Fifth Wheel

41

The active use in modern conflicts of low-flying subtle air attack means supports a steady interest in the optimal means of dealing with them - short-range anti-aircraft missile systems. (Medium and long-range systems and systems are not optimal for the cost of a shot, melee air defense systems and MANPADS, not to mention ZAK - for the available capabilities.)

The experience of combat use in Syria confirms the high efficiency of the Russian short-range air defense systems of the Tor family in the fight against modern air-launched missiles. Nevertheless, periodically (and not only on the Internet, but also “from high stands”) the question arises of equipping them with anti-aircraft guided missiles with homing heads as an alternative to the radio command guidance method used in these complexes.




It should be noted right away that in the short-range zone the capabilities of both methods make it possible to more or less successfully solve the problems facing the air defense systems of the MD and their simultaneous application is not necessary (as, for example, in the air defense systems of airborne systems and air defense systems, where, due to the increased distance and This strong scattering of the radar from the guidance radar can not do without RK-guidance, or without GOS or guidance "through the rocket"), and, therefore, is unnecessary, because it is economically unjustified (GOS increases the cost of multiple missiles, radar guidance is also worth many - to spend money on something else and just can not afford to even the richest countries). The question, therefore, includes the wording "either - or" and should be considered in the light of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the guidance methods, which are easily noticeable even from a superficial comparison of the Tor-M2 air defense systems and modern Western short-range air defense systems VL MICA, SPYDER-SR, IRIS-T SLS (in the same row you can also put the newly developed SAM Kampluftvern with SAM IRIS-T).


These complexes are "classmates", according to the passport data of their performance characteristics are largely close to each other. SAM speed and targets, the affected area are very similar. Of the tabular characteristics, only the deployment time indicators differ sharply: in western systems - 10-15 minutes, the Tor-M2 air defense system moves from the stowed position to the combat position in 3 minutes, and besides, it can conduct combat work on the go, which is not available to its counterparts. At the same time, all western MD complexes are equipped with modified for ground launch aviation SD with GOS: Piton-5 (SAM SPYDER-SR) and IRIS-T (SAM IRIS-T SLS and Kampluftvern) - thermal imaging (infrared), MICA-IR - thermal imaging and MICA-EM - active radar (SAM VL MICA). What does it give and what deprives?

The most important indicator of the effectiveness of air defense systems is the accuracy of guidance. An inertial guidance system is used at the starting section of the Torovskaya 9M338 missile launcher (0-1 km) and at the starting and marching sections of the western missile systems (before the GOS target is captured), the data into which are entered immediately before the launch. Then “precision aiming systems” are connected.

On SAM SAM, IRIS-T, Piton-5 infrared seekers are used. Manufacturers do not indicate the values ​​of the IR signature of targets in open sources, limiting themselves to statements such as:

"A fighter with afterburner powerplant can be detected at a distance of 18 to 22 km."

Which particular fighter? What is its IR signature, even in afterburner mode? This is incomprehensible. But another thing is clear: if the “fighter on the afterburner” is visible from 20 km, then a target with a low infrared signature (even an attack UAV) can be captured by the GOS at a distance of no more than 2-3 km. The detection range of a heat-contrast target against the background of the earth is about 2,5 times less than against the background of free space (Piton-5, for example, cannot intercept targets flying below 20 meters at all). So, in order to intercept an unobtrusive low-flying target, the inertial system must bring the SAM in a kilometer from the target. At the same time, as the IR signature decreases, the speed of the target and the distance to it increase, the price of the slightest error in the calculation increases when calculating the missile defense trajectory and the target, and the maneuver of the latter can completely prevent its capture by the GOS. This is especially true for intercepting targets at the far border of the affected area. Recognizing this drawback, the developers introduced a radio correction system at all of the indicated western complexes, which allows “correcting” the flight path of SAM missiles. Acceptable accuracy of work on inconspicuous and especially maneuvering targets can only be achieved with its use.

Most importantly, missiles with IKGSN are, in principle, not all-weather: dense fog and dense clouds trap infrared waves. This is not critical if an air defense missile system with missiles equipped with an IKGSN is used in the battle formations of the attacking side, which, of course, itself chooses the time of the attack and can adjust it depending on weather conditions. But such air defense systems can leave defenseless defenseless. Therefore, the Israelis, who periodically have to act as a defending side, assign their SPYDER-SR a secondary role, and the main stake is placed on the much more expensive SAM Kippat barzel (with an active seeker). Therefore, the French offer customers the option of missiles VL MICA with ARGSN. The reason for the use of "thermal imagers" is purely economic in nature. Yes, IKGSN significantly increases the cost of missiles. But still not as much as the ARGSN: if the cost of MICA-IR (in 2009 prices) is $ 145 thousand, then MICA-EM is already $ 473 thousand.

