Military Review

News of the "Birds catcher" project: unification and intelligent systems

138

SAM "Sosna" of serial appearance on the chassis of the BMP-3. The "bird catcher" for the ground forces will be similar. Shot from the reportage of the TV company "Star"


Currently, a promising short-range anti-aircraft missile system "Birdies" is being developed for the ground and airborne forces. In the future, it will have to replace outdated products of the Strela-10 line and increase the potential of the military air defense. Recently, new details of a promising project have become known. We are talking about the introduction of fundamentally new solutions in the field of management tools.

Latest news


On December 4, Izvestia announced new information about the "Birdcatcher" project. The data was obtained from sources in the Ministry of Defense, in the defense industry, as well as from a new technical task. It is reported that a fundamental decision has been made to equip a promising air defense system with an "intelligent combat control system." In addition, a competition has begun for the development of optoelectronic devices for the complex. All these works will be completed by the end of next year.

It is proposed to develop new means of observation and combat control with a high degree of automation, capable of taking over some of the operator's tasks. The optical-electronic system of the air defense missile system will have to ensure the observation of the airspace. In this case, it is necessary to make it as resistant to interference and suppression systems as possible. The intelligent control system of the air defense missile system will process the incoming signal and identify targets.

At the request of the Ministry of Defense, Ptitselov's automatic equipment will be able not only to detect, but also to identify aerial targets. It will have to distinguish between aircraft, helicopters, UAVs, missiles, etc., determine their belonging and provide fire. Due to this, the load on the calculation will be reduced to a minimum without losses in combat effectiveness.

News of the "Birds catcher" project: unification and intelligent systems

Experimental complex "Sosna" on the MT-LB chassis. Photo Missilery.info

The principle of operation of an air defense missile system with such equipment is disclosed. When entering a position, the complexes will receive their area of ​​responsibility: a sector and a range of heights. Automation will have to monitor this space, detect and fire at targets. The work of the calculation of the combat vehicle will actually be reduced to the delivery of the complex to the position and the inclusion of automatic systems.

Modernization result


In the recent past, it has been repeatedly reported that the basis of the promising air defense system "Ptitselov" will be the finished project "Sosna". Provided for the installation of the combat module "Sosny" on the chassis of different types that meet customer requirements. At the same time, it was assumed that the module will not undergo significant changes, and the improvements will be associated only with the features of the base chassis.

According to the latest news, the Pines module will undergo a significant update. It is proposed to replace the standard optical-electronic means and control system with new products with different characteristics and capabilities. Earlier, information was received about the possible equipping of the air defense system with its own search and guidance radar. The features and capabilities under development are likely to require improved communications for data exchange and control.

Earlier it was reported that "Birdies" will use the standard anti-aircraft guided missile "Sosny", known under the index 9M340. In the summer of this year, it was reported about plans to modernize this missile in order to improve the main technical and combat characteristics. At the same time, it is obvious that the use of such a missile defense system, even in its original configuration, will provide serious advantages over the existing Strela-10 air defense system.

Two variants of one complex


Recall that the development of a short-range air defense system for the military air defense "Birdies" began in 2017-18. in the interests of the Airborne Forces. The anti-aircraft systems in service with the latter are outdated, and it is necessary to find a replacement for them. It was in this capacity that the new "Birdman" was initially considered. Taking into account the special needs of the Airborne Forces, it was decided to build it on the serial chassis of the BMD-4M airborne combat vehicle. Such an air defense system will be able to work in the same battle formations with "winged infantry", incl. parachute with her.


The combat module "Sosny", after revision, will go to the air defense system "Birdies". Photo Missilery.info

This summer it became known that the ground forces were interested in the "Birdcatcher" project. Their own version of the complex is being developed for them. Its main difference from the landing gear is the chassis. For unification with other samples, the BMP-3 tracked chassis was selected in service.

The development of a new combat module, combining the Sosny units and new systems, will continue until the end of 2021. The experimental design work of the Birds is planned to be completed in 2022. In the same year, the new complex is expected to be adopted and the re-equipment of air defense units of land and airborne troops.

Perhaps the Birdcatcher will not be the only ground force novelty in its class. Last year, a version of the Sosna air defense system based on the BMP-3 chassis was shown. Then it was argued that this is the serial appearance of the complex, and in this form it can go into service. If it is adopted, then the ground forces in the coming years will receive two maximum unified air defense systems at once. However, one of them may be abandoned in order to simplify and reduce the cost of air defense modernization.

Desired benefits


In the coming years, the air defense of the two branches of the armed forces will face an interesting update in all respects. The new air defense systems for the army and the airborne forces will be unified among themselves in key systems and components. In doing so, they will use well-mastered serial chassis, consisting of the supply of two structures. The positive consequences of such unification are obvious.

"Ptitselov" and "Sosna", in contrast to the air defense systems of previous generations, have modern means of communication and control, ensuring their integration into a large air defense system. In addition, an increase in efficiency should be expected due to new detection tools and an “intelligent control system” being developed.


Advertising image "Pines". In the near future, similar materials should appear on the new "Birdcatcher". Graphics KB Tochmash

When using the existing 9M340 missile defense system from the Sosna air defense system, the promising Ptitselov will be able to intercept targets at ranges up to 10 km and altitudes up to 5 km. The missile is guided by a laser beam, maneuver with an overload of up to 40 is allowed. The upgraded version of the missile will have a greater range and altitude, which will increase the Pines or Poultry Fighter's area of ​​responsibility and increase the likelihood of timely target hitting.

The main task of the "Ptitselov" in the layered air defense system will be the "completion" of individual aircraft or attack weapons that have managed to break through the zones of responsibility of other air defense systems. The experience of recent conflicts shows that these will mainly be small UAVs and high-precision weapon... The potential of such systems is well known, and they require a timely response from air defense.

The future of military air defense


Thus, the development of a promising short-range air defense system for two branches of the armed forces continues, and new details of this project are regularly known. At the same time, the desired results and the approximate timing of their receipt have already been announced. All such news allows us to make optimistic forecasts about the future of military air defense.

It is curious that reports about certain features of the "Ptitselov" arrive regularly and form an ever more detailed picture, but the appearance of this air defense system has not yet been officially published. Apparently, the complex will be shown in the near future at one of the exhibitions - in the form of a model or a prototype.
Author:
138 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. polpot
    polpot 9 December 2020 18: 06
    +11
    Thanks for the information, it will definitely not be superfluous.
  2. Pavel57
    Pavel57 9 December 2020 18: 13
    +5
    Was there a comparison of missiles from the Sosna and Pantsir complexes?
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 9 December 2020 19: 29
      0
      Quote: Pavel57
      Was there a comparison of missiles from the Sosna and Pantsir complexes?

      And what is there to compare? Here, as in the march of collective farmers ...: "along the road they rustled, the wires hummed ... I never change the" bayonet "big to small!" .....
  3. svp67
    svp67 9 December 2020 18: 16
    +11
    When using the existing 9M340 missile defense system from the Sosna air defense system, the promising Ptitselov will be able to intercept targets at ranges up to 10 km and altitudes up to 5 km.
    And "Bayraktars" climb 8 km ... it's not good anymore. So, in addition to a new guidance system, new missiles are needed, and a NEW combat vehicle is obtained.
    1. The popuas
      The popuas 9 December 2020 18: 29
      +3
      I thought about it too! It will not be superfluous for the ground forces, but useless for the Airborne Forces, because there is little height!
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 9 December 2020 20: 10
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      in addition to a new guidance system, new missiles are needed, and a NEW combat vehicle is obtained.

