Military Review

Will the Pantsiri-SM-SV cover their long-range counterparts S-300V4 and Buk-M3? The situation around the renewal of military air defense

55

Fresh information about the announcement by the Russian defense department of bringing to the level of operational combat readiness, launching into large-scale production and preparing for deliveries to the combat units of the Air Defense Forces of the RF Ground Forces (air defense) of the deeply modernized Pantsir-SM-SV anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems was met numerous enthusiastic comments of Russian military experts and observers aware of the problems of the formation of all-aspect anti-aircraft / anti-missile barriers over strategically important military-industrial facilities, command and staff infrastructure and units of the RF Ground Forces on the march, covered by self-propelled short-range air defense systems, Tor-M1V "Tor-M2U" and "Tor-M2KM", military medium-range air defense systems of the Buk-M1-2 / 2 family, as well as military anti-aircraft missile systems of the S-300V / V3 family.


Indeed, the retrofitting of anti-aircraft missile divisions, brigades and regiments of military air defense with an improved tracked modification of the Pantsir-SM-SV air defense missile system can be considered the most verified step of the Russian Ministry of Defense, which will mark a fundamentally new stage in the formation of this type of troops and will provide a multiple increase in the level of combat stability of units Ground forces, missile forces and artillery, as well as the safety of the most important administrative facilities and military-industrial agglomerations of our state.

Interception in the entire range of dive angles is a key feature of promising anti-aircraft missile systems


In numerous previous reviews, we have repeatedly focused the attention of observers on the key tactical and technical flaw inherent in all modifications of the Tor-M1 short-range self-propelled anti-aircraft missile systems (including the most advanced versions of the Tor-M2U / MKM), military anti-aircraft missile systems Buk-M1 / 1-2 / 2 (except for the Buk-M3 modification) and anti-aircraft missile systems of the S-300V / B2 / V3 family (except for the S-300V4 modification).

It is expressed in the inability to intercept the enemy's aerospace attack means, the terminal sections of the trajectories of which are distinguished by the activation of the "steep dive" mode at angles of more than 64 degrees in relation to the Tor-M1V / 2U complexes and more than 75 degrees in relation to the anti-aircraft missile systems C -300В1 / 2/3 (we will analyze the situation with the Buk-M1 / 2 family below). In this case, we can talk about both operational-tactical ballistic missiles, warheads (or warheads) of medium-range ballistic missiles and hypersonic cruise missiles diving at the above-mentioned military air defense weapons from the upper layers of the stratosphere, mesosphere and thermosphere, and about 2,5- flywheel anti-radar missiles and supersonic missiles, the massive use of which (with the simultaneous implementation of the "slide" flight mode) makes it possible to "break" a certain number of them into the so-called dead craters above the data of the air defense missile system due to the oversaturation of the throughput and target channel of the radar guidance of the latter.

The presence of the above "dead funnels with a raster of 52 degrees for the" Torov "and 30 degrees for the S-300V is due to the limited elevation viewing area of ​​PFAR guidance radars of the Tor-M1 / 2 family from 32 to 64 degrees (in the" upper "beam mode ) and 9S19M / 2 "Ginger" program review / target designation radars of the S-300V1-3 systems from 26 to 75 degrees (also in the "upper beam" mode).

The use of radio command and semi-active radar guidance principles in these anti-aircraft missile systems completely excludes the possibility of continuing to intercept targets (in the "fire-forget" mode) after the latter go beyond the elevation and / or azimuth sectors of the review of PFAR guidance radars of the "Tor" complexes, as well as parabolic radar "searchlights" for illumination (located on the 9A83 launcher) of the S-300V1-3 systems, receiving target designation from the "Ginger" program review radar. After all, it is well known that anti-aircraft guided missiles 9M331 / D and 9M338K of the Tor-M2U / MKM complexes need continuous radio correction by means of guidance radar up to the destruction of an intercepted object, while the semi-active radar seeker of medium and long-range anti-aircraft missiles 9M83 and 9M82 S-300V1-3 systems require continuous illumination from continuous radar / illumination.

