The CEO of Techmash spoke about him. According to him, the concern is conducting development work to create a small-caliber robotic multiple launch rocket system. Since any MLRS is a fairly easy target for the enemy due to the absence of any reservation, it can be assumed that this machine is created, for example, for Special Operations Forces or Airborne Forces. The robot's task will be to be in close proximity to the line of contact, where the risk of "catching" ATGM is quite large. The caliber of the system is also known - 50-80 mm. The main "chip" MLRS will be a very advanced guidance system, which even low-flying objects, such as attack aircraft, helicopters or drones.
    2. alexmach 14 February 2020 09: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Moreover. Guided cannon shell will probably not be cheaper than a rocket. So it can really really reduce the price of “nails” in the first place.
      1. tima_ga 15 February 2020 19: 09 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        It depends on what is being stuffed into such a projectile ... If only a radio fuse, then technology is already nearly a hundred years old, it should not be expensive. And we will use nails for so long, so many more carriers in service with a sufficient resource, starting with ZU-23-2 :)
        1. alexmach 15 February 2020 19: 40 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          If only a radio fuse, then technology is already almost a hundred years old, it should not be expensive

          No, I still had in mind an adjustable shell, it would not be cheaper than a rocket. A radio or programmable fuse is something else. It is really cheaper.
          And we will use nails for so long, so many more carriers in service with a sufficient resource, starting with ZU-23-2 :)

          We are in my opinion about different nails. I'm talking about short-range missiles for the Shell. I mean that if you need a guided missile in the near field, then this already exists without a mark with a missile launched from the barrel.
          1. tima_ga 15 February 2020 19: 41 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I understood about "nails"
    3. tima_ga 15 February 2020 18: 47 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Do not forget that this is a short-range complex, the carriers themselves (helicopters, for example) will keep the Torah, Buki, S-300V, Vityazi at a distance ... And the targets for Derivation will be cruise missiles, MLRS shells, drones and aircraft, if any in the affected area. A plus! Derivation can act as a fire support vehicle for targets on the ground (like BMPT).
  10. Ros 56 14 February 2020 06: 04 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    An interesting review, gives an understanding of short-range air defense.
  11. riwas 14 February 2020 06: 11 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Cannons of this caliber were proposed to arm a modernized version of the light amphibious tank PT-76.

    Read more here:
    http://btvt.narod.ru/4/76/pt76m.htm
  12. VicktorVR 14 February 2020 09: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And what about the laser irradiation sensors, which now weigh all the modern technology?
    Let’s say “Derivations” / “Bowler” will be “handed over” the target, they will deploy the modules in the right direction in advance, wait for the target to approach, track it with “optics”, turn on the laser rangefinder and the target immediately begins to evade evasion maneuvers and try to leave the affected area, simultaneously reporting to all of you that there is air defense in this place.

    Or maybe launching a missile with guidance on that laser rangefinder.
    1. Orkraider 14 February 2020 13: 22 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: VicktorVR
      And what about the laser irradiation sensors, which now weigh all the modern technology?
      Let’s say “Derivations” / “Bowler” will be “handed over” the target, they will deploy the modules in the right direction in advance, wait for the target to approach, track it with “optics”, turn on the laser rangefinder and the target immediately begins to evade evasion maneuvers and try to leave the affected area, simultaneously reporting to all of you that there is air defense in this place.

      Or maybe launching a missile with guidance on that laser rangefinder.


      hi
      Reasonably.
      But having received a signal of exposure, the aircraft begins to actively maneuver and stops the attack. The goal - the cover of equipment - is completed.

      To launch a rocket using the same laser rangefinder, I have a question for you:
      - How will the missile be guided? Anti-radar missiles will not work.
      1. VicktorVR 14 February 2020 13: 32 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        In general, yes, the aircraft begins to maneuver, leave the irradiation zone, it suddenly doesn’t become until the task is completed, which means the air defense has completed its mission.

        Missiles will need special ones that can follow the beam of the rangefinder. And it seems to me that their GOS should be no more complicated than that of anti-radar. That combined yes, it will be much more expensive.

        Surely there is such a tactic for combating air defense - to enter the radar zone, launch missiles and immediately leave. They will hang half of the missiles with laser guidance, some on the radar.
        1. Orkraider 14 February 2020 13: 41 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          drinks
          For the dialogue)))

          Missiles will need special ones that can follow the beam of the rangefinder.


          That’s the question, it’s possible to highlight the target with a laser, but I don’t know to the opposite direction .. I don’t think there are such heads.
      2. Grigory_45 15 February 2020 16: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Orkraider
        Having received a radiation signal, the aircraft begins to actively maneuver and stops the attack. The goal - the cover of equipment - is completed.

        now the enemy knows that in such a square there are air defense systems with a passive guidance system, and will organize a hunt

        Quote: Orkraider
        How will missile guidance be carried out? Anti-radar missiles will not work

        rockets with IR or TV head. NATO has plenty of them
    2. Bongo 15 February 2020 03: 22 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: VicktorVR
      Let’s say “Derivations” / “Bowler” will be “handed over” the target, they will deploy the modules in the right direction in advance, wait for the target to approach, track it with “optics”, turn on the laser rangefinder and the target immediately begins to evade evasion maneuvers and try to leave the affected area, simultaneously reporting to all of you that there is air defense in this place.