However, it is unlikely that the insanely expensive MICA-EM has tactical advantages over missiles with RC guidance. Due to the overall dimensions, the airborne radar and the SAM system are many times inferior in their capabilities to the radar and the air defense system of the air defense system and do not allow for target capture over a long distance. Already at a distance of ten kilometers, the effective target scattering surface for guaranteed capture of its low-power ARGSN SAM missiles should be at least 3-5 square meters. m. Moreover, this result can be achieved only due to the extreme narrowing of the beam of the airborne radar. The narrow homing sector limits the scope for use against maneuvering targets. The result is the same storyas with IKGSN, except that the clouds do not represent a barrier.

9M338 missile, guided by the Tor-M2 air defense missile system, is guaranteed to intercept a target with an EPR characteristic of a fighter (1 sq. M) at a distance of at least 15 km (at a transonic speed of the target and with a probability of destruction close to 100%). At a distance of 7-8 km, targets flying at a speed of Mach 2 are hit, and the minimum target size in the radio range (EPR) is 0,1 square meters. m. Low-flying targets the complex knocks down 10 (according to unofficial data - 5) meters above the ground. RC guidance allows you to build different flight paths of missiles, for example, hit a low-flying target with a dive (missiles with GOS always fly along the shortest route to the target). With the simultaneous guidance of several missiles, each of them gets its own target (several missiles with GOS can simultaneously be aimed at one target - the most noticeable or close). The accuracy of the guidance does not depend on weather conditions. Maneuvering a target does not prevent it from being held in sight.

The guidance method has a certain effect on the fire performance of air defense systems. Among the advantages of a missile launcher with a seeker is often indicated the possibility of using the principle of "shot - forgot" (the rocket does not require continuous tracking from the guidance station). In theory, this should significantly increase the "rate of fire". Indeed, Western air defense systems can release their entire air defense system with an interval of 2-3 seconds, while the Tor-M2 air defense system after launching (with the same interval) 4 air defense systems must take a break until they find their targets (at maximum range - about 20 seconds). However, modern Western air defense systems do not always have the ability to use the principle of "fired - forgot." As already mentioned above, ensuring acceptable accuracy of use against modern IOS requires the use of radio correction and fire performance is reduced to the number of radio channels. VL MICA, for example, judging by the appearance (there are two side antenna posts) and the published schemes for using the MICA SD from fighters (the simultaneous use of 2 missiles is traced), it has only 2 channels. Thus, the fire performance of the VL MICA is not in theory, but in practice can be half as low as that of the Thor.

A separate issue is noise immunity. In this context, it is indecent to mention missiles with ICGPS: as already mentioned, they are not free even from natural interference. As for artificial radio interference, drowning out a weak ARGSN transmitter with an active noise signal is simpler than guiding radar, and fooling it with passive guiding noise onboard an SAM system is easier than an air defense missile defense computer system. In any case, the NATO electronic warfare systems do not suppress the operation of the Tor-M2 air defense system (as confirmed by tests conducted in Greece), as well as the Russian ones.

Another “problem” associated with the “necessity” of equipping the 9M338 missile launcher with a homing head is the presence of a kind of “dead funnel”, from where the IOS can suddenly fly. Indeed, the “Tor” family air defense guidance radar has a viewing sector in elevation of -5 - + 85 ° and, accordingly, there is a non-shot area in the sector +85 - + 95 °. And, yes, missiles with GOS have no such "dead zone" (there are others). However, there is no fundamental connection between it and the guidance method. If desired, it would be possible to install on a radar complex with an expanded viewing angle sector up to 90 °. And since the military did not require this, and the developer did not offer, it means that none of the specialists competent in this matter sees this as necessary. Why? Obviously, for a number of reasons. Firstly, the standard combat unit during the combat work of the Tor-M2 air defense system is a battery (the minimum is the “link”) and when working together, the combat vehicles mutually cover each other the non-firing zones not only in elevation, but also in range (0- 1 km). Secondly, the Torov batteries operate in a layered defense system, where the air defense systems and air defense systems of higher links cover them from high-altitude airplanes (just like the Torahs cover the air defense systems of airborne systems and air defense systems from air defense systems that have broken through the first lines defense). Finally, thirdly, it is very problematic to find an IOL with the confirmed possibility of diving from a height of over 12 km at an angle of more than 85 ° (except for ballistic missiles, for which anti-aircraft missiles are not designed, but not because of the flight path of the BR, but due to their high speed - hypersonic). And so, there is no need to change the effective guidance system because of the dubious “threat”.