As for the Buk-M2 military air defense missile systems, despite the impressive elevation viewing area (from -5 to +85 degrees) of the 9S36 illumination radars integrated into the electronic equipment of the 9A317 self-propelled firing units (SOU), the probability of successful interception of approaching steep ballistic trajectories of high-precision weapons not as high as it might seem at first glance. After all, target designation to these radars is issued from the 9S18M1-3 "Dome" radar detectors, which have a very mediocre beam elevation angle (no more than 50 degrees).

Conclusion: in the case of autonomous combat alert (without receiving information about the tactical air situation from A-50U AWACS aircraft, VVO 96L6 all-altitude detectors and other radar equipment), the Buk-M2 combat crew may lose sight of the ballistic weapons on the descending branch of the trajectory enemy air attack, which will not allow operators of self-propelled firing installations 9А317 to timely start repelling a massive missile and air strike.

The program for updating combat units of military air defense with unique Pantsir-SM-SV air defense missile systems is designed to neutralize the entire range of the above shortcomings of the Tor-M1 / 2, Buk-M1 / 2 and S-300V1-3 military air defense systems. In particular, the presence in the radio-electronic architecture of the "Pantsirei-SM-SV" guidance system of highly sensitive multispectral optoelectronic sighting systems 10ES1, operating in the medium-wave (wavelength 3-5 microns) and long-wave (8-12 microns) infrared ranges, as well as in the TV range, provides these anti-aircraft missile and cannon systems with the ability to cover almost all elevation sectors that are not visible by the guidance radars of the Tor-M1 / 2 complexes, the Ginger programmed surveillance radar of the S-300V1-3 systems, as well as the 9S18M1 radar detectors -3 "Dome".

The implementation of this opportunity was facilitated by equipping 10ES1 optoelectronic modules with unique guidance drives from the High-Precision Complexes holding, the design features of which provided an elevation viewing area in the range from -5 to +82 degrees, due to which the solution of the dead funnel above the combat module of the Pantsir-C1 air defense missile system / SM-MV "decreased to 16 degrees. It is also worth noting that, within the framework of the Pantsire-C1 modernization program to the Pantsir-S2 modifications (version for the Anti-Aircraft Missile Forces of the Russian Aerospace Forces) and Pantsir-SM-MV (for military air defense), the specialists of the Instrument Engineering Design Bureau them. Academician A.G. Shipunova "equipped the standard 57E6 bicaliber missile interceptors with solid-propellant rocket engines with more energy-efficient fuel charges with a prolonged burnout period, which increased the flight speed of new products from 1300 to 3000 m / s.

Therefore, it is logical to assume that the fire performance of the improved Pantsir-SM-SV can increase from 5 to 10 enemy air targets processed in a 30-second period (in comparison with the combatant Pantsir-C1), which will be an indispensable help not only for military "Bukov-M2" and S-300V1-3 with a semi-active principle of guidance, but also for their promising modifications "Buk-M3" and S-300V4, equipped with anti-aircraft missiles 9М317МА and 9М82МВ with active radar seeker. Indeed, despite the fact that these missiles allow intercepting ballistic air defense systems diving at angles of more than 75-80 degrees, their "dead zones" (the close borders of the intercepted) are 2,5 km (for 9M317MA) and 10-13 km (for 9M82MV) due to impressive weight and size parameters and features of control systems. The "dead zone" of the improved version of the compact and light anti-aircraft missile 57E6 of the Pantsir-SM-SV complex barely reaches 1,2 km, which will allow the combat crews of the updated Tula air defense missile systems to intercept the enemy's high-precision weapons that have broken through literally under the noses of their long-range military counterparts: complexes Buk-M3 and S-300V4.
Author:
55 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. military_cat
    military_cat 28 September 2020 05: 13
    19
    Damantsev's syllable is still indigestible (although, it seems, already to a slightly lesser extent than before), but it is still joyful to see his articles, because they are the only ones from all the emerging content that do not represent reprints of platitudes from Wikipedia.
    1. Fizik M
      Fizik M 3 October 2020 16: 00
      +1
      Quote: military_cat
      Damantsev's syllable is still indigestible (although, it seems, already to a slightly lesser extent than before), but it is still joyful to see his articles, because they are the only ones from all the emerging content that do not represent reprints of platitudes from Wikipedia.

