Military Review

At the forefront of scientific and technical thought

49

Photo: sammlung.ru


A sharp increase in the role of high-precision weapons and UAVs in modern warfare have noticeably increased interest in the most optimal cost / effectiveness means of dealing with them - short-range anti-aircraft missile systems. At the same time, the improvement of air attack weapons "spurs" the reciprocal development of air defense systems.

Thus, the Tor-M2 air defense missile system, the main means of combating anti-aircraft warfare and UAVs in the tactical echelon of the ground forces, is regularly upgraded. R&D is carried out in a number of areas, including: expanding the affected area, increasing the ability to combat high-speed, small-sized and low-flying targets, further strengthening noise immunity, improving control systems and full automation and robotization of the complex.

How large are the modernization reserves of the Tor family air defense systems? Several years ago, one of its creators, IM Drize, noted that he "sees no limits for improving the complex." The words of the chief designer of the BM SAM "Tor" are confirmed by unofficial information about the results of the use of the complex. So, if the technical passport of the products indicates the maximum target speed of 700 m / s, then the penultimate version of this family, the Tor-M2K air defense system, which is in service with the RB army, according to the Belarusian military, shot down targets flying at a speed 1000 m / s. If the minimum target flight altitude "according to the passport" is 10 m, then during the tests "Torah" hit targets at heights of 4-5 m. The difference between the unofficial achievements and the official characteristics of the complex is the difference between records and a "factory guarantee". That is, the performance characteristics specified in the passport are guaranteed by the manufacturer, but this does not mean that they cannot be surpassed during operation. Note that Western manufacturers are taking a different path, often recording the maximum achievements of their air defense systems in official announcements. But IEMZ "Kupol" adheres to a responsible marketing policy. Another thing is that sooner or later records are fixed, including in the technical passport. For example, successful firing of the Tor-M2U air defense system in motion was carried out in 2016, but this characteristic was included in the technical passport only in 2019. There is no doubt that with the further development of the complex, the above record values ​​will also become official characteristics.

The complex also has serious latent capabilities in improving intelligence and communications systems. Some of these capabilities were implemented in the course of the recent modernization of the set of communications equipment, which significantly increased the range and reliability of information exchange, the ability to reconnaissance the air situation, etc. In order to further increase the mobility of the complex, work is underway to create a floating carrier base. Both individual units and devices and the whole complex are being improved.

Work on the modernization of the "Tor" family of air defense systems is carried out by their parent manufacturer and developer IEMZ "Kupol" in cooperation with leading domestic research institutes and design bureaus on this subject. The plant recently signed a cooperation agreement with the military innovative technopolis ERA (see National Defense).

Along with an assessment of the further development paths of the "Tor" air defense systems, it is interesting to compare them with promising Western-developed complexes. In what direction are our European partners moving? An example of modern Western approaches to the design of the MD air defense system for the next decade is the Project 7628 Kampluftvern. Prototypes should be ready in 2022-2023. Despite the fact that information about a nonexistent complex is understandably fragmentary, certain conclusions about the appearance of a promising western air defense missile system MD can be made. Anti-aircraft variant will be applied in Kampluftvern aviation SD IRIS-T. It is a powerful and well-proven rocket. However, in the anti-aircraft version, the IRIS-T loses many of its capabilities, for example, due to the need to climb and speed when starting from a land installation, it has a noticeably lower speed and flight range than an aircraft prototype. But the infrared seeker in the missile defense system is preserved along with all the advantages and disadvantages of this guidance method. In particular, there are serious doubts about the possibility of using missiles with IKGSN in difficult climatic conditions and in the dark (while the air defense systems of the "Tor" family are all-weather and all-day). But the main thing is that the IRIS-T missile was put into service in 2005, that is, a promising air defense system is being created for a fifteen-year-old missile! (Note that the 9M338K SAM "Tor-M2" was put into service only five years ago.) Here, the desire of the developers to take the easy path is obvious, reducing the cost of creating a new complex by making old decisions. It is also significant that one BM Kampluftvern, judging by the sketchy images, carries only 6 missiles, while the BC of one BM SAM "Tor-M2" are 16 missiles. Opportunities to repel a massive raid near the western complex are several times less.