From the foregoing, it is clear that GOS have no advantages over the RK-guidance method. The choice of Western developers is not due to tactical, but completely different considerations. Among them, one can mention the complexity and cost of developing specialized air defense systems in comparison with the use of modified aviation missile defense systems in ground complexes. The basic military strategy of the NATO countries plays an important role. The practice of military interventions of the Western powers shows that they are carried out only against obviously and many times the weakest countries. Weakened by the civil war, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria - these are ideal targets. Even a slightly stronger Iraq was conquered in two steps. Weak countries, of course, do not have enough modern means of air attack. As a result, western air defense systems are quite sufficient to combat the scattered raids of low-tech anti-aircraft missiles, and the cost of expensive missiles does not exceed the costs of developing guidance radars and equipping it with a complex.

In contrast to the counterparts of the air defense system of the Tor family, these are air defense systems designed to counter a large-scale attack by a powerful enemy. Their advantages are most fully manifested in the fight against serious threats, as part of the layered air defense system. With the predicted nature of the conflict and the competent use of these SAMs are unparalleled in the world. This testifies, among other things, to the fact that at present the radio command method is the best way to target short-range SAM systems.
Our news channels

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

41 comment
Information
The ability to comment on this post has been disabled.
  1. +3
    4 May 2020 05: 27
    The narrative style is similar to Damantsev hi , I thought that the article was from this author! Missiles with seekers should be installed on the same Tors and Buks, as an addition to the existing types of missiles. There may not be enough money for their mass production, but a certain amount can and should be done!
    1. -8
      4 May 2020 05: 55
      Quote: Thrifty
      There may not be enough money for their mass production, but a certain amount can and should be done!

      Competent articles. Pleasant wishes...Let...Not enough money? Have you ever wondered what there was enough money for during 28 years of general and 20 private leadership? Feel the holiday:

      It is impossible to make mass production in the absence of technology, personnel, and, most importantly, desire. Where it is more necessary to build SEVERAL villas and palaces; improve SEVERAL hectares of agricultural land for personal use; purchase SEVERAL apartments in different cities and countries; get SEVERAL options for the legal right to stay outside Russia (abroad)...
      Who needs these missiles with seekers? Guaranteed to shoot down flying objects - this is so ignoble: someone built and launched them... belay
      The practice of military interventions by Western powers shows that they are carried out only in relation to obviously and many times weaker countries.

      And this practice also shows that existing weapons can only be used with notification and permission - in case it hits the wrong person...
      1. 0
        4 May 2020 06: 35
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Where it is more necessary to build SEVERAL villas and palaces;

        Do you know the joke about Vovochka and lice?
      2. +10
        4 May 2020 06: 38
        Well, why do you always argue off-topic and again, with a bunch of videos and other political nonsense, get into topics in which debates on the topic of missiles and their guidance are much more interesting than another hype on the topic of power? Well, there are a lot of different branches for you. Why spoil what you really want to read?! Damn, just a couple of years ago it was so nice to read debates on performance characteristics regarding the need to use various weapons, but you dispersed everyone...
      3. +6
        4 May 2020 08: 15
        I wonder if in discussing the Zumvolt or the Penguin you remember the wild amounts accumulated by the labors of ordinary American pensioners, which the Bush and Clinton clans stole from their family clans?
        I’m 100% sure that if I rummage through your messages, I won’t find anything like this. I wonder why?

        #this is different #need to be understood, right?
    2. +2
      4 May 2020 06: 36
      I think exactly so! Which, by the way, I have stated more than once in comments before... Yes
    3. -1
      4 May 2020 09: 15
      The narrative style is similar to Damantsev

      The author of the article is the press service of JSC Kupol, the manufacturer of "TOR".
      Missiles with seekers should be installed on the same Tors and Buks, as an addition to the existing types of missiles.

      and in the article they prove that all these GOS are the pernicious influence of the West, the TOR does not need them. smile
      GOS have no advantages over the RK guidance method. The choice of Western developers is determined not by tactical, but by completely different considerations.

      and right there
      "Thor" is an air defense system designed to counter a large-scale attack by a powerful enemy.