      lol
  2. Boris ⁣ Shaver
    Boris ⁣ Shaver 28 September 2020 05: 29
    +7
    It seems to me that you can write a bot that will write articles in a similar way. This is not a very complicated algorithm.
    1. KVU-NSVD
      KVU-NSVD 28 September 2020 08: 16
      12
      Quote: Boris ⁣ Shaver
      It seems to me that you can write a bot that will write articles in a similar way. This is not a very complicated algorithm.

      What for! good All articles on the semantic content fit into a paragraph, if we remove the verbal heaps of polysyllabic sentences filled with all possible abbreviations and terms that can only be tied to the text by meaning .. Damn, I started writing like Damantsev, probably it's contagious repeat
      1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
        Boris ⁣ Shaver 28 September 2020 16: 22
        +2
        Quote: KVU-NSVD
        articles on semantic content fit into a paragraph

        A simple block diagram. Replace the connections between the blocks with the set of revolutions used by the author. And voila - robots are already chewing Damantsev's bread.
        1. KVU-NSVD
          KVU-NSVD 28 September 2020 16: 26
          +4
          Quote: Boris ⁣Razor
          A simple block diagram. Replace the connections between the blocks with the set of revolutions used by the author - and voila

          Well, not so simple. And the algorithm, of course, is fundamentally simple and has been used for years. Or maybe you answered the question - "Hu from hu, Mr. Damantseff?" laughing
          1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
            Boris ⁣ Shaver 28 September 2020 20: 40
            +1
            Quote: KVU-NSVD
            Hu of hu, Mr. Damanceff?

            "I am again plagued by vague doubts ... Shpak has a tape recorder, the ambassador has a medallion ..." (c)
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 28 September 2020 16: 57
          +3
          Quote: Boris ⁣Razor
          And voila - robots are already chewing Damantsev's bread.

          Nafig-nafig ... as if it turned out that the word "bread" is superfluous here. smile
          1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
            Boris ⁣ Shaver 28 September 2020 20: 43
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            the word "bread" is superfluous here

            You're right. There, more likely, the money will go to blackjack and women of simple behavior.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 28 September 2020 16: 56
      0
      Quote: Boris ⁣ Shaver
      It seems to me that you can write a bot that will write articles in a similar way. This is not a very complicated algorithm.

      I immediately remembered SCIgen and his article "Rootter: An Algorithm for Typical Access Point Unification and Redundancy". smile
    3. JD1979
      JD1979 29 September 2020 12: 45
      +1
      Quote: Boris ⁣Razor
      It seems to me that you can write a bot that will write articles in a similar way. This is not a very complicated algorithm.

      Quote: Boris ⁣Razor
      A simple block diagram. Replace the connections between the blocks with the set of revolutions used by the author. And voila - robots are already chewing Damantsev's bread.

      A man said - a man did!
      We are waiting for the result of your words from you, in the form of an article written by a bot, laid out in a script.
      Otherwise, the balabola's rolling title will be yours.
    4. Fizik M
      Fizik M 3 October 2020 16: 01
      +1
      Quote: Boris ⁣Razor
      It seems to me that you can write a bot that will write articles in a similar way. This is not a very complicated algorithm.

      yes
  3. sen
    sen 28 September 2020 05: 37
    +3
    The implementation of this opportunity was facilitated by equipping 10ES1 optoelectronic modules with unique guidance drives from the High-Precision Complexes holding, the design features of which provided an elevation viewing area in the range from -5 to +82 degrees, due to which the solution of the dead funnel above the combat module of the Pantsir-C1 air defense missile system / SM-MV "decreased to 16 degrees.

