Military Review

Will the military air defense of the Armed Forces of Russia strengthen the meeting with the brainchild of the CF (L) 35 concept? No easy paths foreseen

60

The tactical and technical task announced two weeks earlier by the headquarters of the British military-industrial division “MBDA Missile Systems” for the design of a promising multi-purpose tactical surface-to-surface missile system based on multi-purpose SDs of the JAGM / Brimstone family once again puts expert communities under the military-industrial complex, the defense department and command of the NE of Russia, the dilemma is difficult: either take the path of least resistance by equipping a certain number of pieces of equipment in mechanized units with active defense complexes of the Arena-M and Drozd types, or focus on giving motorized rifle regiments and tank brigades of a significant number of promising and more expensive means of military air defense, capable of repulsing massive missile attacks by the enemy with the simultaneous use of dozens of air attack weapons.


Fending off the potential of a promising military missile system from MBDA on a European theater of operations will be included in the list of paramount tasks for anti-aircraft missile systems of the air defense of the Russian Armed Forces


On the one hand, taking into account the principle of layered construction of anti-ballistic / anti-projectile "umbrellas" over armored units, according to which long-range lines are blocked by short-range, medium and long-range self-propelled air defense systems, and the near lines - by KAZs, it is not difficult to conclude that that both methods of increasing the survival of armored vehicles indicated in the first paragraph are technically and tactically justified, which means that they must be immediately embodied in hardware. Moreover, the pre-production and serial prototypes of the missile systems developed by the MBDA Missile Systems specialists within the framework of the Conceptual Force (Land) 2035 missile system can boast the presence of an inclined transport and launch module with 10 guides for the Hellfire / JAGM / family anti-tank / multi-purpose missiles Brimstone 2 ", because of which they will be able to carry out volley launches of these missiles, now and then" overloading "the target channel PFAR-radar guidance of military air defense systems" Tor-M1V / 2U ".

On the other hand, it is not necessary to talk about the significant contribution of the Arena-M and Drozd active defense systems to the formation of insurmountable anti-ballistic / anti-projectile barriers around heavy armored vehicles, since the elevation range of the radar guidance of these active defense systems (KAZ) varies in range from -6 to 20 degrees and does not cover the range of approach of JAGM / Brimstone missiles capable of attacking targets in a dive mode at angles of more than 50 degrees. In this situation, the whole range of tasks for detecting, tracking "on the aisle" and the final interception of attacking "Brimstones" will be assigned exclusively to the combat crew of military air defense systems, the most effective of which are Tor-M2U self-propelled air defense systems and advanced anti-aircraft artillery systems 2C38 “Derivation-Air Defense”.

Having passed the stage of deep modernization of the "equipment" of the Tor-M2U air defense system, they will be able to counter the following trump cards to the advanced British multi-purpose missile systems. Firstly, the ammunition extended from 8 to 16 anti-aircraft guided missiles, which will noticeably reduce the intensity of its "drying out" during the reflection of a massive strike by the Brimstones with the Thor battery. Secondly, the integration into the ammunition of the promising 9M338K missile defense interceptors (RZV-MD), which are equipped with inertial navigation systems with higher-performance missile systems, as well as more accurate radio fuses, which provide more accurate initiation of the warhead directly at the moment of maximum rapprochement with the intercepted missile , which greatly increases the likelihood of damage to its critical components (guidance and control systems) even during the first launch.

Differing in effective reflective surface (EOC) of the order of 0,05-0,1 sq. m, low flight speed (about 1,3-1,5M) and the inability to perform anti-aircraft maneuvers, Brimstone / -2 missiles will be easily detected by Torov-M2U radar detectors at a distance of 7-10 km and “captured” centimeter PFAR guidance radars (with the possibility of immediate shelling of RZV-MD missiles) at a distance of 6-9 km.

Meanwhile, the use of a radio command guidance system in the weapon control system of the Tor-M2U air defense missile defense system limits the target channel of the complex to four simultaneously intercepted means of an air attack by the enemy, which is fraught with a breakthrough of the "missile" umbrella in the event of a massive use of the Brimstones, especially during a hypothetical confrontation in conditions difficult terrain, where promising British missile systems can "sneak up" to units covered by "Torah" at distances 4-5 km. Given the 1-kilometer “dead zone”, only 2-second “windows” (taking into account the reaction time of the fire control system) will be left at the disposal of combat calculations of the Tor-M3U air defense missile systems to intercept the “swarm” from the Brimstone missiles launched suddenly which will obviously not be enough to fully repel the attack, even with the battery of the Tor-M2U complexes.

