ZRPK "Shell-SM". First in the parade, then in the troops


"Shell-SM" at the exhibition "Army-2019". Two new radar antennas are clearly visible


On June 24, a column of modern and promising air defense systems marched along Red Square along with other samples in a solemn march. One of the new products for the first time demonstrated at the Victory Parade this year was the Pantsir-SM anti-aircraft missile and gun system. Previously, this type of equipment was demonstrated only in the conditions of the exhibition, and since the previous show, the configuration of the air defense system has changed significantly.

Deep upgrade


The basic Pantsir-C1 air defense missile system was put into service at the end of the 2016s, and work on its deep modernization began almost immediately. The result of this a few years later was the appearance of the project “Shell-SM”. The completion of the design was announced back in XNUMX. In the near future, the start of tests was expected, after which the new equipment could go into service. In addition, the public was waiting for it to be shown a promising model.

At that time, the finished Pantsir-SM air defense missile system was shown only in closed displays. An open "premiere" took place at the Army-2019 forum. The complex stood on an open site in a "deployed" position, imitating combat work. Some characteristics were also revealed - mainly determining the superiority over the original “Shell”.

After Army 2019, the tests continued. A new show took place on June 24, 2020 during the parade on Red Square. Two “Armor-SM”, as well as other vehicles of this family passed through the convoy of air defense systems. It is curious that the modernized air defense systems were demonstrated in a new configuration - their weapon composition was different from that shown earlier.

Component Replacement


Back in 2016, the main features of the modernization project were announced. As part of the Razor Shell-SM, it was proposed to replace a number of air defense systems components to increase the performance characteristics. As it became known later, almost all the key components of the complex went from being replaced - from the chassis to the anti-aircraft guided missile.


“Armor” of three types in training before the parade. The latest "Shell-SM" lead the system

"Shell-SM" is being built on the new four-axle chassis K-53958 "Tornado" developed by the Kama Automobile Plant. The machine is equipped with a 450 hp diesel engine, automatic transmission and four-wheel drive chassis. Payload - 22 t, top speed - 90 km / h. The anti-aircraft complex uses a chassis with an armored cab. Triple capsule accommodates workplaces of calculation and protects it from rifle bullets and fragments. Measures to protect the crew and units from explosive devices are provided.

Anti-aircraft complex units are mounted on the car frame. In general, their architecture has remained the same, but some have changed contours. In particular, the stern cover has decreased, which is why the base of the rotary weapons module remains open. The module itself is also modified to take into account the use of new devices and nodes. Unlike its predecessor, there are no jacks, and the combat vehicle works directly on wheels.

In the aft part of the weapons module, the antenna of the radar for detecting targets is preserved. In the stowed position, it develops, in combat - it goes upright. "Shell-SM" uses a new radar detection with enhanced performance. The claimed detection range is up to 75 km. It differs from the previous product in shape and layout. So, on the original "Shell-C1" radar 1RS1-1E was used with a two-sided antenna; on the new modification there is only one canvas.

The replacement also went to the 1RS2-E tracking and guidance radar located in the front of the weapon module between the guns. The station with the HEADLIGHT is being used again, but its characteristics are increased. With its help, “Shell-SM” can work on targets at ranges up to 40 km and altitudes up to 15 km. Externally, the new antenna can be distinguished by a rectangular shape.

The optical-electronic station is still used to track targets and control fire. In this case, it is possible to replace components in order to increase the basic characteristics. The range of the review of the new ECO is unknown.


The same cars on Red Square

During the modernization, “Shell-SM” retained a pair of 30-mm 2A38M double-barreled automatic guns. They give a total rate of fire of up to 5 thousand rds / min. and are capable of hitting targets at ranges up to 4 km.

Two launchers for missiles were saved, and in the field of missile weapons there are the most interesting innovations. Apparently, the "Shell-SM" retains compatibility with short-range missiles (up to 20 km) 57E6E. Also developed a new missile with a range of up to 40 km. Other characteristics, design features, and even the index of such a rocket are unknown. As before, the complex can carry up to 12 missiles in the TPK.

At the parade, air defense missiles with incomplete ammunition for "large" missiles were demonstrated - in two installations there were only five of such products. At the upper outer position, two new TPKs were installed with four small-sized missiles in each. Such containers contain a promising compact missile system designed to destroy small targets at ranges up to 20 km. Earlier about this weapons It was reported, but an open show took place only now.