A serious weakness of all modern Western MD air defense systems is the lack of specialized radars. They are equipped with unified radars (RAC-3D, Giraffe AMB, TRLM 3D, etc.), placed on separate platforms. These radars take a long time to deploy (10-15 minutes versus 3 for the "Thor"), which can have critical consequences in a fast air battle. In addition, it becomes fundamentally impossible to provide shooting in motion. The first "bell" for lovers of easy routes rang in 2015, when the Australian army, when ordering the air defense missile system MD NASAMS 2, categorically refused to purchase the existing radars that are part of these complexes. Thus confirming that non-specialized radars do not fully meet the tasks facing the MD air defense system. The Australians demanded the development of a new radar, although they retained the exploded layout.

The published sketches of the Kampluftvern air defense system show that they have a radar (it is not clear which one) is integrated with a combat vehicle. If the thumbnail images correspond to reality, then this is evidence that Western developers have realized (twenty years later!) The inferiority of the spaced layout. But even in this matter, they find themselves in the role of lagging behind, given the fact that all Russian air defense systems MD (starting with the "Wasp") have always had air reconnaissance systems integrated with BM.

In general, the general direction of development of foreign air defense systems MD remains the same: when creating them, well-proven products are used that were previously created for completely different purposes. This makes it possible to reduce the cost of the development process, but always leaves Western developers one step behind and the creators of other types of weapons and military equipment (for example, aviation missile launchers) and Russian designers who improve air defense systems without waiting for someone to do their work for them. As a result, the Russian army and the armies of Russia's allies receive weapons corresponding to the heights of modern scientific and technical thought.
Author:
Photos used:
anna-news.info/rossiya-zainteresovana-v-sozdanii-morskoj-versii-zrk-tor-m2/
49 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Asad
    Asad 5 October 2020 05: 30
    +9
    Armenia needs to buy several units of TOP, you look and a no-fly zone will appear!
    1. Ragnar Lodbrok
      Ragnar Lodbrok 5 October 2020 05: 48
      +8
      I agree ... air defense is now almost becoming the main branch of the armed forces in connection with the development of these drones ... All recent armed conflicts are a clear example of this.
      1. iouris
        iouris 5 October 2020 11: 05
        +3
        Any defense will be broken. The best defense is offensive.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Rostislav
          Rostislav 5 October 2020 15: 23
          +3
          This is true. But to start the offensive, you first need to repel the enemy attack. As in fencing, first defense, then attack. wink
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 5 October 2020 15: 55
            0
            Not certainly in that way. A sudden, massive, complex attack can bring significant success, especially when the enemy missed this decisive moment.
        3. rocket757
          rocket757 5 October 2020 15: 53
          +4
          You can pierce any! But, the ratio of own losses / losses of the enemy can be different, often unacceptable! Pyrrhic victory! Not invented yesterday.
          Then, everyone knows and strives to organize an active defense! And here the ratio of losses may turn out not at all in favor of the aggressor.
          In general, as always, it is desirable to have a quantitative and qualitative advantage, at least not to lag far behind!
      2. venik
        venik 5 October 2020 16: 21
        +1
        Quote: Ragnar Lothbrok
        I agree ... air defense is now almost becoming the main branch of the troops in connection with the development of these drones ...

        ========
        And not just air defense, but Army Air Defense "short range" (up to 20-30 km)! What exactly are those varieties that allow you to implement the most "cheap"interception option: Small missiles with radio command control or with IR seeker! drinks
    2. PSih2097
      PSih2097 5 October 2020 05: 53
      15
      Quote: ASAD
      Armenia needs to buy several units of TOP, you look and a no-fly zone will appear!

      for a no-fly zone, an echeloned air defense (DB / SD / MD) and a centralized detection and guidance system both from the ground (radar) and from the air (AWACS / AWACS) are needed, not forgetting fighter aircraft.
      1. Asad
        Asad 5 October 2020 05: 58
        +1
        Although I served in the air defense, but 40 years ago! Isn't the TOP not able to cope with the UAV?
        1. PSih2097
          PSih2097 5 October 2020 06: 02
          +6
          Quote: ASAD
          Although I served in the air defense, but 40 years ago! Isn't the TOP not able to cope with the UAV?

          will cope, and the division will generally cover the regiment, but the conversation then turned to the unmanned zone in general, and not about the local air defense.
        2. venik
          venik 5 October 2020 16: 34
          +4
          Quote: ASAD
          Although I served in the air defense, but 40 years ago! Isn't the TOP not able to cope with the UAV?