Correct the situation in this case can only be a program for the comprehensive modernization of 9M338K missiles, which consists in equipping them with active radar seekers (similar to the British CAMM- / ER Land Ceptor systems), which completely eliminates the dependence on continuous illumination with a 4-channel guidance radar and dramatically increase the number of simultaneously fired targets from 4 to 8 or more. As for the “processing” of targets that burst into the “dead zone” of “Torov-M2U”, the promising 57-mm anti-aircraft artillery systems “Derivation-Air Defense”, whose guided artillery shells are capable of intercepting a wide range of small-sized ones, will perfectly cope with this task aerial objects literally immediately after leaving the AU-220M gun’s channel, providing the complex with a “dead zone” of several hundred meters.
Author:
60 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Cowbra
    Cowbra 31 March 2020 05: 26 New
    +6
    Well, one must not forget that this is also artillery, and with it the most effective way is counter-battery fighting ...
    British missile systems can sneak up on units covered by the Torah at a distance of 4-5 km.
    Or they can stay there, they will be covered with "Sleds". And then we'll see which is cheaper - Sleds with target designation, or these complexes with target designation. The relief is complex, you can't see nifig - both
    1. svp67
      svp67 31 March 2020 07: 13 New
      +7
      Quote: Cowbra
      British missile systems can sneak up on units covered by the Torah at a distance of 4-5 km.

      In modern conditions, 4-5 km, for such systems the distance is very small and deadly, for the complexes themselves. Why does a LOT of questions arise about the combat use of our TOZs, with their low firing range.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 31 March 2020 08: 10 New
        +9
        As it is, they like to disassemble our defense systems by the bones ??? Do we have no means of attack at all? Will they stand in silence and watch the enemy destroy our troops? Full br / E / d ..... always and everywhere there is a complex "work", incl. suppression of enemy means of attack. Yes, we have something to cover for our own and equip the attackers.
        1. Svateev
          Svateev 31 March 2020 10: 30 New
          -2
          Quote: rocket757
          And what, we have no means of attack at all? Will they stand silently and watch how the enemy will destroy our troops? Complete nonsense

          You suggest us to completely abandon the means of protection - from air defense and from KAZ?
          Ah, "don't offer" ?!
          Then do not bother to discuss how to improve them!
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 31 March 2020 13: 58 New
            +1
            It looks like the definition, "an integrated approach" does not seem to you from the word at all, okay, go for it.
            1. Svateev
              Svateev April 15 2020 13: 56 New
              0
              Quote: rocket757
              "A complex approach"

              And in your concept, an integrated approach is not to perfect A because there is B, and not to perfect B because there is A. A very familiar way to improve nothing at all.
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 April 15 2020 14: 48 New
                0
                An integrated approach is about the fact that the systems of attack and defense should "work" as a whole.
                Those. repel an attack and simultaneously suppress the enemy’s attack means. THAT'S ALL!
                I laugh, I can’t, when someone argues that he’ll fly in our direction, shoot, shoot, and get nothing in return? You might think that we don’t have that answer from the word at all.
                1. Svateev
                  Svateev April 22 2020 14: 24 New
                  0
                  Quote: rocket757
                  An integrated approach is about what should "work" as a whole

                  Does the system eliminate the need to improve each subsystem?
                  No, it does not cancel. Here the author offers such an improvement to one of the subsystems of the weapons system.
                  So why take away from the topic?
                  1. rocket757
                    rocket757 April 22 2020 16: 10 New
                    0
                    Why to the side? It is necessary to modernize everything that is part of an integrated system, which does not provide the tasks that this system must perform. In normal, this is exactly how it should be.
                    The heading in the article amused me! As if the modernization of one product can fundamentally change something. How so ???
                    Modernization, this is some change, improvement of the performance characteristics of a known, possibly obsolete product. Can this really change something?
                    That's when a new system is created, with significantly better performance characteristics that exceed the capabilities of the systems that oppose it, then ANY TITLES ARE APPROPRIATE.
    2. L-39NG
      L-39NG 31 March 2020 09: 19 New
      -2
      JAGM air-to-surface missiles operate for 8 km, Brimstone II missiles and for 60 km, and the flight program is quickly entered before launch (shot and forgot) or the target can be highlighted.
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 31 March 2020 09: 28 New
        +2
        The author's conversation about the fact that if they shoot "closer" - you will not have time to answer. And others ... Again, amenable to counter-battery fight. Even a mortar with the Edge for 8 km will cover
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 31 March 2020 09: 45 New
          0
          Quote: Cowbra
          Even the mortar Granuy for 8 km will cover