      And the fact that the presence of a certain number of additional missiles with seekers is an opportunity to prevent oversaturation of guidance channels, the authors somehow modestly omitted.
      hi
      1. 5-9
        0
        5 May 2020 09: 40
        Damn, 4 channels on the MD air defense system, which run 4 at a time...
        Again, do we want the Star of Death, so that one in an open field can defeat all the medium-sized air forces at once?
    4. +1
      4 May 2020 13: 40
      Quote: Thrifty
      Missiles with seekers should be installed on the same Tors and Buks, as an addition to the existing types of missiles.

      ========
      Well, the Buk doesn’t seem to need them - it already has an inertial-corrected mode (on approach), but maybe almost until the moment of defeat... Yes, besides, this is a MEDIUM-range complex.
      For the "Thor" - I also thought about this, but the new 9M9331 missiles are too small to be able to squeeze in a seeker (even an IR seeker from Verba) without reducing the mass of the fuel or warhead (already not the most powerful). I’m not even talking about the radar seeker.... Creating something new by upgrading old 9M330s but with new fuel and electronics - yes, you can “cobble together” something (but at the same time the ammunition load will again be reduced from 16 to 8 missiles).. ..
      It’s more likely that “Sosna” or “Pantsir” could be retrofitted with missiles with an infrared seeker (this can theoretically be done there). And the meaning is not entirely clear.....
      So
      Quote: Thrifty
      There may not be enough money for their mass production, but a certain amount can and should be done!

      I doubt it though! “They don’t seek goodness from goodness”! You can easily end up in a situation with high costs for development/refinement and implementation into production with a MINIMUM increase in efficiency.....
      1. +3
        4 May 2020 14: 14
        Quote: venik
        the new 9M9331 missiles are too small to be able to squeeze in a seeker (even an IR seeker from Verba) without reducing the mass of the fuel or warhead (already not the most powerful). About

        Where do such strange conclusions come from? belay Why is it that the Verba seeker, which “fits in a pipe” with a diameter of 72,5 mm, cannot be placed in a 9M331 (338) with a diameter of about 200 mm?? Firstly, the 9M331 is not a new missile at all! Even the 9M331D is not the newest... The 9M338K rocket should be called a new (or at least “newest”...) missile! Secondly, you should compare the 9M331, 9M338K missiles with the 9M100 and R-77ZRK missiles! But here there are two interesting snags (!): 1. 9M100, R-77ZRK are equipped with a seeker, along with an INS + radio command correction! ; 2. weight and size (!) characteristics of the 9M100, R-77ZRK missiles are very close to the characteristics of the 9M331, 9M338 missiles...!
        1. +1
          4 May 2020 15: 34
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          Why is it that the Verba seeker, which “fits in a pipe” with a diameter of 72,5 mm, cannot be placed in a 9M331 (338) with a diameter of about 200 mm??

          =======
          1. Why did you decide that I meant DIAMETER? With this, everything is just fine! But it’s unlikely to fit into the existing dimensions (length 2.8 m, both the old 9M331 and the new 9M338 (export version 9M9331)) - another 15 cm long - otherwise it simply won’t fit into the TPU! Something will have to be reduced, either the size of the warhead (the probability of hitting the target is reduced), or the engine will have to be shortened (the range is reduced)....
          ------
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          the weight and size (!) characteristics of the 9M100, R-77ZRK missiles are very close to the characteristics of the 9M331, 9M338 missiles...!