      Duc, what's new in the "laser-beam" guidance system? The difference is that not a radio command? Why in Russia, how devilishly incense, are they "afraid" of zur with GOS? anti-aircraft ....? Well, yes ... I know, I know .... it's expensive, and indeed, "Shurik is not our method ..."! And what about "large crayfish and 5 rubles (!) ... and small 3 rubles each ...?"
      1. Sahalinets
        Sahalinets 9 December 2020 21: 59
        -1
        Duc, we do not get the GOS ...
        1. pmkemcity
          pmkemcity 10 December 2020 06: 16
          -4
          Quote: Sahalinets
          Duc, we do not get the GOS ...

          Behold at the root! As Kozma Prutkov said. Key words - SELF-guidance and radio-command. Well, a totalitarian society cannot afford SELF guidance, SELF-government, etc.
          1. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 10 December 2020 14: 00
            -3
            there are no problems with the GOS, there is no order from the military, but since KAZs have become fashionable, the appearance of ATGMs with an attack from above is only a matter of time ... but for tanks it is generally vital ... still the rate of fire .. and after the development of the version for the tank, putting the gsn on the same Cornet is not a problem at all
      2. nobody75
        nobody75 9 December 2020 23: 09
        -4
        Why in Russia, like the devil, incense are "afraid" of zur with the GOS

        There are no signal processes ...
        Sincerely
      3. qQQQ
        qQQQ 10 December 2020 09: 39
        0
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        Why in Russia, like the devil, incense are "afraid" of zur with the GOS

        Any GOS can be jammed and led away with false targets, eternal competition. For short-range air defense, in my opinion, there is nothing better and more versatile than laser guidance. It is almost impossible to put interference, the target will jump out of the aerosol cloud in a second, this is not on the ground, the tracking time is seconds.
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 10 December 2020 10: 40
          +1
          There is a bolt for any cunning nut! Interference exists, practically, for all types of guidance based on the principle of signal transmission from the outside! (Not by washing, so by rolling ...) No matter how it was, the threat of interference did not bury the GOS! And this "direction" is still considered promising! For the advantages of the GOS over "telecontrol" outweigh the disadvantages! Moreover, I am not "against" telecontrolled missiles (radio command, laser-beam, radio beam ...)! I clearly said: let there be those and these! "Three rubles and five rubles!"
          1. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 10 December 2020 14: 01
            -7
            ideally, you need a 3-mode rocket ... with a seeker, with a camera and a beam ..
        2. nobody75
          nobody75 10 December 2020 20: 06
          +1
          Excuse me, but how many targets can such a system fire simultaneously? Laser trail guidance ... why? We need a normal lidar with the ability to transmit commands to missiles.
          Sincerely
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 10 December 2020 21: 27
            0
            Quote: nobody75
            We need a normal lidar with the ability to transmit commands to missiles.

            Yes, there is such a concept! The Americans developed a helicopter anti-tank system ... (only I keep forgetting the name!), Consisting of a lidar (laser scanner), a block of hypersonic kinetic anti-tank missiles with a laser-command guidance system ... The system should have the ability to target several missiles at once when salvo launch ...
            1. nobody75
              nobody75 10 December 2020 22: 39
              0
              And if for the needs of close air defense to dream further ... Then the use of lidar with afar and algorithms of "machine vision" with pattern recognition will allow the missile - cannon complex to repel the attacks of swarm UAVs, making a salvo launch of missiles and completing the bursting UAVs from the cannons !. But today, lidar-based machine vision systems have a range of 150 meters ...
              Sincerely
      4. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 10 December 2020 16: 49
        0
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        Why in Russia, as the devil, incense are "afraid" of zur with GOS? Then they were afraid of pturs with GOS ... now, however, the "fried rooster" nevertheless reached the "minds" of high military ranks with an anti-tank chopik ... anti-aircraft ....?

        Because "I won't shoot locators!". © one of the Chief designers of the Soviet air defense systems.
        For the USSR, ARLGSN for missiles were too expensive. In addition, RKTU allowed firing at an invisible target; the goal that derailed the AU; target hidden behind the interference. Switched to manual - and you move the strobe across the screen manually at about the same speed as the mark from the target before.
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 10 December 2020 18: 27
          0
          Yes, they would say what has long been known ...: telecontrolled missiles are weapons of the poor!
        2. nobody75
          nobody75 10 December 2020 20: 08
          0
          In my opinion, it was Shipunov who said ... And in "Fazatron" it was always believed that in the field of radar, Tula is a village ...
          Sincerely
      5. Shopping Mall
        Shopping Mall 11 December 2020 15: 53
        +1
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        Quote: svp67
        in addition to a new guidance system, new missiles are needed, and a NEW combat vehicle is obtained.

        Duc, what's new in the "laser-beam" guidance system? The difference is that not a radio command? Why in Russia, how devilishly incense, are they "afraid" of zur with GOS? anti-aircraft ....? Well, yes ... I know, I know .... it's expensive, and indeed, "Shurik is not our method ..."! And what about "large crayfish and 5 rubles (!) ... and small 3 rubles each ...?"


        The question is different, by themselves air defense systems and ATGMs with command guidance can take place, because they are cheap. But why the same air defense systems do not make on the basis of missiles in-in with a booster and a seeker, like Western countries, is not clear. For example, on the basis of the R-77 or R-73.
    3. riwas
      riwas 10 December 2020 05: 21
      +1
      And "Bayraktars" rise by 8 km.

      Not only. MAM-L has a range of up to 14 km using the global positioning system.
      https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5f32e9a5424002443f4bd739/maml-voorujenie-tureckih-bespilotnikov-kotoroe-unichtojaet-tanki-5f948be046218d3c842272fb
    4. Servisinzhener
      Servisinzhener 10 December 2020 12: 40
      0
      And "Bayraktars" rise 8 km ... not good anymore
      It's really bad in a dueling situation. But if the air defense operates as an organized system, then the Buk air defense missile system will operate on this Bayraktar at this height. Moreover, it will be able to do this long before the UAV can approach it at the launch range of its missiles.
    5. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 10 December 2020 13: 56
      -4
      at an altitude of 8 km, other complexes will already finish shooting it ... the problems of the Armenians, that they did not import them in the required quantities
    6. alexmach
      alexmach 11 December 2020 00: 28
      +1
      Above, this is most likely beyond the capabilities of optical systems ... So you need both a radar and radio command guidance ... wait, but the systems already exist. Thor and Carapace ..
      1. nobody75
        nobody75 11 December 2020 11: 15
        0
        Above, this is most likely beyond the capabilities of optical systems.