          8))))
          For "Verge" the car must be found. In addition, it is not a fact that it will be possible to hit. The same "Raki" Polish protection against ammunition with a semi-active LGSN have
          1. Cowbra
            Cowbra 31 March 2020 09: 54 New
            +1
            So everything is on an equal footing - this also needs to find a goal, and who is the first? A mortar with a face is in every way cheaper, and the same means of detection — plus or minus. Those. stupid mortars more, stupidly shoot this scum on the way. Yes, and I'm not sure that now anyone can defend themselves against a landmine falling from above. Again, there are not only such things, artillery - that the barrel, that the jet ... Again it will be cheaper, again it is more ...
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 31 March 2020 11: 40 New
              +2
              Quote: Cowbra
              Yes, and I'm not sure that now anyone can defend themselves against a landmine falling from above.

              They learned to defend themselves against this even under the USSR.
              "Shtora" is doing this.
              Well, or its analogues.
          2. Uncle Izya
            Uncle Izya 31 March 2020 14: 12 New
            +1
            Well, the UAV can detect
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 31 March 2020 15: 07 New
              +2
              Can. If you don’t get knocked down. And if not drowned out. And if Obra doesn’t work for the SSC-1 target
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 31 March 2020 09: 36 New
        +4
        Quote: L-39NG
        Brimstone II and 60 km

        You "forgot" that you must first accelerate it by plane. From the Predator the rocket flies 40 km, from the Typhoon / Tornado 60
        For the Brimstone is just a modernized version of the Helfair

        And if you run from a ground-based launcher .... Range will be somewhat less. To put it mildly.
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 31 March 2020 09: 49 New
          +1
          Therefore, the author speaks of the folds of terrain for land.
          And then, what will Thor do to an airplane or UAV for 40-80km?
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 31 March 2020 11: 41 New
            +1
            Quote: Tlauicol
            And then, what will Thor do to an airplane or UAV for 40-80km?

            Pass the coordinates of the target to the senior boss. And he will jam the UAV or the plane with some S-300
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 31 March 2020 12: 53 New
              0
              Quote: Spade
              Quote: Tlauicol
              And then, what will Thor do to an airplane or UAV for 40-80km?

              Pass the coordinates of the target to the senior boss. And he will jam the UAV or the plane with some S-300

              and if the "Tornado" rushing at a low altitude?
        2. L-39NG
          L-39NG 31 March 2020 11: 41 New
          0
          Brimstone II with the installation on the ground to supersonic comes out in 1,3 seconds. And according to the Conceptual Force (Land) 2035 program, these missiles are also being upgraded according to the engine
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 31 March 2020 11: 44 New
            +3
            Quote: L-39NG
            Brimstone II with the installation on the ground to supersonic comes out in 1,3 seconds.

            "Assault" is even faster.
            But this does not prove that it flies 60 km 8))) From the ground, its range is limited to five kilometers.

            Quote: L-39NG
            these missiles also modernize the engine

            Yeah, stuff the engine from the shuttle. Only a little, sick in childhood ...
    3. Lopatov
      Lopatov 31 March 2020 09: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: Cowbra
      Well, one must not forget that this is also artillery, and with it the most effective way is counter-battery fighting ...

      Our artillery is not ready for counter-battery with such opponents.

      Quote: Cowbra
      Or they can stay there, they will be covered with "Sleds".

      And when it is ready, it will definitely not be "Sleigh". They are too slow, yet in fact they are mortars of the Second World War.
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 31 March 2020 09: 58 New
        0
        MLRS ukrov militia covered, there is a difference, but ... Not that very
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 31 March 2020 11: 36 New
          0
          So it's ukrov.
  2. Siberian 66
    Siberian 66 31 March 2020 05: 52 New
    +5
    Well, with the capabilities of Thor, "it's more or less clear. It's not a bad machine. But let the" Derivation "train, shoot, take part in the exercises en masse, and only then we will sing praises to her ..
    1. svp67
      svp67 31 March 2020 07: 17 New
      +2
      Quote: Sibiryak 66
      But let "Derivation" ride, shoot, take part in the exercises en masse, and only then we will sing praises to her ..