          ========
          2. As for 9M100 - everything is correct, except one - it ALSO won’t fit in a standard “cassette” - by lenght! “The Torov cassette is 2.94 m, and the 9M100 is 3.17! That is, no matter how you look at it, you have to make a “cut” at 23 cm. Again, due to what? The engine or the warhead?
          Well, the R-77 will have to be “castrated” by 66 cm (!). And her weight is not at all suitable (almost 35 kg heavier)! This means problems with the start!
          Summary: From what you propose in "Tor" - NOTHING will fit (without deteriorating performance characteristics, and therefore reducing the efficiency of the complex)! request
          1. +2
            4 May 2020 16: 56
            Firstly, I do not at all propose to “shove” the 9M100 missile into the same “module” as the 9M331 or 9M338! The main thing is that the missile module, “rebuilt” for the 9M100, can be installed in the “TOR” air defense system! Secondly, in even earlier comments to earlier published articles on the topics “TOR” air defense system, I assumed the modernization (!) of 9M100, R-77 air defense missiles for possible use in the “TOR” air defense system (!), taking into account that the creation of modernized missiles "like 9M100T-1 (thermal), 9M100R-1 (radar)" for "TOR" based on (!) 9M100 and R-77ZRK it will be easier and cheaper than creating new missiles from scratch! And that's why I "suggested" for "TOR" missiles 9M100, R-77ZRK for modernization... as a "base" ... that in terms of weight and size characteristics these missiles are more "closer" to, for example, 9M331 than other "products"! And, as you can see " create" by reducing the weight of the explosive charge in the warhead...taking into account the expected increase in guidance accuracy due to the seeker.
  2. 0
    4 May 2020 06: 48
    However, from time to time (and not only on the Internet, but also “from high stands”) the question of equipping them with anti-aircraft guided missiles with homing heads is raised as an alternative to the radio command guidance method used in these complexes.

    Previously, most people understood football and politics. But time goes by. Intelligence is growing. Therefore, the media began to understand the guidance systems of anti-aircraft guided missiles. Just think about the missile defense system. It's not even ballet.
    1. -1
      4 May 2020 16: 40
      Quote: Amateur
      But time goes by. Intelligence is growing. Therefore, the media began to understand the guidance systems of anti-aircraft guided missiles. Just think about the missile defense system. It's not even ballet.

      ========
      Actually, “these media” is such a thing as Press service of JSC IEMZ "Kupol" (one of the leading manufacturers of air defense systems of the "Thor" family)... And something tells me that in "...in guidance systems of anti-aircraft guided missiles....", they understand a little better than some “Amateurs”......
      1. 0
        4 May 2020 17: 11
        they understand a little better than some “Amateurs”......

        But a little worse than some "Brooms"
        1. -1
          4 May 2020 17: 31
          Quote: Amateur
          they understand a little better than some “Amateurs”......

          But a little worse than some "Brooms"

          ========
          Oh, you flatter me, my friend! I was already embarrassed! feel
  3. +1
    4 May 2020 07: 49
    Anti-radar missiles are now widely used.
    For them, a continuously operating guidance channel is a convenient target. This also needs to be taken into account.
    The second problem is the air defense system channel.
    Short-range anti-aircraft missile systems with missile guidance are often used to intercept ammunition rather than carriers
    This means that it is easier to reload such an air defense system through channels than with self-guided missiles.
    All this also needs to be taken into account
    Perhaps one air defense system needs to have two types of missiles?
    1. +1
      4 May 2020 08: 21
      Having two types of missiles is undoubtedly necessary. Moreover, with different types of IR/RL guidance.
      Hitting an anti-radar missile at an MD air defense system is a waste of money. Two tori in a link have 4 channels, and 100% will have time to fire two salvos, for a total of at least 9 missiles. Plus interference, changing position (this is not a stationary tower) is not an idea at all.
      1. -2
        4 May 2020 08: 25
        There are different types of ammunition, and among them it is necessary to highlight
        and getting into a supersonic missile launcher is not such an easy task
        But for the RK prr, guidance is a convenient target
  4. +1
    4 May 2020 09: 23
    Pretty adequate.
    Higher noise immunity, higher, let’s call it that way, “controllability”, higher probability of hitting “inconvenient” targets

    With fire performance - unconvincing
    Still, it is potentially higher for systems with a seeker
    1. +3
      4 May 2020 09: 42
      Nobody argues that ideally this is true against non-maneuvering, healthy targets.
      But as soon as the target begins to maneuver and its EPR decreases, the missile still needs to be controlled until its seeker locks on the target. Plus, no one canceled the interference.

      Although having two types of seekers is good.
      1. +1
        4 May 2020 09: 55
        Ideally, short-range air defense systems should have “fire and forget” ammunition in their ammo to stop attempts to “overload” the air defense system.

        Well, as a plus, there is some kind of intelligent system that helps crews select targets for such ammunition. It may be worth considering the possibility of a senior commander using these munitions.
  5. 0
    4 May 2020 09: 32
    Missiles with seekers should be installed on the same Tors and Buks, as an addition to the existing types of missiles.

