Military Review

The creation of anti-tank systems with the function of destruction of drones has begun

87

Development of a unique multipurpose anti-tank missile system has begun in Russia. We are talking about the world's first ATGM, which can be used not only against armored vehicles and enemy positions, but also for the destruction of unmanned aerial vehicles.


About this for RIA News Bekkhan Ozdoev, the industrial director of the Rostec weapons complex, said.

The development of a promising ATGM is carried out by KBP - Instrument Design Bureau.

It should be noted that today the armies of certain countries of the world have anti-tank systems that can effectively work on some air targets. But we are talking primarily about targets, the thermal radiation of which is sufficient for an anti-tank complex missile to “find” this target in the air and hit it. For example, we are talking about a helicopter at a relatively low flight speed or when "hovering" above the ground.

Not a single modern ATGM is capable of shooting down a drone with any decent degree of probability, since it is a fairly maneuverable target with low thermal radiation.

The new ATGM from the KBP, as noted, will belong to complexes with a wide functionality, in fact, combining both ATGM and MANPADS.

The name of the promising anti-tank missile system has not yet been announced. At the same time, it was noted that missiles of such a complex, seeker (seeker) will be able to work through two channels. It is not only thermal, but also optical. Additionally, it was noted that a special composition of explosives for missiles of a promising complex is being developed.
87 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Profiler
    Profiler 5 February 2021 07: 11
    +12
    a special composition of explosives for missiles of a promising complex is being developed.


    It is difficult to imagine that a missile with a single warhead will be used in both the MANPADS and ATGM versions ...

    For armored vehicles, it should be a shaped charge or "shock core", and for an air defense function, a swarm of destructive elements is preferable ...
    1. bad
      bad 5 February 2021 07: 18
      +12
      Quote: Profiler
      For armored vehicles, it should be a shaped charge or "shock core", and for an air defense function, a swarm of striking elements is preferable

      Perhaps, the journalists, without understanding, called the complex as an ATGM - purely out of habit
      1. Profiler
        Profiler 5 February 2021 07: 22
        +7
        Quote: malo

        Perhaps it was the journalists who did not understand, they called the ATGM complex, purely out of habit

        No, there is no reservation here. It is just about creating a universal complex. The only thing is that the journalists did not delve into the fundamental subtleties when covering this project.
        And the project, I must say, is interesting in its idea and promising.

        Therefore, good luck to the developers, and there are fewer difficulties on the way to its implementation!
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 5 February 2021 10: 06
          -2
          The Russian Armed Forces are armed with: 1. ATGM "Kornet-D" with the ability to defeat low-speed low-altitude air targets ... 2. SAM "Sosna" (9M340) with a multipurpose warhead ... The British had a Blopipe MANPADS with a cumulative warhead ... spooks in Afghanistan used it against armored personnel carriers ...
        2. lucul
          lucul 5 February 2021 14: 30
          -2
          No, there is no reservation here. It is just about creating a universal complex. The only thing is that the journalists did not delve into the fundamental subtleties when covering this project.
          And the project, I must say, is interesting in its idea and promising.

          Not just promising, but the only true one. Saturation of troops with such versatile anti-tank systems will greatly increase the resistance against UAVs.
          The question remains only in target designation. We will be able to provide confident target designation - on enemy UAVs (kamikaze drones), you can forget about enemy drones, because we have plenty of means against drones, everything depends on target designation - we need our own reconnaissance drones, a la Orlan.
      2. Paranoid50
        Paranoid50 5 February 2021 14: 55
        0
        Quote: malo
        without understanding, they called the complex as an ATGM - purely out of habit

        Duc, if there was nothing so hybrid before. request Now, if the case works out, you have to get used to the new abbreviation - ZPTRK. fellow yes
    2. YOUR
      YOUR 5 February 2021 08: 24
      +5
      ATGM "Chrysanthemum" - The speed of the struck ground targets is up to 60 km / h, air - up to 340 km / h.
      Those. we have such a complex.
      Two types of missiles with a cumulative warhead and a thermobaric one.
      We lower armored vehicles, air targets
      On a helicopter as a large target with a cumulative missile, on a thermobaric UAV. She will suit the helicopter behind the eyes.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 5 February 2021 08: 44
        +2
        Quote: YOUR
        On a helicopter as a large target with a cumulative missile, on a thermobaric UAV. She will suit the helicopter behind the eyes.