      Promising combat aircraft are planned to be equipped with laser-fixing equipment. For example, the F-35A already has such sensors. But taking into account the fact that the range of launching SAMs and firing of anti-aircraft missiles with laser guidance is relatively small, then with a high degree of probability the aircraft will not have time to evade. Among the possible countermeasures, the most promising seems to me to use combined aerosol-thermal traps that are shot in the direction of the radiation source.
      Quote: VicktorVR
      Or maybe launching a missile with guidance on that laser rangefinder.

      Such missiles do not exist and, by and large, there is no sense in creating them. This is due to the different nature of radio and laser radiation, different distances and methods of using air defense systems with laser and radar guidance.
      1. tima_ga 15 February 2020 18: 58 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        F-35 is not quite the kind of game that Derivation will hunt ... All the same, this is the goal for the Thors, Bukovs, Knights ... And Derivation for shooting cruise missiles, MLRS shells, drones, etc. in the near zone - targets that As a rule, they do not actively maneuver, consciously, during irradiation.
  13. BREAKTHROUGH READY 14 February 2020 11: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    So what is the essence of this series of articles?
    This is just a brief overview of domestic air defense systems, or there will still be an answer to the question "do we have many air defense systems?" with the conclusion about the diversity, quantity, real effectiveness of combat stability, for example, in a local conflict with a high-tech enemy?
    1. alexmach 15 February 2020 16: 18 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Brief conclusion: MANPADS are all right
      with the cover of direct battle formations - everything is sad, most of the equipment is outdated, the new one is created but is not supplied in bulk, and the concept of covering the troops has not been worked out.
  14. 5-9
    5-9 14 February 2020 12: 44 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    Derivation - very good. debatable. Without an external CC, she is blind. Without a radio-controlled projectile, it is also toothless. But there is no radio-controlled one and he will have a price. In general, I don’t understand why it is needed in the presence of Tunguska and Carapace .... ANY manned target, even a corn carrier, is better to shoot down with a missile .... a small UAV is also better than 30 mm than 57 mm
  15. Sckepsis 21 February 2020 07: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It’s a little strange to see how the author pounced on Strela after he carefully defended ZSU.


    There are no infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers in the world whose armor at real combat distances is capable of withstanding the hit of a 57 mm shell

    And Namer?)
    1. Bongo 21 February 2020 07: 33 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Sckepsis
      It’s a little strange to see how the author pounced on Strela after he carefully defended ZSU.

      What does “pounce” and “defend” mean? I try to write in the most accessible language and objectively. If you disagree with any of the above, please justify in detail.
      Quote: Sckepsis
      And Namer?)

      Did they build a lot? And what is the thickness of the side armor of an Namer armored personnel carrier?
  16. achtung 22 February 2020 13: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    As one Soviet general said, "the best air defense is our tanks at the enemy’s airfield."
    But in fact, a good bunch of regimental link.
  17. rusboris 25 March 2020 18: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Two-thirds of the aircraft in Vietnam were shot down by barrel artillery, 3277 “tails”. And almost all of these aircraft are jet. The "Shilka" Vietnamese and Belarusians modernized not from poverty, but for the ongoing wars. And Iran is not poor, 100 mm anti-aircraft shell, not a joke with a modern guidance station. It’s just that there are financial lobbyists of the defense industry complex, weaker than reasonable generals. A shot at a drone or a jet mine, a missile from a torus, shell, tunguska costs 6 million rubles. One shot of 100 mm or a box of 23 mm shells costs 6 thousand rubles. The question of the cost of services on the basis of price - quality is definitely decided in favor of artillery. The MLRS volley along the tank battalion concentrated 10 km from the enemy’s trenches can only be reflected with a ZAK fire curtain of 57-100 mm caliber. no tunguska and rosemary can cope. War must be a profitable business. Derivation-air defense is late in the troops for 3-4 years. How familiar it is to tears. "It is a pity the war began in 1941, if only in 1942, we would have time to prepare." Even me, a sofa expert, can see holes in the military air defense. The OPK workers drove the antiaircraft artillery in the ass from missile euphoria, Khrushchev voluntarism, ears stick up high, and the amount of money for the defense industry is not comparable.
  18. papa nanu April 18 2020 18: 07 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The review is excellent.
    in the comments there is a participant who writes "Tunguzka", I do not believe that a person who writes with a mistake the name of the machine generally understands at least a little in air defense even at the Wikipedia level, and the reasoning is like that of a schoolboy.
    even on Wikipedia there is information that the shilka does not shoot down modern aircraft, but creates a cover zone with dense fire. and the 23 mm shell doesn’t really pierce anything. but still performs the cover task, there are no people who want to fly under the fire of anti-aircraft guns