What will be the shipborne SAM "Tor"?

Ground SAM "Tor-M2". Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

In 1986, the newest short-range anti-aircraft missile system 9K330 "Tor" entered service with the military air defense of the Soviet Army. In the future, several major upgrades were carried out, and the process of improving this air defense system does not stop. It is proposed both to increase all the main characteristics, and to expand the scope of application. On the basis of the modern modification "Tor-M2" it is proposed to make an air defense system for ships of the naval fleet.

Interspecies issues

The January issue of the National Defense magazine published an interview with Fanil Ziyatdinov, General Director of the Izhevsk Electromechanical Plant Kupol (part of the Almaz-Antey VKO Concern). The head of the enterprise spoke about the current work and plans, incl. affecting the further development of the "Tor" air defense system family.

The improvement of these complexes is carried out due to the transition to a new element base. In addition, work is underway to further expand the range of the so-called. carrier base. In particular, a prototype on a floating wheeled chassis is expected.

The Kinzhal air defense missile launcher on board the Admiral Vinogradov spacecraft. Photo by US Navy

Also IEMZ "Kupol" is studying the issues of transformation of the land complex "Tor-M2" into interspecific. Work on the creation of a shipborne air defense system has already begun. At the same time, F. Ziyatdinov did not disclose even the approximate characteristics and possibilities of such a modification of the complex. The timing of its appearance and potential carriers also remained unknown.

Rocket unification

In the context of the marine modification of the Tor-M2 product, it is necessary to recall the 3K95 Dagger complex. It was developed in the mid-eighties by NPO Altair, MKB Fakel, KB Start and other enterprises. After lengthy and difficult tests, in 1989 the "Dagger" complex was adopted by the Soviet Navy and recommended for installation on ships of various types.

The Kinzhal air defense missile system includes a specially designed 3R95 antenna post with a phased antenna array and an optoelectronic unit. Also, new high-speed automated data processing and fire control systems were created. Post 3P95 was responsible for detecting air targets at ranges up to 45 km, and also provided firing missiles or from an AK-630 gun.

Antenna post 3P95 from the "Dagger". Photo Wikimedia Commons

For the Kinzhal air defense system, the Fakel ICB developed the 9M330-2 anti-aircraft guided missile - a modified version of the 9M330 air defense missile system from the Tor ground air defense system. The characteristics of the rocket as a whole remained the same - range up to 12 km and altitude up to 6 km. The missiles are equipped with an under-deck drum-type launcher with 8 cells for missile containers.

SAM 3K95 was installed on ships of several types of late Soviet development. The most notable carrier of the "Dagger" is the aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov". It has 24 launchers with a total ammunition load of 192 missiles. It was possible to fit 1144 units into the dimensions of the compartments of the heavy nuclear missile cruiser pr. 16. Large anti-submarine ships of the project 1155 carry eight such products, and the patrol boats of the project 11540 were equipped with four.

"Thor" on the ship

The ship's "Dagger" is unified with the land-based "Thor" only in terms of the used missile defense system. Any attempts to expand the unification and / or adaptation of the army anti-aircraft complex to the needs of the fleet have not been made for several decades. However, in October 2016, an interesting experiment was carried out, which showed the fundamental possibility of using the Tor-M2 product not only on land.

Preparing for the Tora-M2KM tests on board the Admiral Grigorovich. Photo by IEMZ "Kupol"

During the tests, the Tor-M2KM air defense system in container design was loaded onto the Admiral Grigorovich frigate of the Black Sea Fleet and secured on its helipad. The integration of the complex into the ship's control systems was not carried out, "Tor" worked as an independent combat unit in the position.

The ship with the air defense system on board went to one of the sea ranges, after which the shooting began. An attack on a frigate was simulated using a target rocket. Tor-M2KM successfully detected the threat and responded to it. The conventional anti-ship missile was hit by the first missile launch. Unusual carrier, pitching and other characteristic factors did not interfere with the performance of the combat training mission.

Real ship

Experiments with the "Tor-M2KM" container version are of great interest. They showed that such an air defense system can be installed on an offshore platform and successfully used by strengthening its air defense. We also managed to collect a lot of various information for further work. However, the tested option for placing the complex is of very limited practical value, since it excludes the operation of a deck helicopter.