        Initially, lidar was created to accurately measure the parameters of the moon's orbit ...
        Sincerely
      2. petroff
        petroff 15 December 2020 14: 17
        0
        Yes, but on MTLB, BMP and BMD it is impossible to pile them up. Especially Thor. They tried something with a shell, there were smaller versions, like "Roman" on the BMD chassis. But it didn't.
  4. paul3390
    paul3390 9 December 2020 18: 17
    +4
    I don’t understand something - the altitude of the same Bayraktar, for example, is stated to be 8 km, and here it is only 5 km away. And then what is the point in the complex? what
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 9 December 2020 18: 27
      -1
      Besides Bayraktarov, nothing else flies? How to shoot down kamikaze drones? Against the MALE class, other air defense systems are needed, S300 / 250 / BUK.
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 9 December 2020 18: 32
        +3
        Are you also going to drop the C300 with Buki in the first wave of landing with parachutes?
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 9 December 2020 18: 44
          -2
          And how are you going to shoot down a target at an altitude of 9 km and a range of 25-30 km? TB2S are working at these heights and ranges and ammunition is already available for them.
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 9 December 2020 23: 03
            +2
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            How are you going to shoot down a target at an altitude of 9 km and a range of 25-30 km?

            The missiles of this air defense missile system has a greater range than that of the "Strela-10" and as I understand it, he came to replace it. You still put him in the negative that he will not get the strategist.
            1. alexmach
              alexmach 11 December 2020 00: 32
              +1
              You still put him in the negative that he will not get the strategist.

              Well, okay, but who will he get it? The same MALE is no longer there. Maybe a helicopter.
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 11 December 2020 02: 42
                -1
                Quote: alexmach
                Well, who will he get it?

                The car was created according to the terms of reference, which means there is a need for such a car.
                1. alexmach
                  alexmach 11 December 2020 11: 02
                  +2
                  written about 29 years ago? With the aim of replacing the arrow-10?
                  I don't know, it seems to me that the very concept of military air defense requires a serious update.
      2. svp67
        svp67 9 December 2020 18: 33
        +2
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        Drones-kamikaze than shoot down

        And for this this complex, in this form, is not quite suitable, it would be necessary to raise the BC, otherwise it will be too small, too small
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 9 December 2020 18: 53
          +4
          So far normal, 12 missiles, in a platoon of three cars 36 missiles. You can make another row of 3 missiles, then 18 missiles on one machine, the platoon is already 54 missiles. More than enough.
          But we need a barrel SPAAG in addition.
          1. svp67
            svp67 9 December 2020 20: 11
            +1
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            So far, normal, 12 missiles, in a platoon of three cars 36 missiles.

            Oh, whether ... Three platoons in batteries, Battery for a regiment-brigade, taking into account that they will still be drawn to cover the rear and headquarters ... Little, 54 still did not go where, taking into account "Derivation-SV" and "Flexible" will come down, taking into account "TOP", in the second echelon
          2. psiho117
            psiho117 10 December 2020 19: 36
            0
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            But we need a barrel SPAAG in addition.

            Yes, a banal DBM with a 12,7 machine gun to put on it - and that will significantly increase its anti-drone capabilities.
            Those same loitering ammunition are very slow-moving, they can be shot down with light if you notice it in time. Or quadrics with Ali-express, 12,7 on them - behind the eyes.
        2. Brturin
          Brturin 10 December 2020 11: 54
          0
          Quote: svp67
          And for this this complex, in this form, is not quite suitable, it would be necessary to raise the BC, otherwise it will be too small, too small

          it is not suitable for Bayraktar in height, but Bayraktor itself is not dangerous, but what it launches, the question is whether it is capable of knocking down all sorts of planning and other "surprises" ...
          1. svp67
            svp67 10 December 2020 13: 50
            0
            Quote: BrTurin
            for Bayraktar it is not suitable in height, but after all, it is not the Bayraktor itself that is dangerous, but what it launches,

            Don't you think that it is more effective to immediately shoot down a flying platform, which is still carrying its deadly load, than to catch this "load" later one by one?
            1. Brturin
              Brturin 10 December 2020 14: 20
              0
              Quote: svp67
              it is more efficient to immediately shoot down a flying platform,

              This is indisputable, but an increase in range and height requires an appropriate missile, for me everyone should do their own thing - to shoot down platforms, the case of BUKs, etc ..., and to protect the front line ... longer-range missiles and the detection system will require more places and, accordingly, a decrease in ammunition. Air defense on the first line for me should shoot down all sorts of kamikaze, planning and all sorts of other "little things", but in large quantities (having, if possible, more ammunition with the "compactness" of the complex itself ...
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 9 December 2020 19: 19
      +2
      Quote: paul3390
      the height of the same, say Bayraktar, is declared 8 km, but here it is only 5 km away. And then what is the point in the complex?

      Fir-trees ... Pavlik is sure that as soon as "out of nowhere" appear in the sky Bayraktars, the sky becomes clear and cloudless! Low clouds and fogs there all disappear at once ... the suspended ammunition is urgently "relieved" after shouting "Bayraktar!" And the aforementioned eroplane is left proudly flying yaks to the petrel at a height of eight kilOmeters! And why did you decide that “only fools are sitting in the Central Committee?” After all, the “party and government” have already promised that, at the request of the military workers, the performance characteristics, Sosny “will be increased! 12 kilometers ...
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 9 December 2020 19: 25
        -3
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        Low clouds and fogs there all disappear at once

        The TB2S is equipped with radar so that fog and low clouds are eliminated. However, in any case, the accuracy of the strikes falls.
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        Wangyu ... range up to 12 km ... "altitude" up to 8 km

        Few, the new Bayraktar is already up to 9 km in height and the operating range is 25-30 km.
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 10 December 2020 11: 01
          0
          1.Radar is not a "panacea"! He will not "see" everything! Not every UAV can be equipped with a radar, and TV2S alone won't do it (so ... "don't talk nonsense" ... wink !)
          2. On what basis do you "forbid" me to "wang"? There is still no "official" data in the public domain! I decided to check the correctness of my analysis to improve the performance characteristics of the modified complexes ...
          3. About nonsense ... If something goes wrong ... call me! I confess ... when I wrote comments on the 9th, I congratulated my neighbor on his birthday "in parallel" ... "It's not my fault ... he came himself!" So, he will celebrate his "birthday" on an expanded scale on Saturday!
        2. nobody75
          nobody75 10 December 2020 20: 12
          0
          Few, the new Bayraktar is already up to 9 km in height and the operating range is 25-30 km.

          And, excuse me, is there a rocket with what guidance for 30 km? Not any LED on Ali will work ...
          Sincerely
      2. paul3390
        paul3390 9 December 2020 19: 41
        0
        Vovik - don't talk nonsense. And do not engage in vanging - operate with the stated performance characteristics.
    3. Smirnoff
      Smirnoff 9 December 2020 22: 58
      +17
      Quote: paul3390
      the height of the same, say Bayraktar, is declared 8 km, but here it is only 5 km away. And then what is the point in the complex?