        Mommy myo! On the UAV "thermobar"! belay Human deeds in this world are inscrutable! request
        1. Profiler
          Profiler 6 February 2021 06: 16
          +2
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          Mommy myo! On the UAV "thermobar"! belay Human affairs in this world are inscrutable!

          Well yes lol "Thermobar" at an air target is the same as hitting flies with soap bubbles yes
      2. Old tanker
        Old tanker 5 February 2021 08: 45
        +2
        The question arises with the fuse. On the helicopter, yes, the contact target is large. And what about the UAV? Not a word about this in the article.
        1. YOUR
          YOUR 5 February 2021 08: 54
          0
          There is also a proximity fuse.
          I don’t know how it works or will work against an air target, but the missile passes through tanks with an excess, an explosion over the tanks, the core hits the tank in the upper projection of the tower. Where the armor is thinner and there is no reactive armor.
          1. Old tanker
            Old tanker 5 February 2021 08: 59
            +2
            This is for the amers on the Javelins. And we have not heard about this.
            1. YOUR
              YOUR 5 February 2021 11: 22
              0
              I don't think it's difficult. Non-contact fuses are placed on MANPADS missiles; they are almost the same in size with ATGMs.
    3. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 5 February 2021 09: 38
      +1
      Quote: Profiler
      For armored vehicles, it should be a shaped charge or "shock core", and for an air defense function, a swarm of destructive elements is preferable ...

      In the "world", attempts are not left to "combine the incompatible", "pull the turtle on the globe" and other interesting things ... The French, for example, can put cumulative-fragmentation warheads (cumulative warhead in a shell containing, for example, steel or tungsten balloons...) ; in Israel, 2 types of multipurpose (!) warheads were created ... Different solutions are possible! 1. For example, a warhead with an EFP-charge arrangement transverse to the longitudinal axis of the ammunition ... (such a warhead can be used both against armored targets, hitting them in the roof or in the side ... and some air targets with a flight past them! the following multipurpose warheads were also developed: a) a cumulative warhead with placement in the cumulative funnel of the "leader"; and high-explosive, with the possibility of shooting it!; b) EFP-charge with an inert "insert", with the possibility of firing it!; 2. "Distributed" warhead ... (shaped charge + high-explosive (high-explosive) charge, for example, "kuma" = 3 kg ... land mine = 8 kg ...)
      1. cat Rusich
        cat Rusich 5 February 2021 21: 17
        +1
        Quote: Nikolaevich I

        In the "world", attempts are not left to "combine the incompatible", "pull the turtle on the globe" and other interesting things ... The French, for example, can put cumulative-fragmentation warheads (cumulative warhead in a shell containing, for example, steel or tungsten balloons.
        okg-40 spark
        OKG-40 Iskra ...
        In 1965 in the USSR they created cumulative fragmentation grenade for OKG-40. It's just that the price of a "warhead-kuma" is much more expensive than a fragmentation warhead and there is NO sense in "fragments" - either the defeat of the "target-tank" or it makes no sense to spend an ATGM shot. For "fragments" there is a mortar or AGS, or OG-7V (for RPG-7) soldier
        1. cat Rusich
          cat Rusich 5 February 2021 21: 34
          +1
          And also "cumulative fragmentation" ammunition
          nar s-5kpb
          NAR S-5KPB 57mm. Starting with the S-5KO armor penetration up to 170mm and 220 fragments of 2 grams each - ending with the S-5KPB with armor penetration up to 250mm and 330 fragments of 2 grams each. soldier soldier
    4. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 5 February 2021 10: 08
      +3
      Quote: Profiler
      It is difficult to imagine that a missile with a single warhead will be used in both the MANPADS and ATGM versions ...

      And where is there even a word about a single warhead? Yes, missiles designed to destroy small UAVs need their own explosives, and their own submunitions, and generally a different ideology than missiles against armored vehicles, for example. But the article says nothing about a single rocket.
      1. Intruder
        Intruder 6 February 2021 09: 22
        0
        And where is there even a word about a single warhead? Yes, missiles designed to destroy small UAVs need both their own explosives and their own submunitions
        everything is already there - SADARM, Skeet (USA), SMArt-155 (Germany), BONUS (Sweden), here it is right to rework foreign experience in the field:

        -development of a system of rational dispersion of elements for
        achieving maximum effectiveness of hitting targets;

        - wide block-modular unification, allowing to achieve
        universalization of the use of SPBE on various carriers
        (artillery shells, MLRS shells, aviation
        managed containers
    5. venik
      venik 5 February 2021 22: 46
      0
      Quote: Profiler
      It is difficult to imagine that a missile with a single warhead will be used in both the MANPADS and ATGM versions ...