SAM module on the helipad. Photo by IEMZ "Kupol"

It is obvious that the Tor-M2 air defense missile system needs serious revision to be used on ships. First of all, it will be necessary to abandon the existing architecture with the placement of all units on a common base. Taking into account the ship's specifics, the launcher, calculation jobs, radar equipment, etc. should be separated and possibly placed in different volumes of the hull and superstructure.

The own radars of the anti-aircraft complex are inferior in their basic characteristics to similar systems of any ship. Therefore, "Thor" should be able to receive data from shipborne detection equipment. At the same time, it will be necessary to retain the guidance station, which carries out target tracking and transfers the command to the missiles.

Unlike the old "Dagger", the modern "Tor-M2" can use the entire range of existing missiles 9M330 / 331/332. This will, in a known way, expand the capabilities of a promising shipborne air defense system in comparison with the existing one.

The complex is waiting for the training target. Photo by IEMZ "Kupol"

Marine perspectives

A hypothetical naval air defense system based on the land-based "Tora-M2" will be able to effectively solve the assigned tasks and increase the air defense potential of the carrier ship and the ship formation. In addition, such a complex will have obvious advantages over the existing "Dagger" using the same missiles.

Such an air defense system can be of great interest to the navy. If the Navy is interested in such a development, then in the distant future, new and modernized ships will have a new means of defense for the near zone. It is not known how soon this rearmament of our fleet will begin, and which ships will have to carry the updated Thor.

Several other important questions remain unanswered. So, it is not known whether it will be possible to create a full-fledged shipborne air defense system that meets all naval requirements. Tests in 2016 showed the fundamental compatibility of the ship and the Tora-M2KM, but did not reveal some of the other issues.

Rocket launch. Photo by IEMZ "Kupol"

In addition, the place of the new air defense system in the nomenclature of the Navy's weapons is unclear. A number of short-range complexes are already in service, such as the 3M87 "Kortik", the 3M89 "Broadsword" or the 3M47 "Gibka". A naval version of the "Shell" is created. Perhaps the new version of the "Torah" will have to compete with other domestic developments.

Big interest

It seems that the IEMZ Kupol has begun the development of one of the most interesting modern projects in the field of air defense. The modernization of existing air defense systems with the increase of certain characteristics has long become a common thing, which cannot be said about the transfer of complexes from a land chassis to sea platforms.

Thus, several high-profile "premieres" will take place in the foreseeable future. Several new modifications of the "Tor" air defense missile system are being created at once with various features, including a fundamentally new naval one. As the experience of past years shows, the modernization potential of such a complex has not yet been exhausted - and the development of one more direction in the form of naval air defense will only increase it.

Comments

[Profiler]

Such an air defense system can be of great interest to the navy. If the Navy is interested in such a development, then in the distant future, new and modernized ships will have a new means of defense for the near zone.

Presumably, after a completely successful experiment with the "crossing" of the land module of the TOP and the ship, its full-fledged "chilled" version will appear. And (hopefully), with the possibility of a quick automated reloading of the complex after the missile is used up.

[pmkemcity]

Quote: Profiler

Presumably, after a completely successful experiment with the "crossing" of the land module of the TOP and the ship, its full-fledged "chilled" version will appear. And (hopefully), with the possibility of a quick automated reloading of the complex after the missile is used up.

This option has been around for a long time. Pushing all the bullshit "daggers-shells" it is obvious that "Dagger", as an integrated ship system, cannot be produced. The "Torah" option is only interesting for arming civilian steamers or for enhancing the BDK-SDK air defense, and that's all. Well, as usual, for sale to pygmies.

[Flashpoint]

Quote: pmkemcity

Quote: Profiler

Presumably, after a completely successful experiment with the "crossing" of the land module of the TOP and the ship, its full-fledged "chilled" version will appear. And (hopefully), with the possibility of a quick automated reloading of the complex after the missile is used up.

This option has been around for a long time. Pushing all the bullshit "daggers-shells" it is obvious that "Dagger", as an integrated ship system, cannot be produced. The "Torah" option is only interesting for arming civilian steamers or for enhancing the BDK-SDK air defense, and that's all. Well, as usual, for sale to pygmies.

Why is the applicability so narrowly limited? Why is Thor fundamentally bad for corvettes, for example?

[pmkemcity]

Quote: Flashpoint

Why is the applicability so narrowly limited? Why is Thor fundamentally bad for corvettes, for example?