Excellence factors


Obviously, ZRPK “Shell-SM” has significant advantages over the basic “Shell-C1”. They are provided with more efficient electronics and new weapons. In addition, due to these improvements, the updated complex will be able to more easily and cheaper solve combat missions characteristic of recent conflicts.

An obvious advantage is the increase in the range of detection and destruction of targets by a "large" missile. “Shell-SM” remains in the class of short-range anti-aircraft systems, but its area of ​​responsibility is significantly increasing. It will be much more difficult to break through an air defense system using such a SAM system. In case of a breakthrough, the complex retains guns that can “shoot through” targets at minimum distances.


Machine "CM" in the foreground and "C1" in the background. The differences are obvious.

The conflicts of recent years are characterized by the widespread use of unmanned aerial vehicles, including massive. The defeat of such targets by a "large" missile is impractical, and the gun has a limited range. For this reason, a new missile of reduced dimensions and cost has been developed for the Shell-SM. The presence of eight (or more) "small" missiles will allow the complex to repel attacks with greater efficiency and at a reasonable cost. Moreover, the new "small" rocket according to basic flight data is similar to the old "large" 57E6E.

The importance and necessity of such weapons is confirmed by the events of recent years. Terrorists have repeatedly tried to attack Khmeimim using light UAVs with a combat load. The Russian “Shell-C1” intercepted almost all of these targets, despite the complexity of this process. Obviously, the “Shell-SM” will also cope with such tasks, and at a lower cost.

From parade to service


At last year’s exhibition showed only one ZRPK "Shell-SM." Two cars took part in a recent parade. So far we are talking only about experimental or pre-production copies. Work on the project continues, but will be completed in the very near future.

About a year ago, the Ministry of Defense announced that work on the new project would continue until 2021. Other details are not yet available, but it can be assumed that shortly after the completion of the ROC there will be a contract for serial equipment, and then the finished samples will begin to enter the troops and supplement existing ones.

Thus, the Pantsir family of interspecific anti-aircraft anti-aircraft missile and cannon systems continues to develop, and this process gives new positive results. Several land variants of the complex were developed and put into production on different chassis - for export and for special conditions. For fleet created ship option.

At the same time, so far only adaptation of the same units to different carriers was carried out, without more serious changes. Now, a deep modernization is being carried out, aimed at improving the basic characteristics and mastering new functions. In the coming years, the army will receive such equipment and begin to master it, with understandable positive consequences for the defense.
Author:
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation / mil.ru, Nevskii-bastion.ru
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Klingon 29 June 2020 18: 17 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    over decades, in addition to radars, sensors will acquire plasma detectors, guns - programmers and 30mm radio fuses, and then lasers and missiles will gradually become more compact and so on.
    1. Zaurbek 29 June 2020 18: 32 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Why if there is a rocket?
      1. Klingon 29 June 2020 18: 37 New
        • 5
        • 4
        +1
        then what hit targets at the speed of light much faster than missiles. compare the speed of the beam and the speed of the rocket :) one way or another, this will inevitably come to this, the case is behind compact energy sources.
        1. Lopatov 29 June 2020 19: 24 New
          • 9
          • 1
          +8
          Quote: Klingon
          compare beam speed and rocket speed

          Compare the accuracy required by the beam and the accuracy sufficient for a rocket with a fragmentation warhead.