      =========
      Recently, combined (cumulative-fragmentation) warheads have appeared ... Probably in this case, we are talking about something similar ... request
      1. Profiler
        Profiler 6 February 2021 06: 21
        +1
        Quote: venik
        Recently, combined (cumulative-fragmentation) warheads have appeared ... Probably in this case, we are talking about something similar ...

        "Combined" and "universal" in this case looks like "wrong". Reduced armor penetration and fewer shrapnel are the result of a compromise.

        In wood, you can drill holes with a drill on wood, but to clean the surface of the hole and to avoid chipping, it is better to use special drills yes
    6. Intruder
      Intruder 6 February 2021 09: 11
      0
      "shock core", and for the air defense function, a swarm of destructive elements is preferable ...
      most likely a tandem warhead will be, with the selection of detonation or fragmented shock nuclei with the creation of a fragmentation stream, such by the way, in a number of IEDs, even during the "Desert Storm" at the Humvee, the sides were dry, the caliber of these PEs is small, but notably the armor package of the side door glass was stitched and fenders in the area of ​​the engine compartment, I even saw pictures somewhere in Google search results!
  2. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 5 February 2021 07: 14
    -4
    Masturbation is already some kind of fashionable chips, the ATGM will not reach heavy UAVs anyway, and for small ones it is prohibitively expensive!
    1. svp67
      svp67 5 February 2021 07: 22
      -1
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      the ATGM will not reach heavy UAVs anyway, but for small ones it is prohibitively expensive!

      Yeah, is it cheaper to lose an expensive military vehicle?
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      the ATGM will not reach heavy UAVs anyway

      And don't, there is something else for them. But gliding bombs and "kamikaze drones" why not
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 5 February 2021 07: 28
        +2
        Quote: svp67
        But gliding bombs and "kamikaze drones" why not

        How to detect all this? It is clear that it is not this:
        Quote: svp67
        And what is the complexity of the "Chrysanthemum" radar sight



        Quote: svp67
        Yeah, is it cheaper to lose an expensive military vehicle?
        Without the ability to view the upper hemisphere, it is a completely meaningless undertaking, and if the review is implemented, then in combination with the ATGM function, a cruiser will work out!
        It is easier then the air defense missile system with the ability to create a PTO.
        1. svp67
          svp67 5 February 2021 07: 30
          0
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          How to detect all this? It is clear that it is not this:

          Well, she is, and it is she who is shown in the photo to the article
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Without the ability to view the upper hemisphere, it is a completely meaningless undertaking, and if the review is implemented, then in combination with the ATGM function, a cruiser will work out!

          Military equipment has never been cheap
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 5 February 2021 07: 32
            +2
            Quote: svp67
            Well, she is, and it is she who is shown in the photo to the article
            It's a sight! With an extremely limited viewing angle. I did not expect this from you!
            1. svp67
              svp67 5 February 2021 07: 38
              -2
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              It's a sight! With an extremely limited viewing angle.

              Was. And who prevents to remake. Moreover, now it is being produced here. A new player appeared on the battlefield, who caused a lot of confusion and somewhat frightened the "armored car". There is a problem and it must be solved. This sight can be used to equip the BMPT, which is supposed to cover its tanks from this "flying lethal little thing"
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 5 February 2021 08: 21
                +2
                Quote: svp67
                Was. And who prevents to remake.
                Well, you get an under-air defense system with slow, overweight missiles and a tall profile.
                Isn't it easier in this case to supplement the air defense missile system with ATGM algorithms, especially since the maneuverability of the air defense missile system will make it possible to hit tanks from above.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 5 February 2021 09: 32
                  +1
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Isn't it easier in this case to supplement the air defense missile system with ATGM algorithms, especially since the maneuverability of the air defense missile system will make it possible to hit tanks from above.

                  Same solution. But there are also BMPT cannons that can be used with projectiles with radio fuses.
                  1. Vladimir_2U
                    Vladimir_2U 5 February 2021 09: 36
                    0
                    Quote: svp67
                    use with shells with radio fuses.

                    Then what does this have to do with combining anti-tank systems with air defense systems? By the way, the amers had a complex ADATS, in my opinion he died quietly, there was such a hefty fool.
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 5 February 2021 09: 39
                      +1
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      Then what does this have to do with combining anti-tank systems with air defense systems?