      The main job is finishing. The next echelon operates on TV2. If you put everything on Ptitselov ... Then you really need to put Pine, Tunguska, Buk, etc. on one machine at once. In general, its own niche in echeloned air defense.
      And after the revision, this Birdman will already approach Thor.
    4. Servisinzhener
      Servisinzhener 10 December 2020 12: 46
      0
      It would also be nice to know the declared maximum target height of 5 km, given for the target at what distance, moving at what speed and in what direction relative to the air defense system.
    5. Rzzz
      Rzzz 11 December 2020 14: 06
      0
      Quote: paul3390
      the height of the same, say Bayraktar, is declared 8 km

      Not "8 km", but "up to 8 km". There is a significant difference.
      First, the higher, the less load it can lift. Reconnaissance with a small camera is one thing, an impact mission with a full load of bombs is another.
      Secondly, the higher the altitude, the greater the radar signature. It is possible to detect an apparatus approaching at a high altitude earlier, and to take all necessary measures in advance.
      Therefore, it is not at all a fact that he will fly at full height.
      1. petroff
        petroff 15 December 2020 14: 27
        0
        Radar signature !?
        Reread the article, Ptitselov and Sosna do not have a radar station. No. Absolutely.
        1. Rzzz
          Rzzz 16 December 2020 20: 08
          +1
          Can they get external target designation? From some S-400. The shell can, as far as I know.
          1. petroff
            petroff 18 December 2020 15: 19
            0
            Ummm. Receive outwardly !? Well, they threw Ptitselov off the plane as part of the landing group. Together with BMD and Octopus ... How many hundreds of kilometers will the C400 with radars be !? I have no doubt that some kind of radar such as Don2. A drone can track it for hundreds or even thousands of kilometers. But the fact is that the Poultryman, who is the devil on Easter cakes in the rear of the enemy, will take something ... He will be found along the channel first and will strike.
            1. Rzzz
              Rzzz 19 December 2020 10: 33
              +1
              If this is some kind of operation, then the A50 should fly somewhere.
  5. Ros 56
    Ros 56 9 December 2020 18: 33
    -1
    The principle of operation of an air defense missile system with such equipment is disclosed. When entering a position, the complexes will receive their area of ​​responsibility: a sector and a range of heights.

    Of course, I could be wrong, but the Airborne Forces do not jump to the rear of the foe with armies, and who will give sectors and altitude ranges when an attack on a landing can begin from any direction. fellow
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 9 December 2020 19: 08
      +2
      The Airborne Forces are primarily airmobile troops. They do not need to jump with a parachute, the main thing is the ability to relatively quickly transfer by airplanes to any point. Like the 31st airborne brigade in Karabakh.
      The principle of conducting large parachute landing operations is a very dubious idea, but airmobility is simply necessary in modern realities.
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 9 December 2020 19: 11
        -1
        So what am I talking about?
      2. Ros 56
        Ros 56 9 December 2020 19: 17
        +2
        The Airborne Forces are primarily airmobile troops.

        Yeah, unas in the club all the instructors were former paratroopers, so during the service they had the most mobile legs - yours, ours. True, it was a long time ago.
      3. nobody75
        nobody75 10 December 2020 20: 14
        -1
        The Airborne Forces are primarily airmobile troops.

        Such "tolerant" troops are only in Ukraine ... We don't have such perversions!
        Sincerely
    2. svp67
      svp67 9 December 2020 20: 21
      0
      Quote: Ros 56
      and who will it give sectors

      Air defense chief of a brigade or landing
    3. petroff
      petroff 15 December 2020 14: 29
      0
      Sectors are allocated prior to disembarkation. Personally, your sector is 30 degrees in the direction of movement of the column. The rest occupy places and sectors based on the instructions received before disembarking.
  6. rocket757
    rocket757 9 December 2020 18: 52
    +5
    Carriers of strike weapons, due to the development of these strike weapons, become inaccessible to short-range air defense !!! it is more difficult to shoot down ammunition than carriers, the costs are not commensurate !!!
    Unless as the last line of defense .... then it's clear.
    Those. and army air defense only complex, with all the elements and systems, plus coordination with cover aviation!
    Something like this.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 9 December 2020 19: 04
      +2
      Quote: rocket757
      Unless as the last line of defense .... then it's clear.

      This is what the article says about it.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 9 December 2020 19: 28
        +5
        This is understandable ... but it seems to some that any such remedy is a panacea for everything and everyone, they are very surprised when, somewhere, for some reason, our systems are used not for their intended purpose or not correctly, are destroyed without accomplishing a "miracle" ...
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 9 December 2020 21: 05
          +2
          Quote: rocket757
          but it seems to some that any such remedy is a panacea for everything and everyone

          Unfortunately.
    2. Icarus
      Icarus 10 December 2020 11: 31
      +1
      Quote: rocket757
      Carriers of strike weapons, due to the development of these strike weapons, become inaccessible to short-range air defense !!! it is more difficult to shoot down ammunition than carriers, the costs are not commensurate !!!
      Unless as the last line of defense .... then it's clear.
      Those. and army air defense only complex, with all the elements and systems, plus coordination with cover aviation!
      Something like this.

      I agree with you. But a question arises. Isn't it a little expensive for ammunition, for kamikaze drones to shoot rockets? And if there is a swarm of them (in the future)? For the closest and last line, in my opinion, in addition to missiles on the same chassis, something smashing with a cloud of small projectiles (mini-Derivation, for example) would be suitable, if, of course, it was possible to interface with observation and fire control equipment on this the same base.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 10 December 2020 12: 17
        +2
        We have discussed and will continue to do so.
        I have always said that an integrated approach is needed! Effective and possibly not very expensive.
        And as always I repeat that the most reliable air defense is your own tanks on foreign airfields, launch sites and control points !!! Because no defense can provide absolute protection, because strike assets are developing very intensively and always, somewhat ahead.
      2. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 11 December 2020 15: 04
        -2
        Quote: Icarus
        And if there is a swarm of them (in the future)?

        Why no one will come up with an obvious solution - at the "swarm" should be fired with a projectile with an ultra-low power nuclear warhead (0,1 kt or less). Guaranteed destruction, if not by a shock wave, then by EMP.
        And the cost of an installation with a 130-155 mm anti-aircraft gun and an MSA level of the Second World War is much lower than more sophisticated systems.
      3. petroff
        petroff 15 December 2020 14: 33
        +1
        Or 120mm shrapnel ammunition of some sort of Nona or Octopus ... A kind of shotgun for ducks? winked
      4. petroff
        petroff 15 December 2020 14: 35
        +1
        Oh, or make a minichilka based on the BMD, 4 barrels from KPVT and beat on the swarm until the cartridges run out.
  7. garri-lin
    garri-lin 9 December 2020 19: 19
    +1
    Such a complex desperately needs a compact rocket for light targets. Something like a Nail.
    1. rosomaha
      rosomaha 9 December 2020 21: 38
      0
      and with a seeker and a range of at least 8-10 km
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 10 December 2020 07: 16
        +1
        This will change the whole concept. This device is not supposed to work by its carriers, but by means of destruction. From those carriers who broke through the barrier of more complex and expensive air defense elements.
    2. alexmach
      alexmach 11 December 2020 00: 42
      0
      So, this, he has just such a rocket and is the main one, actually.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 11 December 2020 01: 38
        0
        The standard pine rocket is 2,5 meters long and weighs under 50 kg. A smaller nail. And strong. In the TPK, a shell with a diameter of 170 mm becomes 4 nails. So it's not a regular one.
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 11 December 2020 10: 28
          0
          I'm not talking about the Pine shooting "Nails", which, by the way, are still in development according to the latest information, but about the fact that the regular Pine rocket is the "younger sister" of the Shell Rocket. Even in terms of weight, it seems to be half that of the shell.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 11 December 2020 12: 24
            +1
            Well, plus or minus something like this. But Nails or their analogue will not hurt either. It doesn't matter in development or already in the troops, it was necessary to take care of compatibility initially. Too many small targets over the modern battlefield. And this despite the fact that mass trick drones are not yet used.
            1. alexmach
              alexmach 11 December 2020 12: 35
              0
              In my opinion, this is the least of all problems. Now, first of all, the question of how to build a military air defense system is topical. It is clear that it should be complex, but how exactly it should, in principle, work is not clear at all. And what funds should be and at what level is also not completely clear. Again, a good question is what goals this system should have in priority. Well, the question of the economy of this whole business cannot be written off either. And what kind of rocket system is there and how many of them are needed is a question arising from the previous ones. As for Pine, I repeat, I have the impression that this is just a replacement for Strela-10, without answering systemic questions.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 11 December 2020 18: 43
                0
                That is why the Pine transforms into the Fowler. Which, according to the MSA, seems to be more modern and more pernicious. It will be easier to fit into the new concept. And the concept needs to be worked out based on the main means of attack on the battlefield of a potential enemy. And people are needed with great experience and will. But a pair of Derivation and Birdcatchers looks good.
                1. alexmach
                  alexmach 11 December 2020 20: 36
                  0
                  That is why the Pine transforms into the Fowler. Which according to the MSA seems to be more modern and more pernicious