          Quote: Klingon
          one way or another, this will inevitably come

          The problem here is, in fact, in the atmosphere. Now, if it ends ... laughing
          1. Klingon 29 June 2020 19: 32 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            and no one canceled the rocket. if you read my comment carefully I wrote "guns will be replaced by lasers and missiles will become even more compact"
            1. Lopatov 29 June 2020 20: 04 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              With guns similarly. Accuracy is much less necessary for them. Especially for modern shells such as "Dart"
          2. Zaurbek 29 June 2020 20: 18 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            The problem is the price of a downed UAV or ammunition.
            1. Lopatov 29 June 2020 20: 20 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Laser shooting is also not a free pleasure.
    2. Viktor Sergeev 29 June 2020 19: 52 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Yeah, and there's the Death Star on the way.
  2. Avior 29 June 2020 18: 42 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    40 km is certainly good
    But does this mean that the complex was made more expensive?
    How will this affect the real numbers in the troops?
    After all, air defense systems are not made for record numbers of single copies.
    1. 5-9
      5-9 30 June 2020 10: 22 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I think if it will be more expensive, then because of general inflation. New missiles are about the size of old ones. New "small missiles" will save on shooting UAVs. On the other hand, what and where in the world in the 21st century became cheaper from weapons during modernization / new generation?
      1. Avior 30 June 2020 12: 21 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        More missile range is more expensive than a missile, more radar range, optics, and more, and more expensive essno.
        With small rockets, everything is clear, UAVs do not need much
  3. rocket757 29 June 2020 19: 06 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    All this is wonderful, but the next step is to create effective, not expensive, "drone strikes" !!!
    Spending expensive means of destruction on cheap drones is wasteful .... but after all they are in service with anyone, more and more!
    It’s clear that the most effective air defense is the “tanks” at the enemy airfields ... the catch is that Drones may not have a central airfield ... this is a problem.
    1. D16
      D16 29 June 2020 21: 16 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      effective, not expensive, "dronoboyki" !!!

      The parade was "Derivation of air defense." Not a very expensive complex without a radar.
      1. businessv 29 June 2020 23: 26 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: D16
        Not a very expensive complex without a radar.

        I wonder if there is the possibility of external target designation?
        1. D16
          D16 30 June 2020 07: 10 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Now even a fighter with MANPADS has such an option smile .
        2. 5-9
          5-9 30 June 2020 10: 23 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          So without him, it’s not worth the sense of it for today ... it should be, otherwise why is it like that? On the eye you can 57mm and from the usual Derivation to peel ...
    2. forpost 29 June 2020 21: 41 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Penny drones? Bayraktar is not the largest drone, but costs from 5 to 10 million.
      1. rocket757 29 June 2020 21: 55 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        These winged things will be different and there will be many.
        It doesn't matter which thing, expensive or cheap, can be harmful. Everyone will have to extinguish.
    3. alexmach 29 June 2020 23: 50 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      So the carapace is the perfect shotgun. The best available. Radio-controlled missiles. Large ammunition. The range of missiles "for all occasions" from nails at close range and to new missiles at 40 km. Radar and OLS. The only thing that he needs to raise the noise immunity should be put on a crawler chassis.
      1. alexmach 29 June 2020 23: 52 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        But of the shortcomings, it is certainly worth noting
        1. wheeled chassis
        2. the radar (in any case, the old delivered in the UAE) is susceptible to interference
        3. The combination of radar and fire weapons on one node.
        1. rocket757 30 June 2020 05: 16 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          The reduction in size, the visibility of drones, the improvement of "mental" indicators, the complication of the tactics of a massive attack ... there will be difficulties.
        2. Thomas N. 2 July 2020 02: 29 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: alexmach
          But of the shortcomings, it is certainly worth noting
          1. wheeled chassis

          The wheeled chassis is not a drawback, but a consequence of the purpose of the complex is the air defense system. To protect stationary objects, it is important to be able to quickly reach them on highways, which are usually many around protection objects. Tracked chassis for military air defense systems and for the Arctic.
          1. alexmach 2 July 2020 10: 21 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Lack of military air defense ...
            1. Thomas N. 3 July 2020 03: 27 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: alexmach
              Lack of military air defense ...

              ZRPK "Shell" on a wheeled chassis are not intended for military air defense, their purpose is the direct protection of industrial facilities, energy, civil and military infrastructure.
              1. alexmach 3 July 2020 10: 07 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                We return to what our conversation began with.
                All this is wonderful, but the next step is to create effective, not expensive, "drone strikes" !!!