A ship, in the understanding of the SOVIET engineers, is a complex, and in the late Soviet period, a complex was already a group of ships. All foreign things not integrated into this complex will remain ballast and have zero value. If "Thor" is integrated through the ass, then it will only be a bad "Dagger" and nothing more.

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: pmkemcity

If "Thor" is integrated through the ass, then it will only be a bad "Dagger" and nothing more

Why necessarily through the ass?
The dagger is the integrated Thor, just ancient. Why do you think that the new Thor cannot be integrated by the Dome now?

[pmkemcity]

Quote: Jacket in stock

Why do you think that the new Thor cannot be integrated by the Dome now?

Due to the fact that it makes no sense to cram a land-based installation into a "corvette" - it has few missiles, a normal launcher can be made in the same weight, it cannot be located in the under-deck space, which violates stability, the antennas are low and much more.

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: pmkemcity

Due to the fact that it makes no sense to push a land unit into a "corvette"

And where did you get the idea that someone is going to push a ground installation into the corvette?
The tests carried out showed only the operability on board, even of the land version, but this does not oblige the fleet and developers to use exclusively such an arrangement for ships.
When developing the Dagger, they did not do that.

[pmkemcity]

Quote: Jacket in stock

The tests carried out showed only performance on board, even the land version.

It was convenient to move around on a bicycle on the Minsk deck, but no one did that, although the bicycle worked perfectly.

[frog]

When developing the Dagger, they did not do that.

They didn't. They didn’t do a lot of things there, but did a lot. And he began to weigh a little more, let's say ... And how much was done ... And as a result of the total, only the rocket remained. In fact, a new complex will have to be created. With all the consequences ... And the question arises - is it necessary? And if necessary, then why and when? But with these questions we somehow have everything ... fresh and unusual ...

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: pmkemcity

it makes no sense to push a land unit into a "corvette"

And when was it "pushed" onto the ship "land installation"? Basically, "unification" was reduced to the use of missiles! And the rest was developed "own" ... shipboard! They could, of course, use some of the electronic equipment, which could not be avoided; but, again, more often in a "revised" form! It is not for nothing that the shipborne air defense missile systems were called differently than the land-based "brethren"!

[pmkemcity]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

And when was it "pushed" onto the ship "land installation"?

I apologize, have you read the article? We are discussing it.

[bayard]

The very possibility of "Torah" operation in sea conditions was tested. And here is exactly the chilled "Thor" with cells, instead of drums and new, "land" missiles.
It is such a short-range air defense system that is optimal for a corvette, because medium-range air defense systems for them are redundant and irrational. In any case, it is more optimal and cheaper than the Redut air defense system with the Zaslon radar.
Let's hope that this will be a good barrier to the future.

[D16]

And here is exactly the chilled "Thor" with cells, instead of drums and new, "land" missiles.

Your statement contradicts the principle of operation of both TOP and Dagger. Their rockets cannot do without rotating launchers. They orient the rocket at the start and after declination it enters the sector of the radar that controls it.

It is such a short-range air defense system that is optimal for a corvette, because medium-range air defense systems for them are redundant and irrational.

Well, they would put it on the Pantsiri M corvettes. Almost an analogue of the Dagger, only with better characteristics. But no. They want zonal air defense and spend money on Redoubt-Zaslon. Probably they know or guess something .

[bayard]

Quote: D16

Your statement contradicts the principle of operation of both TOP and Dagger. Their rockets cannot do without rotating launchers. They orient the rocket at the start and after declination it enters the sector of the radar that controls it.

Well, if the "Thor" has nothing to tilt the rocket at the exit in the right direction ... , I beg you pardon. Such a complex and not for nothing.
Vaughn, the regular "Redoubt" is quite inclined to himself where necessary, and does not outstrip. Or are the teachers of good manners completely transferred to teach the rocket the correct declination?
Without turning the whole ship in the right direction? ...
Even "Onyx" and "Caliber" are not satisfied with such whims - they tend to the right place. But not air defense at all.
You made me very ... very upset ...
The missiles were completely out of hand, worse than capricious young ladies.

Quote: D16

Well, they would put on the Corvettes M.