    And what prevents the installation of the 10ES1 optoelectronic module on the Tor and Buk?
  4. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 28 September 2020 06: 13
    +5
    I would be interested to know how Damantsev, with his passion for numbers and those. data would evaluate chess games?
    Probably, he would immediately call the final, which had not yet begun, a draw (there are the same number of equal pieces on the board), and judged unfinished openings by the number of saved top pieces?)))
  5. Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay 28 September 2020 08: 43
    +3
    It seems to me that drones for air defense have become a much bigger problem than vertically diving missiles coming from nowhere, and they somehow still need to get into the upper sphere.
    1. Alex777
      Alex777 28 September 2020 15: 31
      +3
      vertically diving missiles from nowhere

      All PRPs do that. bully
      One F / A-18 - 7 pcs. HARM carries, for example.
      That is, the United States has a lot of them.
      The Libyan missile boat, at one time, also drowned the PRR.
      They only had to turn on the boat's radar.
      Therefore, the author wrote so much about the need to support the target with our complexes. hi
      And the latest versions of the PRR recognize even switched off radars.
      So the topic is super hot.
      1. Sergey_G_M
        Sergey_G_M 28 September 2020 15: 46
        +4
        To dive to the target, you still need to fly to it.
        And in general, the problem of the dead zone in the cone above the air defense missile system is too inflated and is relevant only for a single machine, which is very rare. Usually, the vehicles are not used one at a time and occupy positions with overlapping affected areas and closing the dead zones of other vehicles.
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 28 September 2020 15: 55
          0
          To dive to the target, you still need to fly to it.

          So there are many PRRs and they fly fast.
          Usually, the vehicles are not used one at a time and occupy positions with overlapping affected areas and closing the dead zones of other vehicles.

          It's smooth on paper, but there are also ravines ...
      2. huntsman650
        huntsman650 28 September 2020 16: 43
        0
        Old air defense systems had restrictions on target tracking speed of 700 ms. Now "automation" has stepped forward. They can and beat))). During the exercise, according to the cyclogram pro, the command always sounded when an ORS was found to "remove high",
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 28 September 2020 16: 58
          0
          Old air defense systems had limitations on target tracking speed of 700 ms.

          It was so long ago...
          Now the PRR is launched for 100-150 km, they are inconspicuous and fly at a speed of 3M. Spending S400 / S300V4 missiles on such a goal is an impossible waste.
          In the worst case - Beech M3 or S-350 (still very expensive), in the best case - Carapace CM.
          Don't know Thor M2 takes such a speed target?
          1. Sergey_G_M
            Sergey_G_M 28 September 2020 17: 25
            +3
            Now the PRR is launched for 100-150 km, they are inconspicuous and fly at a speed of 3M. Spending S400 / S300V4 missiles on such a goal is an impossible waste.

            To launch PRR from 100-150 km the plane must fly up to this distance, and this is just a very good target for the С400 / С300.
            In general, you see air defense as a confrontation between individual air defense systems and aviation in a vacuum. Among air defense weapons, you forget about air defense aviation, reconnaissance means, the use of ambush tactics by air defense systems, etc., which is wrong.
            1. Alex777
              Alex777 28 September 2020 17: 42
              0
              And in general, you view air defense as a confrontation between individual air defense systems and aviation in a vacuum.

              You are wrong. Specificity of the forum.
              We have to write fragmentarily. And I'm not a writer. yes
              And so he received shoulder straps in PVURE.
              True for a very long time. wink
      3. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 28 September 2020 20: 41
        0
        "The Libyan missile boat, at one time, also drowned the PRR" - what they just wrote, what drowned them. According to the latest data, A-6 attack aircraft with "Rokai" cluster (!) Bombs, operating on PMV, are below the range of the "Osa-M" air defense missile system ..
  6. Serg89
    Serg89 28 September 2020 08: 56
    +2
    The feeling that the commentators are above, the resource was confused with the copyright exchange ... there are film critics, but I don’t know what these are called. It is interesting to read amateurs and professionals of the military sphere on the topic of new things, but they write about literature
  7. A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 28 September 2020 09: 49
    -1
    the massive use of which (with the simultaneous implementation of the "slide" flight mode) makes it possible to "break through" a certain amount of them into the so-called dead funnels above the data of the air defense missile system due to the oversaturation of the throughput and target channel of the radar guidance systems of the latter.