                  Which doesn't quite answer the questions asked.
                  It will be easier to fit into the new concept

                  First - the concept, then the technique that needs to be entered into it.
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 11 December 2020 21: 28
                    0
                    Well, the general concept will come from industry capabilities as usual. The maximum that they can do for an inexpensive and will be massively used. In general, Buk3 plus Tor2M plus spark Derivation and Poultry for military air defense is quite enough. They can be used as a backbone for retrofitting with the equipment required at a given place. I speak purely for "performers". Half of the important components of the air defense system do not fire. But no less important. I am silent about them, but about them you can speak many times more.
                    1. alexmach
                      alexmach 11 December 2020 22: 32
                      0
                      In general, Buk3 plus Tor2M plus spark Derivation and Poultry for military air defense is quite enough.

                      Well, I mean enough? And at what level will they be enough? Change the old states of Arrows-10 and Shilka for Fowlers and that's enough? And for whom are they enough, if only Bayraktar and other MALE are already beyond the zone of their defeat? But besides them, there are other goals too. And cruise missiles, and planes and helicopters, too, have not been canceled. And drones of small classes.

                      Half of the important components of the air defense system do not fire. But no less important. I am silent about them, but about them you can speak many times more.

                      ABOUT! Well, here I am about that. No, I agree that it is better to have funds than not to have. But they will not be just a panacea by themselves. We need a systematic approach, and it should start with developing a concept ..

                      Here's a recent article made suggestions
                      - means of destruction of air targets should be present already at the company level, albeit simple, multifunctional, economically effective, like the same Derivation, which can be used, if necessary, as an infantry fighting vehicle
                      - Surveillance radars for illumination of the site already at the battalion level, while it is desirable to have them in a portable version. So that in case of defeat, only the radar would suffer, which could simply be replaced or duplicated.

                      They also advised using UAV radars to illuminate the situation.
                      Again, the same BEECHs should be more seriously saturated with the troops. And to organize that very echelon defense. With long-range radar patrol and various weapons.

                      But this is all already a serious change in the staff structure.
                      1. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 12 December 2020 01: 54
                        +1
                        For Bayraktars and others like that, there are Buki and even C 300/350/400. Not Dereviation, not Birds will not be able to, and it is not necessary. Their target is small-sized weapons. The most problematic goal because of the mass character. They can be launched from Bayraktars. S F15. From the ground. Anywhere and they represent a serious headache. And no one has yet thought of letting a pair of wingmen, foam plastic trompe l'oeil without filling, with a combat one. Then the targets over the battlefield will be like midges.
                        And universal radars are needed. So that they see on earth and in the sky. But it is difficult. And expensive. I can't put one like that in every company. And the load on the operators will be prohibitive.
                      2. alexmach
                        alexmach 12 December 2020 12: 36
                        -1
                        For Bayraktars and others like that, there are Buki and even C 300/350/400

                        Well, yes .. The only question is, at what organizational level are they in the military air defense? How much? And what exactly can be covered by such means.

                        And it turns out with the carriers most of the military air defense systems these days and cannot fight. Well, or maybe, but very limited, organizing ambushes ... And it's not even about some strategists, but just about fighter-bombers.
                      3. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 12 December 2020 14: 24
                        0
                        Here you are completely right. But this is a matter of saturating the troops with the necessary equipment. And here everything, as usual, comes down to money. The average range will not pull here. It is necessary to overlap areas for hundreds of kilometers. Well, it depends on the relief.
          2. petroff
            petroff 15 December 2020 14: 54
            0
            At the same time, you need to understand that it is one thing for the landowners in whom this Pine in the same ranks with the same Torah-Buks can practically move together and will be on the catch, and a completely different calico of the Airborne Forces, where it will work alone and only MANPADS can support it maybe, in the future, a cannon deviation, with its 45mm gun. And then she will be the main air defense for the role of which she does not pull.
  • lopvlad
    lopvlad 9 December 2020 19: 37
    +6
    Quote: paul3390
    let's say Bayraktar is declared 8 km

    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
    TB2S are working at these altitudes and ranges and ammunition for them already exists.


    after Armenia got it to its fullest in Karabakh, everyone literally became obsessed with Bayraktar. Bayraktar is a rather large drone that the complexes Buk, Tor, Shell will tear at such speed as hungry dogs a lonely chicken. In the modern world, the main problem is the interception of small reconnaissance and small attack drones (disposable kamikaze drones) as well as interception of weapons that are used by large drones without entering the zone of destruction of military air defense systems, so to combat this dangerous trifle, the "Birds" project will be sharpened, just with the self-explanatory name.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 9 December 2020 20: 07
      -8
      Quote: lopvlad
      Thor, Carapace will tear a lone chicken as fast as hungry dogs.

      Sure sure. But so far everything is exactly the opposite. Destroyed shells and tori (only with photo video confirmation) went to the second dozen. Not to mention the "old" C300, KUB, OSA.
      1. lopvlad
        lopvlad 9 December 2020 21: 07
        +6
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        already went to the second dozen. Not to mention the "old" C300, KUB, OSA.


        maybe you just need to learn how to use this weapon.
        Can you ask, so to speak, in order to improve education?
        That all these destroyed complexes were destroyed later by the fall of Bayraktar or the means of destruction that he used?

        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        Destroyed shells and tori


        But let's figure it out. In the first, Armor C1 was not in service with Armenia and still is not, and at one time Armenia refused to acquire them. With the beginning of the conflict, a request from Armenia for supplies from Russia Armor C1 was rejected.
        At the same time, the "destroyed" complex Pantsir C1 outwardly resembles the Tor-M2KM "which was supplied to Armenia and is in service. Later it turned out that the destroyed complex was produced in Iran.
        "It is known that Pantsir-S in tandem with the Buk-M2E air defense missile system caused great moral and physical damage to the Turkish UAV manufacturer Bayraktar TV2 - about a hundred of these drones were destroyed in less than a year. Now their production has slowed down due to Canada's refusal ( Bombardier Recreational Products) to supply Turkey with engines for drones used in the armed conflict in Karabakh. "Shells" began to "destroy" through information war technologies. At least the message that Bayraktar destroyed "Shell" sounds good. But no more."

        As for the Tors, the "Tor-M2KM" air defense missile system of the Armenian Armed Forces, parked in the garage, was indeed destroyed.