                      Since we have the development of missiles for these complexes, parts of these complexes have followed the same path and have similar characteristics, and why, then, cannot they be combined and made universal?
                      1. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 5 February 2021 09: 44
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        why then cannot they be combined and made universal?

                        In my opinion, the air defense missile system should be made universal, but there is no ATGM, it is too expensive and cumbersome. But why not combine it into a network with an air defense system, like an arsenal, but this is too naval. ))
                      2. svp67
                        svp67 5 February 2021 09: 48
                        0
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        In my opinion, the air defense missile system should be made universal, but there is no ATGM, it is too expensive and cumbersome.

                        Yes "I don't care what color the cat will be, as long as she knows how to catch mice well"
      2. Old tanker
        Old tanker 5 February 2021 08: 48
        +1
        Well, the ability to view the upper hemisphere on the BMP-2 was implemented. It's not a problem.
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 5 February 2021 08: 50
          +2
          Quote: Old Tankman
          Well, the ability to view the upper hemisphere on the BMP-2 was implemented
          And before that, on the Su-76))) How did this affect the anti-aircraft capabilities?
          1. Old tanker
            Old tanker 5 February 2021 09: 04
            +3
            Yes, quite a bit on the BMP-2 for its anti-aircraft gun. For low-maneuverable targets and hovering helicopters.
            The question is not in the review of the upper hemisphere, but in the angle of elevation of the ATGM guide for engaging the target of the missile seeker.
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 5 February 2021 09: 06
              +1
              Quote: Old Tankman
              The question is not in the review of the upper hemisphere, but in the angle of elevation of the ATGM guide for engaging the target of the missile seeker.
              And what's the point in the corners, if the target is simply not detected?
              1. Old tanker
                Old tanker 5 February 2021 09: 12
                +1
                Yes, there are no problems at all with the detection of an air target. This is an example of the BMP-2. Closed ZPUs for T-64, T-80UD, T-90.
                And with modern OEP, no problems at all. The same one from "Derivation" is quite possible.
                1. Vladimir_2U
                  Vladimir_2U 5 February 2021 09: 15
                  +1
                  Quote: Old Tankman
                  Yes, there are no problems at all with the detection of an air target. This is an example of the BMP-2. Closed ZPUs for T-64, T-80UD, T-90.
                  Are you suggesting to search the entire hemisphere with your eyes ?! But. May I ask the Armenians in the last war for Karabakh on air defense issues did not you advise? laughing laughing
                  1. Old tanker
                    Old tanker 5 February 2021 09: 21
                    0
                    Sometimes it is possible with eyes, and better with modern optical-electronic means. As it is already implemented on "Derivation". You can also install a radar. For the launch range of ATGM, it is small. By the way, the "Tunguska" missile channel is implemented in a semi-automatic mode, like an ATGM. So there are no particular problems with this.
                    1. Vladimir_2U
                      Vladimir_2U 5 February 2021 09: 31
                      +3
                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      As it is already implemented on "Derivation". You can also install the radar. For the launch range of ATGM, it is small. By the way, the "Tunguska" missile channel is implemented in a semi-automatic mode, like an ATGM. So there are no particular problems with this.
                      And now compare the silhouettes of these machines with the "Chrysanthemum" and the speed and maneuverability of SAM and ATGM, not to mention the cost of ATGM / SAM in one bottle versus just ATGM.
                    2. Old tanker
                      Old tanker 5 February 2021 09: 53
                      -1
                      Chrysanthemum and Derivation on one BMP-3 base. And the commander's sighting-survey complex mounted on the Derivation's hull is no higher than the sights on the Chrysanthemum.
                      And it is not correct to compare the speed of ATGMs of the past and missiles. Moreover, already now there are supersonic ATGMs, the speeds of which are quite sufficient to defeat modern UAVs.
                      So is the size of the older radars with the size of the more compact modern ones with a phased array.
                    3. Vladimir_2U
                      Vladimir_2U 5 February 2021 10: 11
                      +2
                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      And the commander's sighting-survey complex mounted on the Derivation's hull is no higher than the sights on Chrysanthemum.
                      It does not provide air defense capabilities, air defense capabilities are provided by the "optoelectronic detection and aiming system of the OES OP developed by OJSC Peleng" and it was its application that gave the anti-aircraft capabilities of Derivation. But not the point, everything that you wrote below describes the air defense system to us, killing the very essence of an unobtrusive and inexpensive ATGM, what's unclear?
                    4. Old tanker
                      Old tanker 5 February 2021 10: 32
                      0
                      The heads of these complexes are comparable in size. He gave an example of a command complex for greater clarity in height above the roof of the hull.
                    5. Vladimir_2U
                      Vladimir_2U 5 February 2021 10: 41
                      0
                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      The heads of these complexes are comparable in size.