          =======
          The first versions ("Tor" and Tor-M1 ") had insufficient by modern standards) firing range and reach in height (12 and 6 km, respectively). Considering that many modern drums UAVs can climb much higher - alas! This already - insufficiently!
          But the last "Tor-M2" and "Tor-M2KM" are already more distant (15 and 10 km!). And they have bookmakers doubled! drinks
          1. bk0010
            bk0010 5 October 2020 21: 16
            0
            Quote: venik
            But the last "Tor-M2" and "Tor-M2KM" - those are already more distant (15 and 10 km!).
            It would be nice to increase the range to 40 kilometers, otherwise the "partners" ATGMs appeared with a range of 28 km.
            1. venik
              venik 7 October 2020 13: 07
              -1
              Quote: bk0010
              It would be nice to increase the range to 40 kilometers, otherwise the "partners" ATGMs appeared with a range of 28 km.

              ========
              Yes, the point is just not in promising JAGM (by the way, this is no longer an ATGM, but rather a multipurpose UR "Air-to-surface"). Carry such a banfool "on the shoulder" only UAVs heavy и superheavy class! And the point here is not only the own mass of the rocket, although it is not small: almost half a centner, but also the fact that to aim at such a range, a very powerful, and therefore "voracious" and heavy and large-sized optoelectronic guidance station is needed ... Only heavy and super-heavy drones can poke such a station. And they are terribly expensive, they are built for a long time and in small series - for such purposes it is not a sin to shoot from a Buk or S-300 - it is that is!
              But how to effectively deal with "average" and any small fry, which are 1-2 ATGMs with a firing range of 8-10 km - that's a question! It is expensive to shoot medium and large missiles at them: you can't get enough missiles ..... Well, we have modernized the "Thor" (increased the range and ammunition. Developed "Pantsir-SM" (there the range was increased to 40 km in general (yes, they included small missiles to combat small UAVs! So something is being done ...
              1. bk0010
                bk0010 7 October 2020 22: 36
                +1
                Quote: venik
                And here's how to effectively deal with "average" and all small fry
                Already several times he proposed to revive large-caliber (100-130 mm) anti-aircraft artillery for this task. The control center is external, from the same Thor or Buk (the gun with the platform is included in the anti-aircraft battery) and the optical one, the projectile is uncontrollable, with a radio fuse from WWII.
                1. venik
                  venik 8 October 2020 10: 09
                  0
                  Quote: bk0010
                  Already several times he proposed to revive large-caliber (100-130 mm) anti-aircraft artillery for this task.

                  ========
                  Well, 100-130 mm, it’s a bit too much for me .... But the idea itself is good - "both cheap and cheerful"! drinks
                  By the way, it was not for nothing that the topic "Derivation-air defense" was launched - there, in addition to guided ammunition, cheaper shells with remote detonation (on the trajectory) are used. A smaller explosive charge is compensated by a higher rate of fire. In conjunction with the "Shell" or "Thor" - "what the doctor ordered" !!! drinks
        3. vVvAD
          vVvAD 6 October 2020 18: 00
          +1
          Cope, and how. But it will be a little expensive to knock them down the smallest thing.
          Shells and then light missiles for them were therefore developed so that both the platform and the missiles were cheaper (which means that more could be produced), and the cannon, and the possibility of firing on the move, like TORs. But the latter did not work out - the center of gravity is too high - you have to think hard: whether to lower the DBM, redo the cabin, or expand the wheelbase ...
          All this will lead to higher prices. Is it advisable?
    3. svp67
      svp67 5 October 2020 07: 31
      +6
      Quote: ASAD
      Armenia needs to buy several units of TOP, you look and a no-fly zone will appear!