      And most importantly, how many "Derivations-Air Defense" should be deployed per kilometer of the front to reliably resist such a raid, and how much can, according to the staff structure? And is there no point in modernizing the same "Shilki" by installing a new "electronic filling"?
  3. YOUR
    YOUR 31 March 2020 05: 55 New
    +5
    in the case of the massive use of the Brimstones, especially during a hypothetical confrontation in a difficult terrain, where promising British missile systems can "sneak up" to units covered by the Torahs at a distance of 4-5 km.

    And how will this happen? On ground vehicles? Ha ha ha, it means the front has been breached, it’s easier, cheaper and more reliable to cover air defense systems with artillery fire or, for greater reliability, from a distance of 20–30 km from commercial strikes with a MLRS strike.
    The second option: aircraft - helicopters, aircraft, UAVs. the question is that it’s easier to destroy a rocket or a helicopter, an UAV plane and not let it reach a distance of 4-5 km. In general, the situation is clearly sucked from the finger. Some kind of alternative.
    the promising 57-mm Derivation-PVO anti-aircraft artillery systems, the guided artillery shells of which are capable of starting to intercept a wide range of small-sized air targets literally immediately after leaving the AU-220M gun’s barrel, can do this task perfectly

    In general, it is never more fantastic than alternative, what is an artillery guided missile in general? How far can it depart from a given ballistic trajectory, and there are not a dozen meters, especially for 57-mm shells, and the cost of such a shell will be equal to the cost of SAM, with shells being fired in bursts. And the main target to be fired should be taken for auto tracking. Projectile speed 1000 m / s, target speed 1000 m / s. Those. discovered over 5000 meters, while the rocket made its first shot, at least 1 km flew by, or even 2-3.
    I don’t understand where the author draws such fantasies from.
    Dear Evgeny Damantsev explain.
    1. really
      really 31 March 2020 06: 13 New
      0
      From the fee
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 31 March 2020 08: 31 New
      +1
      Quote: YOUR
      In general, it is never more fantastic than alternative, what is an artillery guided missile in general?

      It seems to me that this meant not a guided projectile in the full sense of the word, but a projectile with programmable detonation; it will not be so expensive, but it will work quite successfully for a low-maneuverable goal. Only it was not possible to find information that such an ammunition is already ready for "Derivation".
      1. AAK
        AAK 31 March 2020 09: 03 New
        0
        Colleague! They removed the question "from the tongue", indeed, no matter how intelligible information was not only about the tests of such a controlled 57-mm artillery shell, but even about its direct development, except perhaps something of this type "... may be used .... "
      2. YOUR
        YOUR 31 March 2020 12: 53 New
        0
        Programmed blasting is a little different. On anti-aircraft shells even with WWII put radio fuses. Undermined at a distance of 5-15 m from the aircraft. True, this was a very big secret of the Americans. The consumption of shells for a downed aircraft dropped sharply from thousands to just 400 shells. But they were not on all the ships. Used only in the Navy. Programmable detonation when height, explosion range, or vice versa deceleration is programmed. And all on one shell.
        A guided projectile is a projectile that can change its flight path. For example, an American Escalibur caliber 155 mm costs 5 shells = Tomahawk. As they say, feel the difference. And, in principle, the name is not a guided missile, but an adjustable one. The high cost of the projectile is due to the presence of a semi-active homing head. For shells with a caliber of 57 mm and even which bursts will not be possible
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 31 March 2020 14: 29 New
          0
          Quote: YOUR
          A guided projectile is a projectile that can change its flight path. For example, an American Escalibur caliber 155 mm costs 5 shells = Tomahawk. As they say, feel the difference. And, in principle, the name is not a guided missile, but an adjustable one. The high cost of the projectile is due to the presence of a semi-active homing head. For shells with a caliber of 57 mm and even which bursts will not be possible

          In fact, here you can dream up.

          For example, a full-fledged guided projectile with an active / semi-active seeker is something like a miniature anti-aircraft missile. Such can be used as a cheaper alternative to MANPADS, firing two or three pieces at low-maneuverable targets (for drones, for example).