                      I agree, but the characteristics of the ECO indicate
                      sector overviewproviding the detection and recognition of air, ground and surface targets at any time of the day.
                      so that even a specialized OES does not provide full coverage of the hemisphere and, without a survey complex, has limited detection capabilities. In my opinion, it is better to give the SAM the versatility, and let the ATGM remain the ATGM, relatively inexpensive and unobtrusive.
                    6. Old tanker
                      Old tanker 5 February 2021 10: 55
                      +3
                      Yes, you do not need an ATGM full view of the upper hemisphere. In the unit's fire system, he monitors the fire sector assigned to him and brings down everything that he is able to fill up in it. And it is very good that he will be able to overwhelm the UAVs that have appeared in this sector. In other sectors, observation, reconnaissance of targets and other fire means are conducted.
                      We do not have single machines fighting. In the unit, a SYSTEM OF FIRE is being built, it has several zones and is divided into lines of fire for units and sectors of firing fire weapons (this is taught to recruits in the training). The end is the zone of continuous multi-layered fire of the unit.
                      And now all this has been depleted into a digital unified tactical control system.
                    7. Vladimir_2U
                      Vladimir_2U 5 February 2021 11: 16
                      0
                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      We do not have single machines fighting.

                      And that is precisely why an expensive ATGM only in the most extreme case needs to be able to shoot down light UAVs, because it will still not be able to shoot down other ATGMs and modern air attack weapons. And when will this happen?
                    8. Old tanker
                      Old tanker 5 February 2021 11: 36
                      +4
                      And no one says that the main task of the new ATGM is to bring down drones. It's just an extra nice option. In modern combined arms combat, the more means of destruction of a UAV, the better.
                      By the way, the Javelin ATGM costs about 80 thousand dollars, the Kornet ATGM about 30 thousand dollars (and this is the whole complex, not just missiles), and the serial PD-100 micro-UAV is about 40 thousand. expensive. And this is not the cost of the rocket, but of the entire complex.
                      So the prices for our missiles will be lower than for serial Western drones.
                      We do not consider homemade barmaleevs here.
                    9. Vladimir_2U
                      Vladimir_2U 5 February 2021 11: 57
                      0
                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      Larger ones are even more expensive

                      Bayraktar, for example, 2,5 million, but you can't shoot him down with an ATGM, but he himself can launch them.

                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      We do not consider homemade barmaleevs here
                      It's strange, why not? Okay though. But you can also consider something Turkish?
                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      And this is not the cost of the rocket, but of the entire complex.

                      Java is about 600 with six missiles, so it's a little past, I don't know about the Cornet, but the price is clearly understated. But in general, why mention these complexes? Can they shoot down air targets?
                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      And no one says that the main task of the new ATGM is to bring down drones. It's just an extra nice option.
                      A very unpleasant price will be responsible for a pleasant function, don't you think?
                    10. Old tanker
                      Old tanker 5 February 2021 12: 25
                      0
                      Can you offer anything Turkish besides Bayraktar? Let's discuss.
                      Java about 600 with six missiles so a little past

                      Why by? It's even more expensive than the PD-100 at your price point.
                      A very unpleasant price will be responsible for a pleasant function, don't you think?

                      Not at all. Why would you get an unpleasant price?
                    11. Vladimir_2U
                      Vladimir_2U 5 February 2021 16: 35
                      0
                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      Can you offer anything Turkish besides Bayraktar? Let's discuss.
                      Please:
                      In 2019, the first deliveries of improved Kargu-2 drones began in January 2020, the Turkish government signed an agreement for the purchase of 356 drones, and later it became known that by June 15, 2020 the company was supposed to have delivered more than 500 drones.
                      This particular drone can be dangerous for light armor. Well, Turkish ATGMs from heavier UAVs will be too tough for a promising ATGM.