      Yeah ... can she find the money? And in Russia, already ready for the sale of TOP? When will the crews be trained? Or do you offer us also the calculations to sell them?
      And it turns out that the war will end long ago, when these complexes begin to establish a "no-fly zone" ... And it seems to me that it will end not in Armenia's favor. Their Pashinyan did everything for this ...
      1. Asad
        Asad 5 October 2020 07: 34
        +3
        Yes of course you are right! This is my emotion, after cluster bombs!
    4. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 5 October 2020 08: 39
      +2
      In matters of arms supplies to Armenia and Azerbaijan, Russia has always adhered to the concept of maintaining the balance of power in the region in order to prevent clashes.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 5 October 2020 16: 01
        +2
        There, external players are taking the initiative!
        And the very leadership of these countries is not very diligently imprisoned for Russia! The largest embassy of minke whales, close ties with the Turkish government ... Russia simply remains on the sidelines, with its foreign policy ....... imperfections.
        This is a natural result of many years of work by the unfinished people from politics.
    5. Lesorub
      Lesorub 5 October 2020 09: 57
      +2
      Quote: ASAD
      Armenia needs to buy several units of TOP, you look and a no-fly zone will appear!

      Armenia has "Torah" in stock, but the exact number is not known.
    6. Airdefense
      Airdefense 5 October 2020 14: 35
      +1
      It is possible, but the economy is not in favor of the TOP in the fight against UAVs, especially with light reconnaissance UAVs. It can be considered as a temporary solution to plugging the hole, but in the future, other means are needed to deal with the UAV, the main criterion is the cost of defeat is not more expensive than the UAV itself.
    7. venik
      venik 5 October 2020 16: 09
      +2
      Quote: ASAD
      Armenia needs to buy several units of TOP, you look and a no-fly zone will appear!

      ========
      Late with the advice of the year for TWO! Have already bought "Tor-M2KM" !! They put KaAZ on the chassis !:
  2. Cowbra
    Cowbra 5 October 2020 05: 59
    -7
    Everything is much simpler - after the collapse of the USSR, NATO was going to exclusively attack, and without options - the troops of savages without aircraft. And the United States had no intention of defending itself before - Europe's path is steaming, and they will attack the USSR from across the sea. Therefore, we do not have advanced technologies, they are backward, but better. We have air defense and missile defense. They just don't have it AT ALL.
    Proven by Aramko and the broken-down bases in Iraq
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 5 October 2020 21: 22
      +1
      Not so: the basis of the states' ground air defense is aviation. They do not pay much attention to ground-based air defense systems, they really are not a fountain. But it doesn't make much sense to resist them either: no one else has so many combat aircraft, the states' life in this regard is much easier than ours. But if the states need, then they can create serious air defense: look at the naval air defense systems (aegis, sm-2, sm-3, sm-6) - very worthy means.
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 5 October 2020 22: 08
        0
        Well you are right. but it has long been proven that the Air Force is not capable of on-site air defense
  3. PSih2097
    PSih2097 5 October 2020 06: 05
    +2
    by the way, the expected view of the launcher of the new short-range air defense system with the Iris-T missile defense system and the structure of the battery ...

  4. Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 5 October 2020 06: 09
    +2
    Yes, in the means of electronic warfare, anti-aircraft defense and air defense, we are "ahead of the rest" - for now.
    This allows you to reduce the cost of the development process, but always leaves Western developers one step behind and the creators of other types of military equipment (for example, aviation missile systems) и Russian designers who are improving air defense systems without waiting for someone to do their work for them.
    I suspect that the preposition "OT" should replace the conjunction "I". Otherwise, everything is in one heap.
  5. military_cat
    military_cat 5 October 2020 06: 29
    +4
    The first "bell" for lovers of easy routes rang in 2015, when the Australian army, when ordering the air defense missile system MD NASAMS 2, categorically refused to purchase the existing radars that are part of these complexes. Thus confirming that non-specialized radars do not fully meet the tasks facing the MD air defense system. The Australians demanded the development of a new radar, although they retained the exploded layout.