Let him learn how to fight at RTOs, show himself on the positive side, then he will be promoted.
May be .
But then, for good and all-weather vision, the RLC would have to be converted from millimeters to centimeters, so that in fog and with low clouds it would not go blind. Then - you are welcome.
And even then, for a promising - light corvette.
And no one will redesign projects 20380/85.
Marine "Shell", of course, is a necessary thing, but it is too raw, it requires fine-tuning. And although I have a classmate working in that design bureau, he runs around all fleets, and I wish this product a long and fruitful service ... the truth is dearer than wishes.

Quote: D16

They want zonal air defense and spend money on Redoubt-Zaslon. Probably they know or guess something.

They want to get rid of complex kinematics, which are very capricious and short-lived in sea conditions, in favor of missiles in UKSK with all-aspect declination.

... But with "Thor" you upset me today. I had a better opinion of him.

[D16]

But with "Thor" you upset me today. I had a better opinion of him.

And in the overland version, in principle, he does not need to lean in any other direction. There, the missiles rotate with the turret so that the radio correction radar always looks at the target. It turns out that entering the radar sector, the rocket flies towards the target. Otherwise, it will be a completely different missile, not unified with the ground one.

Without turning the whole ship in the right direction? ...

In the Dagger, the rotation of the rocket module is synchronized with the rotation of the antenna post.

The radar station would be converted from millimeters to centimeters, so as not to go blind in fog and low clouds.

If he was blind, no one would use the millimeter range. Don't think Mina is better than the creators of Carapace M.

And even then, for a promising - light corvette.

Until now serially Dagger with one antenna post was not put on a ship less than Yaroslav the Wise. What light corvette are we talking about?

[bayard]

Quote: D16

And in the overland version, in principle, he does not need to lean in any other direction. There the rockets turn with the tower

I understood this from your first post, just before that I did not know about such a feature of "Torah".

Quote: D16

In the Dagger, the rotation of the rocket module is synchronized with the rotation of the antenna post.

I also realized this at once, that the drum of the "Dagger" was spinning I did not know. It would be interesting, if the rocket can be launched freely from a standard cell, there is no need for extra mechanization on small ships.

Quote: D16

If he was blind, no one would use the millimeter range. Don't think Mina is better than the creators of Carapace M.

Do you know why they abandoned the "mm" range in aviation radars?
A high degree of signal attenuation, especially in an aerosol-droplet environment (cloudiness, fog, smoke), but in the mid-late 80s what hopes were ... the United States for sure. Therefore, this range is effective at a distance of several tens of kilometers in dry clear weather. Fog, rain, spray, cloudiness - range and efficiency drop dramatically.
A similar problem happened somehow with the radar for the then new long-range interceptor Tu-128 - the range chosen for it (about 3 cm) was good for everyone in mid-latitude, but in the Far North and the Arctic ... it turned out to be extremely unstable ... due to the high humidity and fog ... the range sank at times. Therefore, we had to urgently change the range and stop the already expanded production. And then everything was on lamps ... designed specifically for this range.
And after all, before the start of the tests in the Arctic, nothing foreshadowed a fiasco - the radar worked perfectly.
We changed the range and the radar started working like a watch.
It seems that something similar is happening with the sea "Shell".
Therefore, there is no need to rush.
We need to bring it up.

Quote: D16

What a light corvette we are talking about

Project 20380 and 20385 turned out to be by no means cheap, and for PLO in the near zone, a sufficient number of IPCs are needed, so requests and offers for a cheaper and lighter corvette for PLO in BMZ appeared.
One of the proposed options is the elongated "Karakurt" VI 1300 - 1500 tons with GAK, BUGAS, "Packet-NK" and PLUR in UKSK. It is for such an IPC that a simplified air defense system is needed - either "Pantsir-M", or the overwhelmed "Thor".
If "Thor" could bend correctly, he would probably be more interesting.
But apparently there will still be "Pantsir-M", incl. for the sake of unification ... if such a ship is ordered at all.

[D16]

Do you know why they abandoned the "mm" range in aviation radars?

Bad comparison. Aircraft radar must search for targets in survey mode. Millimeter SSTS Pantsirya is powered by AFAR located in the BMK pr.22800. There, on each plane, there are two canvases of different ranges, which are engaged in finding a target. A station with AFAR tracking and radio correction irradiates targets with a narrow beam of high power. The energy capabilities of a ship's power plant and cruise missiles are not comparable. Besides, bad weather doesn't play with one goal. ASP with their weak optical and radar means "see" by definition worse than ship means. In addition to the STS, on Mantzir M there is an OES, which also does not look for a target on its own, but works in conjunction with the S-band observation station of Pantsir.

for a PLO in the near zone, a sufficient number of IPCs are needed, so requests and offers for a cheaper and lighter corvette for PLO in BMZ appeared.