    This is especially true for the Navy, where single ships can be used without the cover of a coastal air defense system.
  6. -2
    4 May 2020 09: 58
    Inertial systems are now installed in smartphones. If such production technologies are not available, then the prospects are poor. Or something needs to be changed at the conservatory.
    1. +1
      4 May 2020 11: 38
      Quote: iouris
      Inertial systems are now installed in smartphones.

      laughing
      But they won't help at all. Until special blocks for predicting the future appear.
      Which will be able to predict the location where the maneuvering target will be located.

      Quote: iouris
      Or something needs to be changed at the conservatory.

      laughing laughing laughing
      Who?
      1. 0
        4 May 2020 12: 45
        special blocks for predicting the future.
        would be extremely useful, but you can do without them by calculating the trajectory. The target’s maneuver should not be overestimated; manned vehicles are limited by reaction speed and extreme overloads, while unmanned vehicles follow the program and are very predictable.
  7. +1
    4 May 2020 10: 25
    Am I the only one who thinks that the KamAZ chassis is completely unsuitable for the TOP module?
  8. 0
    4 May 2020 10: 29
    That’s why the 9M338K has a rounded fairing, like missiles with an IR seeker.
  9. +2
    4 May 2020 17: 31
    There are simply no missiles with a seeker, where the IR TV channel operates, in Russia.
    Not developed.
    Hence the long article: “But we don’t need it!”
    1. +1
      4 May 2020 21: 34
      Why do we need a TV channel? This is an anti-aircraft missile, not a low-speed ATGM.
      1. +1
        4 May 2020 23: 33
        The Israeli SPYDER air defense system with the Python-5 missile is used
        Еinfrared homing + 320×240 pixel dual waveband electro-optical imaging seeker,
        lock on after launch, with infrared counter-counter-measures (IRCCM).
        Thor and Pantsir are simplified, cheap air defense systems. Low flying aircraft
        and they will easily overwhelm drones. But as a missile defense system they are weak, easily deceived and
        are overloaded.
        1. 5-9
          0
          5 May 2020 09: 47
          Thor and Shell are precisely designed to defeat the UASP. Therefore, their missiles should be cheap.
          Comparing the effectiveness of Thor (the highest) with a craft from URVV MD is somehow not even decent....
          Well, the USSR had Strela-10, it never occurred to anyone that it was better than the Wasp....
          1. +2
            5 May 2020 09: 53
            “Thor and Shell are precisely designed to defeat the UASP.” ////
            ----
            A! The main thing is not to change anything about them. Times efficiency
            the highest, then everyone is happy. laughing
            (“Air defense shot down all missiles”, “All ground targets hit”)
            1. 5-9
              0
              5 May 2020 10: 13
              Well, the effectiveness of the Torah has been confirmed by many teachings; it is truly the highest. But it's expensive. That’s why they built the Shell, using Gulf money. This one seems to have performed more than well in the SAR.
              An air defense system designed to shoot down missiles and bombs must have cheap missiles, this is obvious.
              We will leave IR guidance for the air defense system to cover the enemy and its psychological peace from its very presence.
              ARLGSN with a 10-fold increase in the price of the rocket will not provide an increase in efficiency. Let the “partners” indulge in this...
              1. 0
                6 May 2020 02: 33
                Quote: 5-9
                That’s why they built the Shell, using Gulf money. This one seems to have performed more than well in the SAR.

                Oh no. The shell is not a "cheap copy" of Thor. The shell was created by order of the air defense forces to protect the positions of the S-300 and S-400 air defense systems. And Thor is a military air defense system created for the front line. These are systems for DIFFERENT tasks. For example, Pantsir can be integrated into the S-400 radio command and target designation systems, which Thor cannot do. The shell is a niche system for “finishing” what has leaked through the advanced echelons of air defense/missile defense.
                1. 5-9
                  0
                  6 May 2020 09: 29
                  I am aware of their purpose. Which does not change the fact that Thor is more expensive.
    2. +1
      6 May 2020 02: 20
      Quote: voyaka uh
      There are simply no missiles with a seeker, where the IR TV channel operates, in Russia.

      What for? If you are talking about a TV channel Management, anti-aircraft with an IR seeker, then this is some kind of technical incident. If she has an IR-GOS (Self-Guiding Head), then why does she need telecontrol? Or are you talking about a combined guidance system?
      And why is it “simply not in Russia”? R-73 suddenly disappeared?