                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      Java about 600 with six missiles so a little past
                      Why by? It's even more expensive than the PD-100 at your price point.
                      Only now I realized that you recorded Java in the UAV, but this is not so and the anti-tank missile system that has not yet been developed will not be able to shoot it down.
                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      Not at all. Why would you get an unpleasant price?
                      Yes, even from that:
                      At the same time, it was noted that missiles of such a complex, seeker (seeker) will be able to work through two channels. It is not only thermal, but also optical
                      Here is a single-channel Igla MANPADS missile, for example, costs 35 K Euro, but there is already a Verba MANPADS, which is also single-channel, but three-band, it is hardly cheaper. And at the same time, MANPADS missiles have min-height restrictions of 10 m. There is no doubt that a dual-band seeker without min. height will give a sharp increase in price.
                      To summarize: a promising ATGM will not be able to shoot down the enemy's ATGM, the missiles will be very expensive against loitering ammunition and "semi-models". It is not worth it.
                    12. Old tanker
                      Old tanker 5 February 2021 17: 08
                      +1
                      Ddav in the UAV, I did not record. I compared the prices of the most popular ATGMs and drones. And it turns out that if you take drones in service with the armies, then at a price they are either comparable or more expensive than ATGMs. Depending on the class of the drone.
                      ATGM is not intended only to combat UAVs. They want to include the same function in it. In the same way as ATGM / TUR, they can initially be used to combat low-flying and hovering helicopters. There is even a shooting exercise on the simulator. Although the ceiling and flight range of helicopters are much higher than the capabilities of the ATGM / TUR. spirits generally managed to bring down helicopters from the borders, which are not intended for this at all.
                      So here in the ATGM they want, as an additional option, to lay down the ability to shoot down UAVs. Do not be a hunter for them, like a tank and an infantry fighting vehicle are not hunters for helicopters, but if the opportunity arises, they can hit them. So it is here. An additional means of dealing with this byaka is only beneficial!
                      On a two-channel seeker. A head of this type is already being produced and installed on the 9M333 missile of the Strela-10 complex. It also has a third, interference channel. So you can use it, there will be no more troubles with prices.
                    13. Vladimir_2U
                      Vladimir_2U 5 February 2021 18: 36
                      +1
                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      And it turns out that if you take drones in service with the armies, then at a price they are either comparable or more expensive than ATGMs.
                      ATGMs that have already been put into service, this is important! And here is a promising ATGM.

                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      spirits generally managed to bring down helicopters from the borders, which were not intended for this at all.
                      Only when flying between peaks or in gorges!
                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      An additional means of dealing with this byaka is only beneficial!
                      I can not disagree.

                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      On a two-channel seeker. A head of this type is already being produced and installed on the 9M333 missile of the Strela-10 complex. It also has a third, interference channel.
                      Definitely not suitable for ATGM:
                      Photocontrast and infrared targeting saved and improved
                      You understand that a tank is on the ground and is not a photo-contrast and maximally invisible target in the IR range, and in the article, heat and television channels are indicated.
                    14. Old tanker
                      Old tanker 5 February 2021 19: 09
                      +1
                      1. And why a promising ATGM cannot be developed taking into account the already existing proven technologies?
                      2. Not only. Major losses at landing and take-off areas and hover / loitering points.
                      3.why not suitable for a unified rocket? The article does not say that there will be one rocket.
                      4. The tank still has a photo-contrast target on the ground and glows in the IR range. The first generation nightlights from the light of the moon saw him.
                      The TV and Photo Contrast modes are very similar. Practiceski is the same at the current level of development of electronics. A heat-emitting target is visible in both an IR device and a thermal imaging device. Only thermal imaging is even more advanced and with higher resolution.
                    15. Vladimir_2U
                      Vladimir_2U 5 February 2021 19: 56
                      0
                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      And why a promising ATGM cannot be developed taking into account the already existing proven technologies?
                      Taking into account, not full repetition.

                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      Not only. Major losses at landing and take-off areas and hover / loitering points.
                      So it turns out even easier, so I didn't even mention it.

                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      The tank is still a photo-contrast target on the ground and glows in the IR range. The first generation nightlights from the light of the moon saw him.
                      Since the first generation, tank camouflage has advanced VERY strongly.
                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      The TV and Photo Contrast modes are very similar. Practiceski is the same at the current level of development of electronics.
                      You're wrong. F / C mode is a mode for observing a dark target against the background of the sky, which somehow always shines, and it is needed to cut off IR / UV traps.
                      Quote: Old Tankman
                      The heat-emitting target is visible both in the IR device and in the thermal imaging
                      Only an IR device is much cheaper than a thermal imaging device, but also much less sensitive.
  3. Old tanker
    Old tanker 5 February 2021 10: 37
    0
    The heads of these complexes are the same size. The commander gave the height above the roof of the hull for clarity.
    Nothing like this. It is quite possible to create a short-range ATGM / SAM in the dimensions of the "Chrysanthemum" in modern conditions.
  • Cympak
    Cympak 5 February 2021 16: 54
    0
    Without the ability to view the upper hemisphere, it is a completely meaningless undertaking, and if the review is implemented, then in combination with the ATGM function, a cruiser will work out!