          And another option is an adjustable projectile with an inertial control system, without a seeker and with a non-contact fuse (by reflected radio signal or stupidly by timer). The correctability here is minimal and needs more to reduce dispersion, so that the AU can more accurately throw projectiles at a long range. The cost here can already be quite moderate, allowing for firing in bursts.

          Well, then everything will depend on how cheaply and efficiently all this can be implemented at the current level of technology.
          1. YOUR
            YOUR 31 March 2020 14: 37 New
            0
            Exactly, to dream up, but so far the reality does not allow the existence of such shells. In principle, missiles with active seeker are mainly with TGS. Others are the same in fantasies, but they are already saying something appears, in the final section it is induced independently.
    3. Lopatov
      Lopatov 31 March 2020 09: 39 New
      0
      Quote: YOUR
      it is simpler, cheaper, and more reliable to cover air defense systems with artillery fire or, for greater reliability, from a distance of 20–30 km of commercials, with an MLRS strike.

      With artillery, they are traditionally not very curly. The barrel is small, MLRS is not at all.
      Is that the countries of Eastern Europe .... But I think that the Americans in the fight against the "Soviet legacy" and will win.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 31 March 2020 11: 52 New
        +1
        For a gifted minuser.

        The artillery of most American brigades is one mixed division: one 155-mm towed battery and two 105-mm towed batteries.


        At the division level, only redone to the beat. missile systems M270 MLRS or HIMARS. There is no barrel artillery. At higher levels of artillery is not at all.
        1. YOUR
          YOUR 31 March 2020 13: 07 New
          0
          You are in vain. In the United States there are a lot of artillery pieces starting from 105 mm, in the picture it is she, then 155, 175 and 203,2 mm.
          They pay a lot of attention to self-propelled artillery, M109 of which the USA has about 1500 units are constantly being modernized. Of the large M110E2 calibers, the barrel length is 40 calibers with a muzzle brake. The latest development.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 31 March 2020 13: 16 New
            +2
            Quote: YOUR
            You are in vain. In the United States there are a lot of artillery pieces starting from 105 mm, in the picture it is she, then 155, 175 and 203,2 mm.

            laughing
            You lagged behind life for several decades 8)))
            Only 105 and 155, and only one division per combined arms brigade.
            All.
            1. YOUR
              YOUR 31 March 2020 13: 36 New
              0
              Is it different with us? If they have M109 about 1500 units, then we have Mst only 500 pieces.
              Self-propelled guns Carnation and Acacia removed from the armed forces. Maybe they’re standing somewhere in warehouses, but there is no such information. In general, all the artillery that was inherited from the USSR is withdrawn from the armed forces.
              Here, in principle, on an equal footing.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 31 March 2020 15: 19 New
                +1
                Quote: YOUR
                Is it different with us?

                Naturally.
                We have at least one barrel artillery battalion per battalion of the first echelon.

                Quote: YOUR
                Self-propelled guns Carnation and Acacia removed from the armed forces.

                This is not true


                Quote: YOUR
                Here, in principle, on an equal footing.

                laughing
                They have one battery, I repeat, three batteries.
                We have six barrel and three jet batteries per brigade.
                They have no one above
                We have 13 regiments and 13 brigades, each with at least six barrel artillery batteries.
                1. YOUR
                  YOUR 31 March 2020 15: 47 New
                  0
                  Do not compare completely different staff structures.
                  What 13 regiments, what 13 brigades are you talking about?
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 31 March 2020 15: 52 New
                    +1
                    Quote: YOUR
                    What 13 regiments, what 13 brigades are you talking about?

                    13 artillery regiments and 13 artillery brigades.

                    Quote: YOUR
                    Do not compare completely different staff structures.

                    laughing
                    No need to compare, otherwise it will turn out that the Americans have much less barrel artillery?
  4. Eug
    Eug 31 March 2020 06: 33 New
    +1
    As for me, the improvement of KAZs for intercepting ATGMs diving at the final stage of flight would be more correct. The tendency to hit armored targets from above is only increasing, so there is no escape from it. But the destruction of missile launchers, especially multiply charged and not necessarily anti-tank, should remain a priority goal for AA and sabotage and reconnaissance groups, and preferably on the routes of advance.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 31 March 2020 09: 48 New
      +2
      Quote: Eug
      As for me, the improvement of KAZs for intercepting ATGMs diving at the final stage of flight would be more correct.