      Quote: voyaka uh
      On the Israeli SPYDER air defense system with a Python-5 missile


      So, STOP! The article talks about specialized air defense complexes. Co specially designed a rocket for them. And not about low-cost systems using aircraft missiles, like what you cited. wink

      Quote: voyaka uh
      Еinfrared homing + 320×240 pixel dual waveband electro-optical imaging seeker,
      lock on after launch, with infrared counter-counter-measures


      So what did you write? I am extremely grateful to you for this nice English text, but a large number of Latin letters is not an argument, I assure you. You described the seeker of the Python-5 aircraft rocket. Wonderful. Why did she become TELE-controlled? The fragment “320×240 pixel” in the description was very touching; I almost shed tears. But how does a VGA/2 matrix make a rocket "with a seeker, where IR works Channel"?Where is she broadcasting this super-hirez?

      Quote: voyaka uh
      Thor and Pantsir are simplified, cheap air defense systems.


      Yeah, and Python-5 is made by emigrants from the USSR on the Western element base of the R-73. :) :) :)
      Warrior, at times you make it so funny that I want to give a standing ovation. You see, for an army that is being created for a war with a high-tech enemy, weapon systems must be highly effective, simple and cheap. This is for an army sharpened for war with bearded men in slippers, the more expensive the better, since these bearded men cannot strike at production capacity. But a real war, as a rule, cannot do without such incidents. And the issue of establishing mass production in conditions of partially or completely destroyed infrastructure is far from the last. :)

      Quote: voyaka uh
      They can easily take down low-flying planes and drones.

      And helicopters. And cruise missiles. Well, in fact, everything that they were created to “overwhelm”. Yes, they are not intended to intercept MLRS salvos.


      Quote: voyaka uh
      But as a missile defense system they are weak, easily deceived and overloaded.

      And you personally overloaded them, of course? :)
      Which missile defense system did you mean? Intercepting ICBM warheads? Missile interception? Interception of MLRS NURS? These are all missile defense goals. And what these machines are designed to do, they can do. And at the same time cheap and reliable. A good weapon is what it should be.

      And just so you know. Your SPYDER air defense does not have a Python-5 missile remote control mode. She doesn't need him. Your complex has 2 missiles. And accordingly two modes. One radio command for the Derby combined-guidance missile, the second is just for Python-5. So don't mislead your audience. :)

      Or write more clearly what you meant. Maybe bispectral seekers in the IR and optical range?
  10. 0
    4 May 2020 22: 21
    The author did not pay attention to the peculiarities of the markets where short-range air defense systems are supplied. Arabs and Indians love shiny crap that fights on its own, “fire and forget” for them is like foil for a crow, very cool. And with RK complexes, you need to be careful that an undertrained and unmotivated employee does not perform the “forgot - and did not shoot” maneuver.... So maybe they are developing it for such guys in order to make money and not carry out combat missions.
  11. 5-9
    0
    5 May 2020 09: 36
    Good article, I agree with everything.
    I wish the “partners” to continue to sculpt MD air defense systems from URVV SD with ARLGSN at 600 thousand dollars apiece...
  12. -1
    5 May 2020 21: 59
    If a missile is equipped with an ARLGSN or a PARLGSN, then it immediately sees the target, the distance to it, its angular displacement relative to itself. And if the missile is a radio command missile, then we first direct the radar on the ground to where the target was last seen, scan a piece of the sky, determine its coordinates with some kind of error. Then we direct the radar to the place where our rocket was last, scan the sky again until we find it, and determine its coordinates, also with an error. We subtract the second ones from the first coordinates, and we obtain relative coordinates with a density on average equal to the root of two times greater than for each individual dimension. The vulnerability to electronic warfare is also twice as high, because The radar operates twice as long, plus a VHF radio control channel. The command issuing time is three times longer.

    Three arguments are given in favor of RK guidance.

    A. A ground-based computer can be more bulky than inside a rocket

    For modern circuit technology it sounds naive.

    b. The argument is that there are two MIKA missiles flying in the video, therefore there are no more than two radio correction channels.

    Naive. No comments.

    V. The enemies allegedly abandoned radio command guidance because they were going to fight only with the Papuans.

    In fact, they made this choice back in the 1970s and 80s, when they were going to fight against the Soviet Union.
  13. 0
    6 May 2020 07: 54
    This “torus” is even scary to look at! How does it not tip over?

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

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