    In simple terms, this means that the massive use of mosquito UAVs in swarm or flock mode will soothe the brains of such systems that they will be practically powerless to withstand real threats.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 28 September 2020 19: 27
      +1
      Quote: A. Privalov
      the massive use of mosquito UAVs in swarm or flock mode will soothe the brains of such systems that they will be practically powerless to withstand real threats.

      I believe that the "mosquito bastard" needs to be burned out with EMP or volumetric explosion ammunition. Those who broke through - with Shells and Barrel ZOS. Otherwise, these midges will burn all expensive equipment and make a hole in the object's air defense system ...
      That in itself is not ICE!
      1. A. Privalov
        A. Privalov 28 September 2020 20: 33
        -3
        EMP, as it turned out, does not always help. A volumetric explosion will destroy all living things. In a word, it will not be so easy to get rid of several hundred small devices.
  8. Pavel57
    Pavel57 28 September 2020 10: 02
    +3
    And so it is logical to assume ..... the author's logic and the logic of life may diverge.
  9. imobile2008
    imobile2008 28 September 2020 10: 16
    -3
    They won't cover anything! As will not cover any even superperfect system. Can only cover fighters and bombers near enemy borders(do you understand where I'm going)
    1. lucul
      lucul 28 September 2020 15: 00
      +3
      They won't cover anything! As will not cover any even superperfect system. Can only cover fighters and bombers near enemy borders

      Are you voicing the Western doctrine? )))
  10. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 28 September 2020 16: 22
    +2
    The topic is certainly not the most relevant for air defense ... As one respected expert in air defense said: the Americans created the complex, and the USSR created the air defense system! Therefore, the shortcomings or design features of certain types of weapons were compensated by the advantage of a systematic approach to solving problems and challenges that arose. And the right paths were outlined: expanding the capabilities of airspace reconnaissance (AWACS and U aircraft); introduction of missiles with active seeker into the ammunition; Well, and the use as a means of direct cover of the Pantsir air defense missile system as part of air defense units and subdivisions in replacement of the 23 mm ZU-2, 14,5 mm ZPU-2 and other DShK. Whether the Igla MANPADS will remain in the subdivisions I do not know. In my retirement, I can hardly keep up with modern military thought.
  11. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 28 September 2020 16: 28
    +2
    The armor is undoubtedly capable of covering the Buki and S-300/400
    from the means of attack of the enemy.
    But provided that the Carapace is securely covered
    from the means of attacking himself.
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 28 September 2020 16: 42
      -4
      It seems to me that the refinement of the shell so that it becomes really effective AGAINST the UAV rests on the formality of the development process, when the development of funds is at the forefront, and not performance characteristics (as in the USA) or efficiency (as in the USSR). Now (in my opinion) the armor of the shell stupidly does not correspond to these goals in terms of performance.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 28 September 2020 18: 57
        +2
        Carapace missiles without seeker are good against helicopters, low
        flying attack aircraft, cruise missiles.
        But the means of attack have changed. He is attacked by smart ammunition with the GOS, with
        built-in electronic warfare. To shoot them down, you need to have video eyes in the rocket itself,
        when the leading ground radar is deceived and paralyzed.
        1. Sergey_K
          Sergey_K 28 September 2020 20: 49
          +1
          As I understand it, you're talking about tele-guidance. I have a question - why is tele-guidance, especially in the context of ATGM, so fiercely reviled by our experts? Their main argument is EW-omnipotent. But the guys who studied at least a little at the institute understand that not everything can be fouled up with interference and not always and for a limited time ...
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 28 September 2020 21: 24
            +3
            It is reviled because it has not been mastered.
            Mastered laser illumination (laser corridor),
            mastered radar guidance.
            And there is no TV guidance yet. Although once the electronic warfare against him is useless.
            If the rocket flies through an optical cable and is guided by the TV camera in the GOS,
            then knocking her off the target is not easy at all.
            Although you can get in and destroy physically, of course.
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 30 September 2020 22: 45
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      provided that the Carapace is securely covered
      from the means of attacking himself.