                That such a drone is needed precisely in military air defense in the first place. Although, maybe in our time of low-intensity conflicts, military air defense is not needed at all?
      2. Zaurbek 30 June 2020 08: 02 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        So far, from where the Carapace is used, the chassis is completely wheeled for him. The only question is how optimal Kamaz Mustang 8x8 is. And the chassis should be different. I agree.
  4. Lopatov 29 June 2020 19: 26 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Can they even stop tipping over on their side?
    After all, on the “Tornado” KAMAZ promised to put an active suspension that compensates for the tilt when turning.
    1. Zaurbek 30 June 2020 08: 04 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There the armored car is heavier and the engine behind the cab and the suspension is independent. This already makes the car and center of gravity lower.
  5. Serpet 29 June 2020 19: 39 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    We are waiting for SM in the troops in a commodity quantity good soldier
  6. silberwolf88 29 June 2020 20: 16 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    A good and necessary technique for creating layered air defense and covering equipment on the march ... and with excellent characteristics and capabilities of defeat ...
    1. alexmach 29 June 2020 23: 59 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      What other cover on the march is that?
  7. Koval Sergey 29 June 2020 20: 58 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Let's hope that children's sores have been cured.
  8. asura 29 June 2020 21: 24 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Until they make a normal rocket for the Shell, the current "two-stage guided missile" will not work out. The workers of Almaz-Antey were right when they criticized the shell rocket, Syria clearly showed this.
    1. voyaka uh 29 June 2020 23: 07 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Compact GOS are very expensive. Rocket will become
      more expensive at times. But efficiency will soar too.
      1. alexmach 30 June 2020 00: 00 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        A missile with GOS in the arsenal is also necessary.
      2. 5-9
        5-9 30 June 2020 10: 26 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Why will she take off? Is there, in general, data on the effectiveness of the Shell’s radio-guided missiles compared to missiles with GOS? Especially coupled with the issue of seeker noise immunity on a small rocket?
        The very meaning of the Shell is in cheap missiles, which are many ....
        1. voyaka uh 30 June 2020 11: 47 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          There is data. Many cheap missiles turn out to be more expensive than one expensive one, which searches for a target at an altitude itself and hits exactly. IR GOS is not suppressed by electronic warfare at all. But the ground-based radar of the Carapace is deceived by electronic warfare equipment placed on a gliding bomb or missile launcher, quite easily.
    2. Passing 30 June 2020 13: 59 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: asura
      Syria has shown it clearly

      I’ve rummaged the whole YouTube, and I haven’t shown anything bad about the Shell. All 100% certain shots of destruction - when the Shell is not in combat mode. Plus one Israeli video with the launch of two missiles, on which it is impossible to say exactly what launched these missiles, plus one Turkish video editing where the working Shell is shown first, then shots of the destruction of another Shell, which is not working at this moment or not, are inserted.
      1. asura 30 June 2020 15: 06 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Quote: Passing by
        I've rummaged the whole YouTube

        In order to know this, one should not "dig into YouTube", but, for example, communicate with people who were involved in the protection of Khmeimim. As the Tula fake purged the pure Torah at the test stage, it continues to blow.
        1. Passing 30 June 2020 15: 09 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          So did you personally communicate? Share it thesis. Or give a link if not personally, because I also want to know how it really is.
          1. asura 30 June 2020 15: 14 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            In short: it is easier and more reliable to hit a target with one (maximum two) normal missiles than to shoot heels at it with an unpredictable result ...
            1. Passing 30 June 2020 15: 26 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              I was expecting something much more specific. I’ve read about the problems of the Carapace when shooting at targets with a large parameter (compared to the Thor), about the problems with hitting small-sized targets when shooting guns, about the problems with detecting and capturing small drones through the radar channel, about the instability of the platform, and from Moreover, the tendency to capsize and problems when shooting from the side to the side. But I have never heard that, within the framework of its limitations, the Shell is ineffective.
  9. Nikolaevich I 29 June 2020 21: 33 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Oh and brought, Author, a shadow on the fence! How everything was clear and beautiful before ... the parade! And here the author drives the Old about which it is not clear where it came from? fool In the first perplexed lines of the letter ...: there was infa that the Pantsir-SM air defense system was outlined in 2 versions: 1. Missile-cannon (12 ,, trunks ,,); 2. "Clean" rocket (24,, barrel ,,) ... Further ... where did the "opinion" come from, that the new "small" missiles (sort of, like, nails, ...) are commensurate with zur 57E6E ? Until now, there was infa that "small-caliber" zuras, nails, were placed in 4 pieces, in TPK zur 57E6E! The caliber of such a “nail” should be approximately 57-60 mm. ! The range of such a nail should be less than 10 km ... The configuration of a hypersonic missile with a range of up to 40 km is incomprehensible! There is an "opinion" that ,, hypersound ,, was achieved as a result of increasing ,, caliber ,, starting (first) stage! (Type ... from 170 mm to 210 mm. ...!) But there is no specific data for this statement! If you estimate ,, cucumber to the nose ,,, then the dimensions of the TPK zur, in my opinion, in the "Shell-SM" remained the same in comparison with the TPK "Shell-C1"! Indirectly, this confirms the number of guides in the launcher, that in "Shell-C1", that in "Shell-SM" ....!
  10. Zaurbek 29 June 2020 22: 27 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Maybe it's worth making an armored car for calculating the air defense system?
  11. Guards turn 30 June 2020 09: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Valery Slugin - chief designer of air defense KBP them. Shipunova spoke about the next modernization of the Tula "Shell". It is assumed that the famous Tula MLRS will be equipped with a support tool that will accommodate even more ammunition.