    The Australians put on the air defense system a radar taken from the Navy - this is the question of non-specialization. In addition, they did not "demand its development", but gave the order for the supply of radars to the local Australian company CEA Technologies, which is quite understandable.
  6. Ros 56
    Ros 56 5 October 2020 07: 38
    -3
    Our business is no worse than oil and gas with food. And if you also provide military assistance (on the basis of the UN Charter and international law) and take good money for it, and in the absence of them, you can take with minerals or something else. But scattering advanced technologies is not good.
  7. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 5 October 2020 07: 56
    0
    For the "TOR ..." air defense missile system, a small "budget" missile is being developed to combat, for example, a UAV of the "Pantsir" type of "anti-aircraft nails" air defense missile system ... good drinks
    1. Operator
      Operator 5 October 2020 13: 26
      -1
      The main thing is the number of short-range anti-aircraft missiles on one air defense system (at least 100 units) to eliminate the overload of the complex by the number of simultaneously attacking cheap targets.

      So far, domestic developers have not been able to implement this even in the project, since they are still chasing the range / altitude of anti-aircraft missiles, and even yesterday (before Syria and Armenia) it was necessary to move to the nearest zone of several kilometers to destroy ammunition, and not their carriers. Well, small UAVs to the heap.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 5 October 2020 14: 39
        +2
        I agree with you ! I myself have long come to the conclusion that we need to pay special attention to the fight against ammunition, and not just against carriers! Back at the end of the last century, I drew attention to the fact that, for example, aviation is increasingly receiving ammunition, the characteristics of which say that the carrier (aircraft) has the ability to use these outside the zone of action of enemy air defense! Naturally ... there is an idea that it is necessary to create air defense systems specifically to combat aircraft weapons; because. the plane is still "far away"! Moreover, the destruction of ammunition is "facilitated" by the fact that most of the available ammunition does not maneuver ... and, knowing their ultimate goal, it is easier to calculate the trajectory of approach and finding the ammunition at each point of this trajectory! Now, one can often "hear" reproaches against the "Osa", "Strela-10M .." air defense systems in Karabakh ... Like, the height of the defeat is too small ... the range ... Moreover, the emphasis is on the defeat of the aircraft themselves! And the lurch begins: you give "Pantsiri" and "TORs" to Karabakh! "Throw out" "Wasps" and "Arrows"! Again I have to remember Kartsev with his crayfish 3 rubles each. and 5 p. ! But now, perhaps, more attention should be paid to the development of means of destruction of UAVs and ammunition ... kind of, KAZ!
  8. Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay 5 October 2020 08: 28
    0
    By the way, Azerbaijan has 8 tori. It is not known only whether they worked in the conflict and how.
  9. Undecim
    Undecim 5 October 2020 08: 41
    10
    Another illiterate amateur propagandist on the VO website, who has "there are serious doubts about the possibility of using missiles with IKGSN in difficult climatic conditions and in the dark."
    Author, you at least read Wikipedia before writing your agitation, so as not to write such nonsense.
    Project 7628 Kampluftvern is not a "western project", but a Norwegian one, by "Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace" and is not equipped "UR IRIS-T" которая "was put into service in 2005", and SAM IRIS-T SL, entered service in 2015.
    The fact that a missile launcher launched from a ground-based launcher has a speed lower than an SD launched from an airplane is generally a congenial discovery! Author - all SAMs from all countries of the world are launched from ground-based launchers. All! The speeds of the 9M338K rocket and the IRIS-T SL rocket are the same - 1000 m / s.
  10. Operator
    Operator 5 October 2020 09: 53
    -9
    The Thor air defense missile system is absolutely unsuitable for fighting small-sized air targets such as the most massive reconnaissance UAVs, loitering ammunition and guided artillery shells / mines.

    Even if the Torah radar station is not clogged with elementary electronic interference, the air defense system will simply be overloaded with the amount of simultaneously attacking penny ammunition.
    1. Fizik M
      Fizik M 5 October 2020 10: 26
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      The Thor air defense missile system is absolutely unsuitable for fighting small-sized air targets such as the most massive reconnaissance UAVs, loitering ammunition and guided artillery shells / mines.