    You can receive an external control center from the SOC installed on a separate machine. And to carry out additional target search and aiming with our own optical sensors, as is done on "Derivation-Air Defense" and "Pine"
  • Tamer
    Tamer 5 February 2021 13: 25
    0
    Quote: svp67
    But gliding bombs and "kamikaze drones" why not

    It will work especially well on the control system of existing domestic anti-tank systems. wassat
  • lucul
    lucul 5 February 2021 14: 37
    -1
    Yeah, is it cheaper to lose an expensive military vehicle?

    It's like with us in 1941 - it was too expensive to put on radios on tanks, then when the tanks began to lose in batches, the question of the cost of the radio was no longer a question, without the radio they did not release.
  • Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 5 February 2021 10: 10
    +2
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    Masturbation is already some kind of fashionable chips, the ATGM will not reach heavy UAVs anyway, and for small ones it is prohibitively expensive!

    What to do? Standing and peeing in fear? Shoot a UAV with a rifle? Write a complaint to Sportloto?
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 5 February 2021 20: 46
      0
      What to do?
      KS-19 or KS-30, on a wheelbase (here KS-30 is questionable - too heavy), with new search and guidance tools.
  • svp67
    svp67 5 February 2021 07: 20
    0
    And what is the difficulty in teaching the Chrysanthemum radar-sight to work on the UAV?
    1. Crimean partisan 1974
      Crimean partisan 1974 5 February 2021 07: 57
      +5
      And what is the difficulty in teaching the "Chrysanthemum" radar sight to operate on UAVs? ...... no difficulties at all. the only one will connect to the general air defense system following the example of the Verba MANPADS ... and so ... 10 years ago, the campaign was successfully fired at air targets from the Whirlwind ATGM ... yes, this is the one that is installed on the Ka-50 in the normal mode , 52 and the "humped" Su-25T, Su-39 ... the test of Vortexes against air targets was quite successful, the velocity of the Vortexes is almost 3 sounds, for drones there is enough kinetic energy
      1. Tamer
        Tamer 5 February 2021 13: 27
        +2
        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
        and so ... 10 years ago, the campaign was successfully fired at air targets from the ATGM Whirlwind ...

        This was much earlier than 10 years ago wink
  • edmed
    edmed 5 February 2021 07: 34
    +3
    "Development has begun in Russia ..." The hen has not yet sat down in the nest, but the whole stove has already been smashed with a frying pan, somewhere "Morpheus" is quietly dozing, and "Autonomy" is in some unknown seas.
  • BARKAS
    BARKAS 5 February 2021 08: 10
    0
    Maybe it will be MANPADS with the function of destroying tanks.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 5 February 2021 08: 14
    0
    And in Russia there is an ATGM with thermal seeker?
    1. Old tanker
      Old tanker 5 February 2021 08: 57
      0
      We don't have ATGM systems with GOS at all
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 5 February 2021 09: 05
        0
        Shooting at aerial targets was previously voiced.
      2. svp67
        svp67 5 February 2021 09: 34
        +3
        Quote: Old Tankman
        We don't have ATGM systems with GOS at all

        There is ... "Hermes"
        1. Old tanker
          Old tanker 5 February 2021 09: 44
          0
          I agree. But this is a long-range system.
          1. svp67
            svp67 5 February 2021 09: 47
            0
            Quote: Old Tankman
            I agree. But this is a long-range system.

            Yes, but who's stopping you from making it smaller?
            1. Old tanker
              Old tanker 5 February 2021 09: 59
              +2
              And this is an interesting question. Somehow it was announced by the developers why the GOS is not put on the "Cornet", because the less reliable method of guidance, the command one, is more stable. Well, and that the capabilities of the GOS do not always allow you to capture the target.
              But everything flows, everything changes. Technical science does not stand still. Wait and see.
      3. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 5 February 2021 09: 49
        +2
        We don't have ATGM systems with GOS at all Duc, the Azerbaijanis boasted in the 90s that they "successfully" used RVV with thermal seeker against tanks! fellow True, there were also dudes claiming that this was fake! bully
        1. Old tanker
          Old tanker 5 February 2021 10: 02
          +1
          Well, RVV against tanks did not hear. But in 2008, the Osa anti-aircraft missiles successfully destroyed two Georgian boats from our ship.
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 5 February 2021 10: 16
            +1
            Quote: Old Tankman
            anti-aircraft missiles "Osa" in 2008 from our ship successfully destroyed two Georgian boats.