      But why KAZ, if the aerosol curtain is quite impenetrable in the radar range?
  5. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 31 March 2020 06: 33 New
    +6
    Even by the title of the article you can identify the author. Well, at least thanks for the fact that the situation can be corrected and for now you can not give up. And the fact that the task for design "the headquarters of the British military-industrial division" MBDA Missile Systems "" does not say anything? While they will design while testing our military-industrial complex will not stand still and wait for what they will succeed.
    1. Polymer
      Polymer 31 March 2020 09: 40 New
      0
      Everything is possible in virtual war! - so, it seems, the author thinks. But if you follow his principles: "Tornado" will destroy the Brimstones' launchers before they can be deployed into a combat position. Haha, we won!
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 31 March 2020 12: 06 New
      +3
      Quote: rotmistr60
      And the fact that the design assignment has just been announced by the headquarters of the British military-industrial unit MBDA Missile Systems does not mean anything?

      Everything is much funnier here.
      How many decades has Helfair been trying to break through to ground vehicles? ... A lot. And it still hasn't broken through, good old TOU rules.

      And then the Brimstones, which are so expensive that the British buy Helfires for their aviation, leaving the miracle missiles lying in warehouses and waiting for the Russian invasion of Europe

      At the same time, the Poles declare that they are going to shoot the Brimstones like MLRS missiles laughing laughing laughing
  6. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 31 March 2020 06: 42 New
    +7
    Well, about equipping TORs with zuras with GOS ... Recently, I posted a comment on m100 "on this topic" ... I suggested using in TORs, along with 9M338K, already existing "zurs 9M100 and R-77ZRK ... What facilitates the introduction of these missiles into the TORs? Firstly (1): these missiles are vertical launch, like the 9M331, 9M338 ... Secondly (2): similar weight and size characteristics! It is very likely that a certain modernization will be carried out will have to, but it is easier and cheaper to "develop from scratch" ... also, this will allow the Ministry of Defense to purchase cheaper "ammunition" for "TORs"! By the way, it is possible to equip the 9M100 with an active "radar" seeker "from the R-77 missile! But I consider the high hopes for "Derivation" naive!
    1. Eug
      Eug 31 March 2020 07: 24 New
      0
      Unification - and, as for me, deeper than the S-300 intended - is definitely needed. Given the features of the application of each type of aircraft.
  7. tlauicol
    tlauicol 31 March 2020 06: 50 New
    -2
    PU Brimstone fire rate of three missiles per second. They will overload any air defense systems. Supersonic And KAZ will be overwhelmed with a simultaneous blow from several sides.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 31 March 2020 12: 07 New
      +2
      Quote: Tlauicol
      PU Brimstone fire rate of three missiles per second. They will overload any air defense systems.