        There is no information about the Buk complexes destroyed by Bayraktor, but there is information about
        "The Armed Forces of Armenia and the NKR showed videos of the downed Bayraktar-TB2 UAVs of Turkish production, while it was stated that these UAVs were shot down by the Buk-M2 air defense missile system, or by the modernized Osa-AK"
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 9 December 2020 23: 32
          -5
          Quote: lopvlad
          maybe you just need to learn how to use this weapon.

          Excuses began.
          Quote: lopvlad
          destroyed in less than a year about a hundred such drones.

          And so many of them were produced in general? laughing This year, 22 TB2s were confirmed to have been shot down in all 3 conflicts.
      2. sivuch
        sivuch 10 December 2020 09: 56
        +1
        Kitty, do not juggle. Thor only destroyed one. There are more shells - only Bayraktars have nothing to do with most of them. S-300 and Osa are old without any quotes. There is only one cube, more precisely 1C91.
    2. dgonni
      dgonni 9 December 2020 21: 03
      +1
      With just such a weapon, it will be more than useless against kamikaze drones and the ammunition of those de bairaktars
      It is generally not clear what and why in modern realities.
      By the way, the same problem with Derivation! A flawed system for the detection and command detonation of the projectile buries quite a promising system.
      For the late 90s, this would be ideal and relevant. In modern realities, both Birds and Derivation without a command radar for target designation and a projectile detonation programmed by an electromagnetic method are ineffective
      1. lopvlad
        lopvlad 9 December 2020 21: 36
        +3
        Quote: dgonni
        It is generally not clear what and why in modern realities.


        each complex invariably has its own individual so-called "blind" zones about which naturally no one will ever openly tell you. Therefore, different complexes are created that seem to be of the same type to an ordinary man in the street. The economic aspect is also important, namely the cost of those very anti-missiles that in light of the reduction in the size of drones and the reduced size of the ammunition used from them becomes more relevant.
        As for the "Birdies" complex, its purpose is to occupy a niche between a soldier with "Verba" MANPADS and the Pantsir, Tor, Buk complexes, which was formed after the obsolescence of the "Strela 10" air defense missile system with its not quite optimistic probability of hitting a target of 0,3-0,6 , XNUMX (and this is for fairly large targets such as a helicopter or an airplane)
        1. dgonni
          dgonni 9 December 2020 22: 14
          -1
          To understand the complete inferiority of Ptitselov and derivation against kamikaze drones and pturs with other bokyuppries from shock drones, just look at the work of Erlikon, which NATO countries are already arming at full speed.
          On VO there was analysis and there was a video. But I will throw it off for the strangers. (https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/systems_and_products/air_defence_systems/mobile_air_defence/index.php#)
          There, the video clearly shows that the electromagnetically programmed shells form a cone of fragments in the drone's path. At the same time, the radar allows detecting small-sized targets at ranges exceeding twice the effective range of the gun. A high rate of fire allows you to effectively shoot down.
          Which, unfortunately, neither Derivation nor Birds can do.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 9 December 2020 23: 21
            -1
            We need a separate vehicle with radar and optical-electronic systems. With the fact that without it, the near-zone air defense is useless, I agree.
            1. lopvlad
              lopvlad 11 December 2020 21: 10
              0
              Quote: OgnennyiKotik
              We need a separate vehicle with radar and optical-electronic systems.


              because we do not have such a separate machine and an inflated military budget, and at the same time we have efficiency.
          2. sivuch
            sivuch 10 December 2020 09: 58
            0
            Team detonation on Derivation and new 30mm shells is no worse than Erlikon's
            1. dgonni
              dgonni 10 December 2020 10: 31
              -1
              It is organized by programming by a laser beam, which imposes restrictions on working in foggy and dusty conditions.
              In the west, this has been tried and rejected!
              Plus, the lack of a radar does not make it possible to accurately determine the distance and heights in real time and quickly make corrections for detonation when firing a burst.
              1. sivuch
                sivuch 10 December 2020 10: 50
                +2
                So what ? The laser rangefinder gives a range to the target no worse than the radar, and the data for detonation are issued at the exit from the barrel when the radiation power is sufficient. And if not enough, then the fog or snowfall or rain is such that no optocouplers work at all, incl. at the foe.
                In the west, this has been tried and rejected! - is that an argument like that?
                1. dgonni
                  dgonni 10 December 2020 11: 26
                  -1
                  This suggests that studies carried out in the West in terms of laser beam programming have shown low reliability and stability on their ELEMENT BASE!
                  And it solved this issue differently!
                  1. sivuch
                    sivuch 10 December 2020 11: 57
                    +3
                    It only says that they did not succeed. But the conversation should be substantive - who, when and how checked it?
                    So far, there is no evidence that the chosen scheme is not working.
              2. lopvlad
                lopvlad 11 December 2020 21: 05
                0
                Quote: dgonni
                Plus, the lack of a radar does not make it possible


                to use a guaranteed high-precision enemy weapon guided by the radar radiation against it. By the way, in Karabakh, an old S-300 of Armenia was destroyed with the help of an Israeli missile located on this radiation.
                1. dgonni
                  dgonni 11 December 2020 21: 36
                  -1
                  In the above link to the video, the system is shown to work against such ammunition. If an Israeli shell attacked the reduced system, it would be destroyed. That's the point!
          3. lopvlad
            lopvlad 11 December 2020 20: 41
            0
            Quote: dgonni
            just look at the work of Erlikon


            What should we look at this completely flawed complex of the 80s. This complex is not only essentially stationary (the time of folding and expanding is huge by today's standards) and therefore survivability on the modern battlefield is minimal, but it can also rip off computer brains

            "On October 18, 2007, the South African robotic gun Oerlikon GDF-005 opened uncontrolled fire in all directions. Nine soldiers were killed and fourteen were wounded on the spot. The military attributed this incident to a malfunction of the computer that controlled the operation of the gun."

            and this already makes him dangerous for the armies where he is in service.
            1. dgonni
              dgonni 11 December 2020 21: 34
              0
              You have confused the generations of Erlikon.
              1. lopvlad
                lopvlad 11 December 2020 22: 12
                0
                Quote: dgonni
                Erlikon's generation


                it's not about the generation in the principle of work and the fact that the weapon has remained "stationary" while with an active radar, which is like smoke from a fire for any countermeasure weapon.
                1. dgonni
                  dgonni 11 December 2020 22: 49
                  -1
                  Again! YOU MISSED GENERATIONS. Watch the video and google the one you wrote about!
                  1. lopvlad
                    lopvlad 12 December 2020 02: 56
                    0
                    Quote: dgonni
                    YOU MUCH GENERATIONS