      I could call it sarcasm and a reason to chuckle, if such an idea was not really "in the air"! Along with tank KAZs, KAZ offers are already appearing, for example, air defense weapons! So far, on the pages of various "free patents"! But, as a certain general secretary used to say, "the main thing is to start ..."!
  12. yehat2
    yehat2 28 September 2020 16: 40
    0
    it seems to me that now it is more urgent to achieve the creation of cheap and reliable means of destruction of UAVs in
    radius of 10-15 km and at an altitude of 5-7 km.
    All recent conflicts have been with the active use of UAVs, which, by the way, are very actively engaged in the destruction of air defense.
    I think that the carapace should be modified or made on the basis of a 57mm cannon with multiple and programmable projectiles, some kind of installation. It is now too expensive and ineffective against such targets.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 28 September 2020 20: 14
      -1
      Quote: yehat2
      UAV defeat in
      radius of 10-15 km and at an altitude of 5-7 km.

      Not relevant. "Terrorist" drones converted into civilians and kamikaze drones fly much lower. UAVs of MALE class can fly higher, weapons are used at longer distances.
      We need 2 different cars:
      With rocket armament. Rockets are needed 15 km in height, 25-35 km in range, against military UAVs.
      The second with a REP, laser or 30 mm cannon, projectiles with a controlled air blast against swarms of terrorist drones and kamikaze. 57 mm has too little ammunition supply and rate of fire.
      Against drones, it is interesting to test in the USA the converted into a controlled Hydra 70, but this is from an air platform.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 29 September 2020 05: 10
        -1
        57 mm has too little ammunition supply and rate of fire

        With sufficient accuracy, 57mm is better. Thanks to the shell with remote detonation.
      2. yehat2
        yehat2 29 September 2020 09: 13
        0
        classic supersonic missiles with a speed of Mach 5-8 are redundant against slow UAVs
        and therefore ineffective. Something simpler and cheaper is needed.
    2. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 28 September 2020 20: 31
      0
      Quote: yehat2
      to make on the basis of 57mm cannon with multiple and programmable shells some kind of installation.

      Perhaps a 130-152 mm anti-aircraft gun makes sense. For example, based on the AK-130. There is both range and height. The Chinese are already doing, the US shot down the imitation of the CD from the Paladin. But 57 mm neither to the village nor to the city.
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 29 September 2020 09: 13
        0
        well, if such a gun fits
        I don't care what caliber
      2. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 30 September 2020 22: 54
        0
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        Perhaps it makes sense 130-152 mm anti-aircraft gun

        Is that right for you?
    3. 3danimal
      3danimal 29 September 2020 05: 14
      0
      The carapace was shown in the Military acceptance and at least one more transfer. He fired at a small target (30mm cannons) badly. Either she flew between the tracks, then the letter what. And here and there they had to shoot down missiles. But it was a slow-moving training target.
      Perhaps, when creating an analog from Rheinmetal or Raytheon in 57mm caliber, the result will be significantly better.
  13. huntsman650
    huntsman650 28 September 2020 16: 44
    +1
    And EW and RER are no longer counted))). The short-range air defense systems move forward under the cover of the short-range air defense systems. No one canceled the radar discipline.
  14. imobile2008
    imobile2008 28 September 2020 18: 08
    -2
    Quote: lucul
    They won't cover anything! As will not cover any even superperfect system. Can only cover fighters and bombers near enemy borders

    Are you voicing the Western doctrine? )))