Light corvettes PLO are useful in the Black Sea or the Baltic in good weather, but there is no suitable power plant for them. In the North and Far East, surface ships of greater displacement are needed to ensure the use of weapons and GAS. Therefore, they build 20380-20385. The functions of the MPK BMZ are more effectively performed by the DPL. Especially if they interact with a corvette with a zonal air defense system.

If "Thor" could bend correctly, he would probably be more interesting.

- Georgians are getting better early.
- The better?
- Than the Armenians. (c) an old joke.
Personally, I see a couple of serious shortcomings of Armor M. First of all, this is its artillery unit, sharpened for completing cruise missiles. For today's trivia, OFS is preferable.

[bayard]

Quote: D16

For today's trivia, OFS is preferable.

Remote blasting. But this is still being realized only in the 57th caliber.

[D16]

Remote blasting. But this is still being realized only in the 57th caliber.

Well yes. And it would be great to smash the missile and artillery unit, leaving the OLS and radar on the missile launcher. And while the missiles are being reloaded, the trunks are lifted up and cannot be used for their intended purpose.

[bayard]

Then it's 57 mm. station wagon on the bow and purely missile launcher at the stern for MRK and small PLO corvettes.
True, without a metal cutter it will be unusual.

[D16]

Then 57 mm. station wagon on the nose

We don't have a tradition of putting guns on the tank less than the AK-176 ... Moreover, they have remote detonation, and the shell is 2+ times heavier. On the roof of the MPK hangar, you can put the Pantsir PU for 24 missiles without reloading the cellar. If there is no hangar, then it is possible with a cellar.

[bayard]

And leave the shipEl without small artillery?
This is also not in our tradition.
"The shell is so interesting that it is two in one.

[D16]

The shell is so interesting that two in one

There is one to the detriment of the other, and the third, the third to the first, and all together the ship ... The cannons do not allow the launcher to reload during the battle, interfere with the operation of the OLS and radar, and the radar and OLS, in turn, forced the cannons to be smashed, reducing the accuracy of fire, increasing the weight of the installation and its EPR. Unlike the Duet, it is unlikely that the Shell M will be able to fire the right and left cannon in turn, increasing the length of the continuous burst. That is, everything suggests that it is smarter to spread the launcher and the cannon, or in the case of a small displacement, choose one of them.

[bayard]

They want to smash them for a long time. Even the land version.

[D16]

They want to smash them for a long time. Even the land version.

The military Tunguska has already been divided into Derivation and Pine. And the object will most likely remain that way. It would never occur to anyone to reload it during combat without cover or change of position.

[lucul]

If Thor integrate through the ass

And if not ? ))))

[pmkemcity]

Quote: lucul

If Thor integrate through the ass

And if not ? ))))

Are there any options?

[lucul]

Are there any options?

Thor has already proven that his electronic brains are no worse than those on ships, but that the antenna is weaker.
Now the missile homing heads are so "smart" that they do not need to be led by the handle to the target - they threw them into a given square and they themselves found the target in the square.
Ie it is not necessary to take into account either pitching or other algorithms of "chilling". The missile's seeker is already deciding - the smarter it is, the better.

[pmkemcity]

Quote: lucul

Now missile homing heads are so "smart" that they do not need to be guided to the target

These are fables from the category of "smart managers" who also do not need to be kept manually from the center.

[lucul]

These are fables from the category of "smart managers" who also do not need to be kept manually from the center.

Then why, in your opinion, "uncooked" Thor hit the target so easily the first time? When Klimov shouts that the air defense on our ships is useless and constantly misses.

[pmkemcity]

Quote: lucul

Then why, in your opinion, the "uncooked" Thor hit the target so easily the first time? When Klimov shouts that air defense on our ships is useless, and constantly misses

Neither Thor nor Dagger ever misses. Excellent complexes. They talked about the Daggers, and they were only adopted in my past life. that they were automatically shooting at the seagulls and at the fragments of targets, although at the Pacific Fleet they were constantly being shot by the Hurricanes of the 956s (which were Buki on the ground).