                    Well, you yourself will confuse, but in any case, apart from mobility, this same 35mm ZSU and this projectile is no longer enough to combat modern low-flying targets such as a helicopter or an airplane. 3500 meters), in fact, allows planes and attack drones to fly over them with impunity and even bomb from above, and even Russian attack helicopters cannot be reached because they have the highest flight altitude higher than this ZSU can.
    3. petroff
      petroff 15 December 2020 15: 18
      0
      This is if there are already Torah, Buki, Tunguska, Kolchuga, Vityazi and others at the landing site with 300 400 500 600 ... And they are not in the rear of the enemy.
      In fact, Russia is striking a certain territory, with MLRS and tactical complexes, it presses the air defense system, then front-line and tactical bombers, together with attack aircraft, iron out everything that they did not finish off, and here a valiant landing is landed. A certain number of guys in berets, a certain number of BMD and other vehicles based on BMD, for example Nona and Octopus. Accordingly, what are the actions of the enemy !?
      - Quite right. Quickly and immediately assess the situation and conduct reconnaissance, along the way inflict damage on our valiant soldiers by means of UAV missile guidance, missile strikes from UAVs and UAV patrolling ammunition. And with all this, you need to fight something. And the Airborne Forces have only MANPADS for this. And no Torobuk. To do this, they came up with a Birdcatcher. This is their panacea, and alpha and omega. Well, maybe the Deviation will still be issued.
      So the question is, will the Poultry Catcher do this task !? Ali will not be able to do it !?
  • rosomaha
    rosomaha 9 December 2020 21: 36
    +4
    Arrow -10 has a missile defense system operating on the "fire-forget" principle .. after the launch of the missile launcher, the installation is not tied to targeting, it can attack another target, turning 180 degrees. The optical system is not bad, but it has weather limitations. A passive RTR station + an attached RTR station with great range capabilities would not hurt. She would have been a kind of eyes in the distance and the command post, giving the central control to the battery. In this case, all systems would work in passive mode. And 12 missiles and each seeker - that would be the power. In modern conditions, it is necessary to be able to repel star raids even to air defense forces of a short radius, and even more so to the Airborne Forces - when the enemy is around 360 degrees. So this complex, at least without missiles with the seeker, is a minus. After all, there was a project to modernize the Strela-10 - Gyurza complex ... 8 Igla missiles and a passive thermal imaging station were installed there. And to combat small UAVs, cheap missiles with a special autonomous guidance system are needed so that at least a small swarm of UAVs can be counteracted. With a laser-beam guidance system in a modern battle with aircraft, this is not the case. We want everything cheap ... but it doesn't work out in fact.
  • Foxnova
    Foxnova 9 December 2020 21: 43
    0
    It would be nice to replace the bending with 21631
  • Pamir
    Pamir 9 December 2020 22: 09
    -2
    All the available air defense systems in the fight against UAVs are ineffective, and this is not their field of activity. Electronic warfare, electronic warfare and only electronic warfare, clog the air, all control frequencies of operators with UAVs. Provide with the help of electronic warfare fog, loss of orientation of the UAV in the air, and the location of targets For an attack, the loss of communication between operators and the UAV. In Syria, this saves. And so, how many SAM installations of the same Sosny will be needed to ensure the protection of an infantry battalion from UAVs? An air defense regiment? Not enough. where the number of air defense missile systems and crews should be several times greater than the number of regiments or brigades? Further, what is the cost of an air defense missile system in comparison with a UAV? It is unlikely that it is profitable. Yes, and then the air defense missile system will need to shoot at machine-gun, only with missiles, because the UAVs will fly in flocks of birds.
    Russia is one of the recognized world leaders in the production of electronic warfare equipment. It is no coincidence that even the American military admits that it is very difficult to resist Russian electronic warfare. Prominent Americans, for example, admit that the United States has forgotten the basic lessons of electronic warfare and this oversight can be very costly for the American military. After all, Russia, meanwhile, is improving its electronic warfare systems. And the Russian Federation has many new types of electronic warfare, for example, the EW Complex "Divnomorye"; Complex 1L262 "Rtut-BM"; EW "Palantin"; EW "Krasukha-4" 2; REPS "Tirada- 2C "; Electronic warfare" Borisoglebsk-2 ". Tactical electronic warfare will be more effective in the fight against UAVs than air defense systems.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 9 December 2020 22: 33
      0
      Quote: Pamir
      Russia is one of the recognized world leaders in the production of electronic warfare equipment.

      Who is recognized? laughing where is the queue for our systems? laughing
      Quote: Pamir
      Prominent Americans, for example, admit that the United States has forgotten the basic lessons of electronic warfare.

      Visible under a magnifying glass? lol no one else has such a saturation with electronic warfare systems. A quarter of the aircraft carrier's wing is electronic warfare aircraft. Just read a little about them https://studopedia.ru/7_124955_kratkaya-harakteristika-sredstv-reb-vedushchih-inostrannih-gosudarstv.html
      Quote: Pamir
      EW "Divnomorye"; Complex 1L262 "Mercury-BM"; EW "Palantin"; EW "Krasukha-4" 2; REPS "Tirada-2S"; EW "Borisoglebsk-2"

      All ground systems are absolutely useless against UAVs. Maximum RER, RER will not help, only against civilians.
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 10 December 2020 10: 02
        +2
        All ground systems are absolutely useless against UAVs. Maximum RER, RER will not help, only against civilians.
        The military thinks differently. But you certainly know better.
      2. lopvlad
        lopvlad 12 December 2020 03: 19
        +1
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        All ground systems are absolutely useless against UAVs. Maximum RER, RER will not help, only against civilians.


        it remains to decipher the term (REB) - electronic warfare in the course of which the effect of radio emissions (radio interference) on radio electronic means of control systems, communications and intelligence of the enemy in order to change the quality of the military information circulating in them, protect their systems from similar influences, and also a change in the conditions (properties of the medium) of radio wave propagation.
        What does it mean in translation to
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        ground systems are absolutely useless against UAVs
        these same UAVs must either crawl underground or soar in space beyond the range of the REB.
    2. petroff
      petroff 15 December 2020 15: 41
      +1
      Do not forget that this is primarily an air transport vehicle based on BMD. Mercury, the sea and many others simply will not fit into it. The same Mercury doubled the APC. Divnomorye is generally installed on multi-axle tractors. For a landing party, such a machine is not suitable ... But you think you are in the right direction. Initially, the same Ptitselov, when he was still Roman, had a radar and even two 30mm cannons from Tunguska ... But then they cut it down to an optical-electronic unit and launchers.
      It seems that an integrated approach is needed here, they cannot make one universal machine, let them make three narrowly specialized ones. One with anti-aircraft missiles, the second with cannon armament and the third to jam everything and everyone. And up to the heap, you can also a fourth with a couple of operators and a launcher for their drones, which will highlight the enemy and can detect other drones. All this is based on BMD. And let the warriors think what they really need, and what is whim and excess.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 9 December 2020 23: 54
    0
    Quote: rosomaha
    it seems that any such remedy is a panacea

    And what will the GOS give for this class of missiles?
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 10 December 2020 10: 51
      +4
      several times increased cost
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 9 December 2020 23: 57
    0
    Quote: Pavel57
    Was there a comparison of missiles from the Sosna and Pantsir complexes?