    I about that the best defense is offensive!
  15. Niki71
    Niki71 28 September 2020 19: 13
    0
    The fact that the Pantsir-C1 air defense system demanded modernization is clear and correct!
    QUESTION when will the new "deeply modernized" SAM "Pantsir-SM-SV" arrive in "commercial" quantities in combat units of the RF Armed Forces ?.
    And in fact we are on duty;
    - 68 units of Pantsir-C1 as of 2018
    -120 complexes 9K331, 9K332, Tor-M / M1 / ​​M2 / M2U as of 2019
    - 400 units of "ancient" SAM "Osa-AKM"
    By the way, on fresh videos from the Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh for 27.09.20/XNUMX/XNUMX. there are several episodes of the defeat of the Osa-AKM air defense missile system from drones of which it cannot intercept, because it does not see!
    And modern conflicts without drones are almost impossible, so the issue of timely replacement of old air defense systems with modernized ones is relevant, but whether it will be implemented in connection with the new economic crisis is a question!
  16. Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 28 September 2020 20: 44
    0
    Here the infa slipped that on the "Armor ME" millimeter-wave radar. And on the land "Shells" too?
  17. tarakan
    tarakan 29 September 2020 17: 49
    0
    Zvizdets, experts about weapons programmers laughing
  18. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 30 September 2020 23: 50
    0
    Damantsev muddied the gruel ... go find a bay leaf there! One thing I can say ...: for some reason I could not bring myself to read the article "with feeling, really, with arrangement ..."! Not interested ! Damantsev with might and main "reproaches" the TOR and Buk air defense systems, but it is not necessary "to have seven spans in the forehead" to outline a "plan for possible modernization" of the complexes right now! I had to say more than once that under "current conditions various threats (targets) "modern complexes need to have both" budget "ammunition of the" old "type, and" elite "ammunition with a seeker ...! And so that it was not too expensive, he proposed to take up the modernization of the" basic "9М100 and R-77ЗРК missiles for "TORA" ... It is also necessary to equip the "Pantsir" with missiles with the GOS, leaving also the radio-controlled "products" ... to save money! .), the latest optoelectronic systems ... multicopters with compact radars are not excluded (at least one per battery ...), the organization of network-centric structures ... I also have such a proposal: missile-gun "Pantsiri" (it is possible and " Tunguska "...) to convert into missiles with, kind of, KAZ! Instead of 30-mm cannons, equip them with means more oriented for anti-missile warfare: for example, multi-barreled machine-gun mounts ... (we choose the caliber from 7,62 mm to 12,7, 20 mm ...), "multi-barreled" installations on the "base" ,, MANPADS ,, "Kolos", automatic grenade launchers from 30 mm to 9mm ... Of course, we know about "anti-aircraft nails"; but "anti-aircraft nails" - against the UAV on approach; and an automatic grenade launcher or a 30-mm "minigun" will try to shoot down the ammunition dropped from the UAV at the closest distance, for example, 50-XNUMX meters ...
    1. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 13 October 2020 12: 05
      0
      But what is not 5,45? The armor is just that good because its missiles are cheap, and the installation of the seeker will make them more expensive and make the complex strange .. it's the same as putting on a pistol 8x optics and automatic firing handle .. cool, but why?

      In reality, what now needs to be put on the Shell is shells with remote detonation and think about developing a version with a 57 mm cannon (well, maybe leave another 30 tku)
  19. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 30 September 2020 23: 59
    0
    (((compact and light anti-aircraft missile 57E6 complex "Pantsir"))) Author, it's time to know that a lot of "water has flowed under the bridge" since the creation of 57E6 ... Now, how many names are flashing around the district "Pantsir"! 95Я6 ,95Я6СМ ,23Я6...etc. ...
  20. Fizik M
    Fizik M 3 October 2020 16: 05
    +1
    Can Armor and cover C300 / 400
    BUT ONLY IF WEATHER IS GOOD

    and if dense fog or drizzle - "kitten"

    Shl evil tongues say that in air defense the mistake with P for large air defense systems has already been realized
  21. Boris Chernikov
    Boris Chernikov 13 October 2020 12: 01
    0
    It is interestingly written ... but isn't the main threat not the missile defense system, cruise missiles and kamikaze drones? And then it turns out that we are talking about ballistic missiles, and is the defense of an object not provided by dispersing air defense systems over the terrain to create a complete radar coverage?