[Angry]

I thought about it too. There is one more category of ships on which it would be necessary to install these air defense systems during a threatened period. These are large auxiliary ships of the fleet, such as the large sea tanker "Ivan Bubnov". Well, those auxiliary, universal supply ships for the squadrons, which already need to be built, they should be immediately designed with the installation of one or two Tor M2 trailers.

[pmkemcity]

Quote: Angry

I thought about it too. There is one more category of ships on which it would be necessary to install these air defense systems during a threatened period. These are large auxiliary ships of the fleet, such as the large sea tanker "Ivan Bubnov". Well, those auxiliary, universal supply ships for the squadrons, which already need to be built, they should be immediately designed with the installation of one or two Tor M2 trailers.

This is "from poverty". There should be a specialized sea "container" complex. The deck is not a trench. For containers, at least what no fasteners exist, lifting, transport mechanisms.

[sivuch]

Why is Thor fundamentally bad for corvettes, for example?
Well, for example, the fact that the Tor is 4-channel, but in a rather narrow solid angle of 30 by 30 degrees.
The Dagger was much better. (Hint - the matter is in the cost of the STS, land Tors required hundreds of BM)

[D16]

Why is Thor fundamentally bad for corvettes, for example?

The fact that no matter how you integrate it, you get a Dagger, which was not serially installed on ships than on the TFR pr. 11540.

[Profiler]

Quote: pmkemcity

Pushing all the bullshit "daggers-shells" it is obvious that "Dagger", as an integrated ship system, cannot be produced.

I won't be mistaken if I write that Any Should the ship's air defense be fully integrated into the ship's systems?
And now, this disagreement - "some in the forest, some for wood", can not lead to anything good.

And please explain the remark about the inability to produce the ship's "Dagger". How is it expressed?

[pmkemcity]

Quote: Profiler

Am I not mistaken if I write that any ship's air defense should be fully integrated into the ship's systems?
And now, this disagreement - "some in the forest, some for wood", can not lead to anything good.

And not only in terms of, for example, electronic compatibility (interference, sectors, data transmission, etc.). Location, foundations, weight-loads, stability, power supply, and the fight for survivability are of great importance. Antenna height, for example, what? Yes, no!

Quote: Profiler

And please explain the remark about the inability to produce the ship's "Dagger". How is it expressed?

Why can't they produce? From the point of view of an engineer, I will say that there is simply no desire or "command".

[Profiler]

Quote: pmkemcity

Antenna height, for example, what? Yes, no!

Why is that ? Do you still not assume (do not believe) that the MOR-TOP will be fully integrated with the carrier ship?

[pmkemcity]

Quote: Profiler

Do you still not assume (do not believe) that the MOR-TOP will be fully integrated with the carrier ship?

By the fact that then it will not be TOP, a new Dirk.

[Profiler]

Quote: pmkemcity

By the fact that then it will not be TOP, a new Dirk.

Compared - CANCER and ZRAK

[pmkemcity]

Quote: Profiler

Compared - CANCER and ZRAK

Sorry! They talked me out! Of course, Dagger!

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: pmkemcity

By the fact that then it will not be TOP, a new Dirk.

So what?
It's just that the new Dagger will use the elements of the new Thor, the suitability of which has already been confirmed by tests.

[pmkemcity]

Quote: Jacket in stock

It's just that the new Dagger will use the elements of the new Thor, the suitability of which has already been confirmed by tests.

"Elements" in the new complex ("Dagger") is not at all "Thor" on deck. What is the point then to fence a vegetable garden? Drive the car to the helicopter, plus the TZM hangar. And in tow - a pontoon, and roll the S-400, the Americans will die with laughter.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: pmkemcity

Why can't they produce? From the point of view of an engineer, I will say that there is simply no desire or "command".

Or opportunities. "Dagger" in Soviet times was given with great difficulty - the first 1155 went either without air defense systems at all, or with a half set. And even now the "Kulakov" was modernized and modernized, but the bow "Dagger" was never installed - a pseudo-air defense system "Gibka" was stuck in the place of its antenna post (this is approximately the same as a 0,5 "Browning machine gun ).