    At the exhibition, the creators of Pine were very offended when they were called Shell.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 10 December 2020 10: 05
      0
      At the exhibition, the creators of Pine were very offended when they were called Shell.
      If you were called Peter, you would also be offended
  • Grievous
    Grievous 10 December 2020 08: 41
    -3
    Already out of date.
  • Grits
    Grits 10 December 2020 14: 03
    -5
    When using the existing 9M340 missile defense system from the Sosna air defense system, the promising Ptitselov will be able to intercept targets at ranges up to 10 km and altitudes up to 5 km.
    This means that "Bayraktar" (which now everyone will buy as an effective and well-proven weapon) will be from a height of 8 km. destroy these newest "Bird Catchers" with impunity. As well as destroying defenseless and useless Armenian "Wasps" with impunity
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 10 December 2020 16: 06
      0
      Let them buy. This is better than if everyone rushes to buy much more dangerous weapons, the same Harpies, for example.
    2. lopvlad
      lopvlad 12 December 2020 03: 25
      +2
      Quote: Gritsa
      This means that "Bayraktar" .......... will be from a height of 8 km


      no, this means that other air defense systems of which Russia has a lot will be engaged in Bayraktar. Bayraktars failed in Syria, in Libya, and only thanks to Armenia they became a miracle weapon.
  • _Ugene_
    _Ugene_ 10 December 2020 17: 16
    -2
    it is expensive to have so many different military air defense systems, but as an independent complex it is useless because it has limited range and altitude characteristics, and the search and guidance means, as I understand it, are only optical-electronic? in short, it is not clear why it is needed in modern conditions, meat for shock drones?
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 10 December 2020 19: 52
      +1
      Quote: _Ugene_
      has limited range and altitude characteristics
      Why are you all clung to this? the vehicle is still experimental, and the range and height characteristics are not a problem of platforms, but missiles - they rivet a new rocket, and it will reach your Bayraktar ...
      search and guidance tools ... only optoelectronic? it is not clear why it is needed, meat for shock drones

      Yah? As well as tanks meat for ATGM, and infantry - meat for machine guns. However, come on, they are fighting somehow.
      This is a matter of tactics of use, placement, camouflage, cover, and many other parameters that need to be considered.
      And if you put the PU on a hillock in an open field, or, like the Arabs, leave the division for prayer for 10 minutes, then no technique will help, everything and everyone will be meat.
      1. _Ugene_
        _Ugene_ 10 December 2020 20: 42
        0
        a longer-range missile is needed, search and guidance tools are also needed, and we get medium-range air defense, i.e. Thor or Carapace, so they already exist, are working, being modernized, why fence a vegetable garden?
        I mean that the air defense of the near zone is a concept from the last century, now no one will break through into this near zone because the chance of being shot down increases many times and does not give any advantages, the same bayraktar will hang quietly for 7-8 km and shoot it " air defense "as in exercises and why should he go below 5 km?"
        meaning only in cheaper short-range missiles, so nails have already been added to the shell - 4pcs. fits in place of one medium-radius missile, you also need to add to the torus
        1. lopvlad
          lopvlad 12 December 2020 03: 32
          0
          Quote: _Ugene_
          I mean that the air defense of the near zone is a concept from the last century, now no one will break through into this near zone


          This is a deep delusion that often suffers those who think in terms of the past war and not an analysis of modern conflicts of a hybrid nature. Moreover, our most probable enemy NATO has an abundance of air defense systems in the near zone, modernized and developed.
        2. petroff
          petroff 15 December 2020 15: 50
          0
          And with a parachute Toropansiri you can land !? And beyond the BMD, they will be able to force the river by swimming !? The landing force needs air defense in BMD format.
    2. petroff
      petroff 15 December 2020 15: 47
      0
      For the Airborne Forces. They do not have light complexes that can be parachuted along with BMD. And in the conditions of modern concepts, there is nowhere without air defense. And nothing else could be put into the BMD base ... But even that is better than carrying MANPADS.
      1. _Ugene_
        _Ugene_ 15 December 2020 15: 51
        0
        from what this air defense will protect the airborne forces? drones are primarily air defense and will burn
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 10 December 2020 20: 37
    0
    Quote: sivuch
    At the exhibition, the creators of Pine were very offended when they were called Shell.
    If you were called Peter, you would also be offended

    When they call me Peter, which happened more than once, I smiled and corrected the interlocutor))))
  • svoit
    svoit 10 December 2020 20: 38
    0
    The thing is certainly good, but it's not clear whether it would be better to make just vertical guides, here the reaction should be higher and the protection of the SAM (you can make it smaller - for 4-6 SAMs with an automatic loader, for 20 pieces) is also better, Or I don't understand something? Somehow they missed the KAZ, it seems it is already clear that the thing is useful.
    They are unlikely to have to shoot down UAVs, but any means of destruction (including shells of cannon and rocket artillery, anti-tank systems) are very even.
    And for the future (near), of course, we must focus on 80 g overload
    By the way, how many meters will it be?
  • bad
    bad 11 December 2020 08: 20
    +15
    I am glad that progress does not stop and air defense is developing. Good luck to the developers drinks
  • Azimuth
    Azimuth 12 December 2020 13: 21
    +1
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    Quote: svp67
    in addition to a new guidance system, new missiles are needed, and a NEW combat vehicle is obtained.

    Duc, what's new in the "laser-beam" guidance system? The difference is that not a radio command? Why in Russia, how devilishly incense, are they "afraid" of zur with GOS? anti-aircraft ....? Well, yes ... I know, I know .... it's expensive, and indeed, "Shurik is not our method ..."! And what about "large crayfish and 5 rubles (!) ... and small 3 rubles each ...?"

    Because all the recent wars of this and the last century have proved the advantage of systems with optoelectronic location and laser-guided missiles in the fight, including against UAVs.

    Passive optoelectronic detection equipment, with high resolution, with automatic target tracking and missile guidance along a laser beam - remember the already bored Karabakh war, how many Bayraktars and other UAVs would have been landed? ...
    Active surveillance equipment can be placed on a separate machine in a battery and preferably on a lifting mast, for work in difficult terrain and in the forest. Thus, combat vehicles will still have information, the distribution of targets, zones, and sectors of responsibility will be realized. Although, in principle, exchange is also possible based on information from optoelectronic means.

    The disadvantage of these air defense systems is the small height reach, although the media usually convey the characteristics of future export modifications. But even abroad, such a height of defeat will not interest anyone, as they wrote here, the same Bayraktar goes higher, but not a single Bayraktar does the job, reconnaissance UAVs inflict even more damage.
  • Interdum_silentium_volo
    Interdum_silentium_volo 20 December 2020 02: 05
    0
    The principle is excellent, you need to have an air defense based both on the principles of radar, as well as on the principles of optical capture. Since the latter is passive in work, it does not shine its work as an air defense with a radar. This means more survivable, given the presence of both electronic warfare in modern warfare, interference, as well as anti-radar missiles (PRR).
    BUT THE HEIGHT OF THE TARGETS HITTED IS NOT ENOUGH, ideally have a ceiling of 10 km.
  • Vadim Ananyin
    Vadim Ananyin 17 January 2021 18: 01
    +1
    Are the detection and tracking systems the same? The height is small, definitely.
    Little data on both complexes compared to soap?
    Judging by the article, the data is not so hot. Maybe I'm wrong ?!
  • cdrt
    cdrt 28 February 2021 15: 46
    0
    Hmm ... taking into account the recent wars - why do you need a single-channel air defense system? They will crush him with three ordinary firewood or 3 small kamikaze at the price of 1-2 of his missiles ...
    And taking into account the fact that even now there are already autonomous drones / kamikaze ... they will knock out faster than Arrows and Wasps in Karabakh. Some kind of protracted implementation of the idea of ​​the 80s without taking into account the reality that has changed since those years
    1. keleg
      keleg Yesterday, 08: 49
      0
      So it works in tandem with "Derivation". But yes, the range needs to be higher, the Kornet-EM has already learned to be two-channel and reach 9 km in height.