    A transport-loading vehicle, according to the designer, can be made transport-combat, giving it the ability to fire itself. This will allow to establish twice as much ammunition - 24 missiles.

    The words of the designer, said in an interview with TASS, are given by federal publications, analyzing the passage of the "Shell" on Red Square in Moscow as part of the Victory Parade.

    Recall that three versions of the Tula Pantsir air defense missile system took part in the march: Arctic, standard, and modernized, as well as such Tula developments as the Tornado-S MLRS, Berezhok BM and Epoch BM.
    1. agond 1 July 2020 21: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The Carapace complex is too large, the machine is long and very high, the target is too clearly visible for the enemy, and therefore it is very vulnerable to reduce the size of the complex by dividing it into two cars, one missile second cannon
      1. Thomas N. 2 July 2020 02: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: agond
        The Carapace complex is too large, the machine is long and very high, the target is too clearly visible for the enemy, and therefore it is very vulnerable to reduce the size of the complex by dividing it into two cars, one missile second cannon

        The overall dimensions of the machine for detecting an air defense complex are secondary. Reducing its size will only slightly reduce the visibility of the off complex. The separation of the air defense system into two vehicles - missile and cannon - is contrary to the ideology of creating an anti-aircraft missile and cannon system smile.
        1. agond 2 July 2020 09: 38 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Thomas N.
          The overall dimensions of the machine for detecting an air defense complex are secondary.

          And for the enemy’s defeat of the complex, they are primary, if you separate the air defense system from the platform, that is, a car with a lift brings the complex in the back, removes, puts it on the ground, drives off, the target on the ground for the enemy will be two times shorter and lower, and if unloaded in advance dug a hole in the ground, then even lower
          1. Thomas N. 3 July 2020 03: 36 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: agond
            And for the enemy’s defeat of the complex, they are primary, if you separate the air defense system from the platform, that is, a car with a lift brings the complex in the back, removes, puts it on the ground, drives off, the target on the ground for the enemy will be two times shorter and lower, and if unloaded in advance dug a hole in the ground, then even lower