            And not only "Wasp"! Sailors generally liked to keep ship air defense systems at the ready against enemy ships! wink (Did you hear about the M-1 "Volna" air defense missile system?) Only in this situation you get somewhat different "calibers" and "habitat"! request
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Old tanker
              Old tanker 5 February 2021 10: 30
              +2
              Of course I heard. An old chilled C-125. But then the "Mirage" MRK fired exactly the "Wasp-M"
          2. Tamer
            Tamer 5 February 2021 13: 34
            0
            Quote: Old Tanker
            But in 2008, two Georgian boats were successfully destroyed from our ship with the Osa anti-aircraft missiles.

            There, to put it mildly, the question who destroyed Georgian boats))
            1. Mimoprohodil
              Mimoprohodil 5 February 2021 16: 30
              +2
              Paratroopers in the port
              1. Tamer
                Tamer 8 February 2021 09: 24
                0
                Quote: Mimoprohodil
                Paratroopers in the port

                Yes, but many do not know, and do not want to find out))
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 5 February 2021 08: 21
    +1
    The versatility of weapons is not always a gut. Very different requirements have to be taken into account, therefore expensive and not very effective.
  • Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 5 February 2021 10: 33
    +1
    Quote: Profiler
    Quote: malo

    Perhaps it was the journalists who did not understand, they called the ATGM complex, purely out of habit

    No, there is no reservation here. It is just about creating a universal complex. The only thing is that the journalists did not delve into the fundamental subtleties when covering this project.
    And the project, I must say, is interesting in its idea and promising.

    Therefore, good luck to the developers, and there are fewer difficulties on the way to its implementation!


    Maybe our developers decided to fight armored UAVs? belay
  • JD1979
    JD1979 5 February 2021 10: 45
    +1
    In order to work effectively through the air, you need at least to have an OLS or radar with a circular view with appropriate angles. What ATGM carriers do we have equipped with such on-board equipment and are there any official plans of the Ministry of Defense for equipping (if any), developing such (if not). While all the launchers for ATGMs are rigidly fixed to the equipment, are there any plans for their alteration? And a bunch of other questions.
    In the meantime, this news from the CPB looks more like an attempt to climb into someone else's territory, interest the Ministry of Defense, and beg for funding. As a result, this will most likely result in the same unnecessary and useless project as Derivation-Air Defense))
    Quote: svp67
    Military equipment has never been cheap

    Comrade, it was not cheap, but there must be rationality, otherwise no budget will be enough. Russia is not the United States, Rubles are not dollars, you just can't print it, no matter how you would like it.
    PS: give a hint to the CPB, revive the project of a two-link tank ... the first "trailer" is a tank, the second - with a module from the Shell))) An indestructible thing will be)))
  • garri-lin
    garri-lin 5 February 2021 14: 22
    +1
    The very concept of ATGMs is outdated. We need a single modular battlefield rocket. And for the infantry and for installation on equipment and for UAVs. In the dimension of the Cornet. And with different heads. From advanced multispectral to primitive wired control from a semi-automatic remote control. Accordingly, the warheads should be different. For work on tanks cumulative and shock core. For work on fortifications, cumulative wide-focus. Thermobars / bulkheads. Shrapnel. Fragment missiles are perfect for working on helicopters, small UAVs, sheltered infantry and lightly armored vehicles.
  • Thomas N.
    Thomas N. 6 February 2021 16: 41
    0
    Bekkhan Ozdoev, industrial director of the Rostec armament complex, told RIA Novosti about this.
    The development of a promising ATGM is carried out by KBP - Instrument Design Bureau.

    In the photo in this news ATGM "Chrysanthemum", developed by KBM, not KBP. The author of the news does not care how to illustrate his text (and what is not Javelin then? smile Does he have a GOS), or does he not see the difference?
  • ironic
    ironic 7 February 2021 20: 35
    0
    This is some kind of bezishodnost, like BR against ships.
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 8 February 2021 00: 54
    0
    Strictly speaking, the border between ATGM and MANPADS is erased as the accuracy of the former increases.

    The creation of a fully universal rocket is just around the corner.