      Dyusha, don't talk nonsense, it hurts.
      In the same Syria, he "clicked" their MUCH MORE "Shell"
      Quote: Operator
      Even if the Torah radar station is not clogged with elementary electronic interference,

      Dyusha, have you decided to work as a clone on the subject of electronic warfare?
      Come on, make people laugh
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 5 October 2020 21: 25
      0
      The penny ammunition simply won't reach Thor. And they have little explosives for serious mischief. And those that both fly and hit are no longer cheap.
      1. Operator
        Operator 5 October 2020 21: 45
        -3
        How much does a 300/400 mm caliber URS with a range of up to 200 km cost, launched from a Smerch / WS-2D MLRS?

        For reference: the cost of the Tor air defense system without ammunition is 370 million rubles in 2018 prices.
  11. Fizik M
    Fizik M 5 October 2020 09: 57
    +4
    The plant recently signed a cooperation agreement with the military innovative technopolis ERA (see National Defense).

    lol
    "Like a horse whinnying" laughing
    You need to understand WHERE IEMZ is located (which is not just a "plant with a design bureau", but "picked up" the key developers of NIEMI) and "where" is the "circle of pioneers named after Vasya Pupkin" called "Era" negative
    "Voshams with burning eyes" highly recommend to ask ZP level in this "INNOVATIVE TEGOPOLIC" wassat
    At the level of catering eateries
  12. Fizik M
    Fizik M 5 October 2020 10: 01
    +3
    Russian designers who improve air defense systems without waiting for someone to do their work for them

    laughing
    UR IRIS-T was put into service in 2005, that is, a promising air defense system is being created for a rocket fifteen years ago! (Note that the 9M338K SAM "Tor-M2" was put into service only five years ago.)

    fool
    author, you would at least google when 338 rocket STARTED to develop!
    it was still "in the late USSR"!
    In particular, there are serious doubts about the possibility of using missiles with IKGSN in difficult climatic conditions and in the dark.

    looks like a school physics course author -> author -> author googled lol
    "Pepsi generation" ...
  13. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 5 October 2020 10: 50
    0
    In particular, it raises serious doubts about the possibility of using missiles with IKGSN ...... in the dark
    Thor is definitely good. This agitation from the press service of the "Kupol" also, except for this incomprehensible phrase.
    1. Fizik M
      Fizik M 5 October 2020 11: 29
      0
      Quote: KVU-NSVD
      This campaign from the press service of "Kupola"

      The dome has nothing to do with this FUCK
      1. KVU-NSVD
        KVU-NSVD 5 October 2020 11: 35
        +3
        Quote: Fizik M
        The dome has nothing to do with this FUCK

        Yes ? But it looks very much like a standard craft from the press service. The language is professionally connected, the advantages of the product are emphasized, the disadvantages are not voiced, the competitors are criticized, and the controversial points are bypassed as much as possible. Everything is like in a marketing textbook.
        1. Fizik M
          Fizik M 5 October 2020 11: 59
          0
          Quote: KVU-NSVD
          professionally-

          there is NOTHING "professional" in this OPUS
          Quote: KVU-NSVD
          competitors criticized

          WHERE?
          this is not "criticism", but an illiterate nonsense
          1. srelock
            srelock 5 October 2020 14: 44
            0
            Quote: Fizik M
            there is NOTHING "professional" in this OPUS ... this is not "criticism", but an illiterate nonsense
            It's funny to watch one "professional" criticize another laughing
            1. Fizik M
              Fizik M 5 October 2020 14: 55
              -3
              Quote: srelock
              It's funny to watch

              how are you blazing lol
              extinguish your "fillet" with a fire extinguisher laughing
  14. Byurer
    Byurer 5 October 2020 19: 59
    0
    "... how good we are, how bad they are .."
  15. Generator Systems
    Generator Systems 31 October 2020 01: 55
    -1
    It's even funny now in the course of Drones and Air Defense, what will happen next