            If you unload the air defense system in a hole dug in the ground, it is better to bury it right away
            1. Thomas N. 3 July 2020 04: 01 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              completely and still put a monument on top laughing .
              1. Thomas N. 3 July 2020 04: 22 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                But seriously, it makes no sense to turn a mobile air defense system into a semi-stationary one:
                - masking from visual detection of a working complex is useless;
                - You have to constantly adjust the transport and loading machine to recharge;
                - fortification equipment of positions is done for mobile complexes.
                In general, it is more useful for an air defense system to have the ability to maneuver to quickly change firing positions and reload.
        2. gregor6549 2 July 2020 14: 32 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          So maybe something is wrong with ideology. Indeed, the principles of control of missile and cannon weapons are significantly different. And the fact that for missiles is an optimal target will not necessarily be just as optimal for cannons. This contradiction is especially noticeable when reflecting the so-called "star raid" STS.
          Well, the installation of active radar means on the same mobile unit does not at all contribute to the continuation of the life of the air defense system and its crew in real combat conditions. Indeed, now in the arsenal of anti-radar systems of probable opponents there are no longer the primitive Shriki of the Vietnam War, but something more modern. And if the Shrike could somehow be fooled by using the radar “flicker” modes, turning off the radar radiation, etc. tricks, then now such a number will not work.
          The coordinates and radiation parameters of a radar operating for even a short time are detected by the enemy almost instantly, memorized, classified, and then a loud and inevitable "boom" follows. And the detection, stable tracking and interception of already launched anti-radar missiles is more than complicated and, as a rule, leads to very mediocre results.
          Of course, you can nod at the very skilled hands of the Syrian or Libyan air defense, or the unpreparedness of the air defense system to fire, justifying the serious losses of the air defense system of the Shell in the local conflicts there. But the matter is not only and not so much in these pens. The point is precisely the fallacy of the ideology inherent in the ZRPK.
          As an example, we can also cite one of the first destruction of the ZRPK Shell in Syria by the Israelis. After all, it was clearly visible how the SAM system manages to launch two missiles to meet Israeli air-to-ground missiles and how both missiles go away from intercepted targets.
          Moreover, the Israelis did not even use anti-radar missiles at that time, the use of the so-called so-called so-called “Peas” was sufficient. "leading" interference.
          On the other hand, the desire of large bosses to reduce the number of mobile units and their calculations in air defense units, to simplify their combat management and maintenance, is understandable, but would you have to pay too high a price for this desire. And it will be necessary to pay with the lives of the air defense crews.
          1. agond 2 July 2020 21: 10 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: gregor6549
            So maybe something is wrong with ideology

            Quote: gregor6549
            On the other hand, the desire of large bosses to reduce the number of mobile units and their calculations in air defense units is understandable,

            Yes, the ideology of the complex is doubtful; the combination of guns and missiles on one wheeled platform made it a relatively large and convenient target for the enemy. At the same time, the capabilities of the existing cannon armament is designed to hit targets by direct hit, so you just don’t have time to get into a small UAV or missile, so it would be logical to protect one SAM system from one of the automatic guns to be replaced by an automatic gambling gun for firing at close distances up to 100-200m
            1. agond 3 July 2020 09: 24 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: agond
              Yes, the ideology of the complex is in doubt

              The complex is a combined type of weapon and a missile and gun guidance detection system; all eggs are collected on one large platform, if distributed on several small cars that have the same appearance to make identification difficult, this will greatly complicate the destruction of the complex by the enemy. On the issue of detecting a working radar, and if there are two radars working alternately, I worked for 3-5 minutes and silently moved to 200m in English, and if three?
              1. gregor6549 3 July 2020 16: 52 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                The main sign of the identification of this system is the parameters of the radar signals of the radar for target detection and weapon guidance, and such identification can be carried out by means of radio intelligence (RTR) of the enemy long before the air defense system can detect it. This is a common truth, which is taught even in civilian radio technical universities.
                Alternately operating radars and their separation by a couple of hundred meters does not give any gain, because each of the distributed radars has its own “portrait” of radiation (or signatures) and it’s not difficult for the enemy to identify these “portraits” and to destroy both radars alternately or in one gulp. The only way to protect at least one SAM system is to minimize the operation of its radar for radiation, and to give target designation from radars remotely located at a decent distance (autonomous or operating as part of air defense control systems. At the same time, remote radars can be in a more favorable angle with respect to air defense systems, which, in principle, increases the likelihood of detecting such IOS.Well, the ZRPK must learn to shoot “offhand,” based on “otherworldly” data. It’s also not a panacea, but at least something.
                Well, visual camouflage with modern methods and means of aeronautical and space reconnaissance is already yesterday.
                1. agond 4 July 2020 22: 03 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: gregor6549
                  .
                  Alternately operating radars and their separation by a couple of hundred meters does not give any gain, because each of the distributed radars has its own “portrait” of radiation (or signatures) and it’s not difficult for the enemy to identify these “portraits” and to destroy both radars in turn or in one gulp.
                  Well, visual camouflage with modern methods and means of aeronautical and space reconnaissance is already yesterday.

                  It is not clear how the rocket will only find that the radar that has silently departed for 200 m is visually indistinguishable from other cars available in the open, and if you leave behind the trees and bushes ?, and the second radar earned in a kilometer, the rocket will go to the second round? Of course, this will not save from a massive raid, in general it is necessary to switch to AFAR with the emission of many weak signals in a wide frequency range