      They will overload any budget much faster.
  8. Incompetent
    Incompetent 31 March 2020 07: 04 New
    +1
    Who knows how, but I like Damantsev’s presentation and that’s it
  9. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 31 March 2020 09: 16 New
    -1
    And it’s better to strike a tactical missile of the Tochka-U complex before striking the area. And only then to advance and finish what moves.
  10. cherkas.oe
    cherkas.oe 31 March 2020 09: 21 New
    -3
    Again at this expert, horror stories and tantrums are sucked from the nose.
  11. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 31 March 2020 10: 30 New
    +1
    This article by Damantsev is one of the few in whose "content", in my opinion, there is common sense, although not 100%! The essence of the "considerations" of our beloved Zhenochka is as follows: 1. We (that is, Russia) still have a lot of tanks ... and our enarals still consider tanks to be the main striking force! Fine, fine ! No slippers, pliz! Let it be from "a lot" and "main" - half of the former USSR "abundance"! But by NATO standards, it's still "a lot"! Here they are, bastards, again began to stock up on anti-tank weapons and strengthen anti-tank structures! Shaw to do? And here the Author proposes an idea that is not devoid of common sense (!) ... (well, if only because he himself somehow "reasoned" on this topic ...): SAM and KAZ! But, as I said, "common sense" is not 100% here ... To emphasize the "anti-missile" defense of tank subunits on shooting down enemy anti-tank missiles with anti-aircraft missile systems is clearly not an effective solution! Perhaps even a losing one ... Protection of mobile armored forces (not only tanks, but also motorized infantry on armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles ...) should be organized in 2 stages! I. At the first stage, the fight against the "carriers" of anti-tank weapons! The stage includes the necessary "ingredients": 1. exploration; 2. equipping combat units with the necessary means ... (not only air defense!); 3. "flexible" organization of the combat formation of the shock troops and the units of "fire support" attached to them (including the air defense) These tasks of the "1st stage" cannot be solved by the SAM alone! Akromya SAM, reconnaissance and strike systems are needed, which can be based on more than one concept ...: 1. Reconnaissance and strike UAVs; 2. "Long-range" cannon artillery and MLRS + reconnaissance UAVs; 3. OTHER ...: 3.1 for example, attack helicopters armed with AT missiles, PR missiles and RVV ... 3.2 ... SAM "Pantsir" ... The idea of ​​equipping these anti-aircraft systems with long-range AT missiles like "Hermes"! Here's a "2 in 1" ... bottle! Perhaps it would be advisable to develop a zur with a "nuclear strike" warhead of transverse damage for the "Armor" ... when hovering from a UAV ...
    II. The second stage ... Two "points" can be distinguished: 1. "close" distance; 2.distance of the "last meter" ...
    1. "Close" distance (up to 3 km): carried out by means of "collective self-defense": air defense systems and a "special anti-missile complex" such as the American MNTK and the Russian development of Tekhmash ("small-caliber" MLRS). The main purpose: the defeat of anti-tank missiles. I repeat, this is a collective weapon ... That is, it is in the combat formations of military equipment and covers these battle formations ... One such missile defense system protects, for example, several (maybe 3-4. ..) combat vehicles. (The correct formation of battle formation is important here ...)
    2. Distance of the "last mile" or "last meter": Well, of course, KAZs! "Individual" means ... Damantsev criticizes the Arena-M and Drozd-2 KAZs ... well, yes ... these KAZs are not "super-duper"! But I am sure ... these KAZs have "modernization" potential! Especially, "my beloved" KAZ "Arena"! (For a long time already I "drew up" a scheme for modernizing the "Arena" with the aim of successfully defeating AT-ammunition attacking the "roof"!)
    So .... Don't worry, Zhenya! If you wish, we will always have a "glass of vodka on the table" ... and "two pieces of sausage ...."! fellow
  12. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 31 March 2020 10: 57 New
    0
    The best defense against guided projectiles is the destruction of their launchers plus camouflage and stealth. Destroying flying projectiles is not a good idea.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 31 March 2020 11: 59 New
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Destroying flying projectiles is not a good idea.

      But you have to use it ...
  13. George Davydov
    George Davydov 31 March 2020 12: 59 New
    +1
    If the Military Review is preoccupied with questions of attack and defense, then, as shown, material support is preceded by spiritual tasks - computer science, science, technology, etc. And this suggests that informational and ideological measures must be taken in anticipation of a military conflict. And if the enemy seeks to spiritually weaken us and force us to surrender - an example of the USSR, then we also need to show that we are strong not only financially, as shown in Syria, but also spiritually. And if the best defense is attack, then it’s time for us to use information and ideological weapons to decompose the enemy and force him to surrender. And since the enemy has a class-antagonistic society, and therefore the ruling class lives off parasitizing in a bonded class, this must be used. The essence is simple: to reduce the exploitation of their subjects, the ruling class offers to unite and conquer the weak in a victorious war, and at the expense of it to increase their well-being. We see similar attempts to solve internal problems at the expense of Russia-USSR-Russia since the time of the Crusades. And the results of these trips are known. Therefore, it is necessary to explain this to potential cannon fodder. And the fact that it was possible to destroy the USSR thanks to the fifth column is to warn that we ourselves will destroy this, and therefore they have nothing to hope for. And then they think the way: how to increase their well-being. For even V. I. Lenin set the task of taking his soldiers from the hostile government. It's time to remember and use!
  14. Voltsky
    Voltsky 31 March 2020 17: 38 New
    -1
    read, did not understand much ...
    Then I looked at the author :)
  15. eaglet
    eaglet April 1 2020 21: 16 New
    0
    I didn’t even read ... I can immediately see Damantsev, which means a bunch of useless, non-telling information that does not reveal the meaning of the title ..