[pmkemcity]

Quote: Alexey RA

"Dagger" in Soviet times was given with great difficulty - the first 1155 went either without air defense systems at all, or with a half set.

This is what speaks about the complexity of the marine complex. Yes, the technology is lost.

[venik]

Quote: pmkemcity

This option has been around for a long time.

=======
??
---------

Quote: pmkemcity

it is obvious that "Dagger", as an integrated ship system, cannot be produced.

=======
Of course they CAN'T - he already hopelessly out of date, and the element base for it has not been produced for 25 years!
--------

Quote: pmkemcity

The "Torah" option is only interesting for arming civilian steamers or for enhancing the BDK-SDK air defense, and that's all.

=======
IN THE FORM of how it was tested ("Tor-M2KM", adapted to the rolling conditions) - yes!
But the one that is being developed (with a "spaced layout") - is intended and interesting for anything, from minesweepers and RTOs to missile and aircraft-carrying cruisers!

[Svetlana]

Such an air defense system can be of great interest to the navy.

Such an air defense system is suitable for protecting the airspace over Avacha Bay from new Harpoons, planned for installation on American nuclear submarines.

[venik]

Quote: Profiler

And (hopefully), with the possibility of a quick automated reloading of the complex after the missile is used up.

=======
Is it necessary? In two modules (similar in size to standard modules vertical launch 9М334 - 444х1223х3005 mm) accommodates 16 (!) 9М338 missiles.
Place 8-10 such modules, even on a ship of small displacement - not a problem! And this is already from 64 to 80 anti-aircraft missiles !!! Where is more then? And they (launch modules) are replaced quite simply (even at sea - from supply vehicles) ...

[Jacket in stock]

the place of the new air defense system in the nomenclature of the Navy's weapons is unclear. Armed with a number of short-range complexes, such as the 3M87 "Kortik", 3M89 "Broadsword" or 3M47 "Gibka". A naval version of the "Shell" is created

The dagger, as I understand it, is the ancient Shell.
Broadsword - Castrated Dagger.
Flexible, well, it's generally strange to compare. Although, it has its advantages - absolute autonomy from the rest of the ship, you can even take it ashore with you.
If a new Dagger is made on the basis of equipment from the new Thor, then there will be a clear step forward. I don’t know how with the chilled Shell, but on land Thor seemed to show better results.

And the option to simply immerse the land Thor on any vessel opens up new perspectives. It is not known how it will turn out in life. Even fishing boats were armed and sent into battle in the Great Patriotic War.

[pmkemcity]

Quote: Jacket in stock

And the option to simply immerse the land Thor on any vessel opens up new perspectives.

But only.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Jacket in stock

The dagger, as I understand it, is the ancient Shell.

"Dagger" is "Tunguska" ... "Broadsword" - "Pine-R" ... although about the simplified "Dirk" is true in a certain sense ...

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Jacket in stock

The dagger, as I understand it, is the ancient Shell.
Broadsword - Castrated Dagger.

Nope, "Broadsword" is a competing company: KBTM decided to get into the KBP niche.

[Yuri V.A]

Probably, it is difficult to create and equip large and medium-sized ships with a single full-fledged complex of the near air defense zone, small ships - its lightweight version, and all patrol icebreakers - with container ones. It's easier to take an example from the land: Tor-Shell-Pine-Birds-Derivation -... and so on. And so that each unit also works in a single defense circuit ...

[Ros 56]

Good luck to the designers in crossing a snake and a hedgehog. There you really have to apply a different design technique. You know the ship specificity.

[psiho117]

Quote: Ros 56

Ship specificity, you know

Uh-huh, this specificity is especially vividly revealed in issues of lobbying and undercover games. There were very painful problems with this under the USSR, and now things are even more fun.
Everyone pulls the blanket of the State Order on themselves, regardless of any principles.

[Ros 56]

This is the case all over the world, competition you know.

[psiho117]

...dreamily...
But the Chinese, since 2000, have shot 10 embezzlers and bribe-takers ... Even one billionaire - and that too.

... even more dreamy ...
If only we could get a piece of Chinese justice ...

[Ros 56]

I am not only hands, all limbs for. Although by and large it does not help much, it still stops many.

[prior]

Thor on land is a separate unit assigned to another unit.
Why can't this principle be repeated at sea?
Place the TOP on a separate boat of proper seaworthiness and give it even a corvette, even a landing ship, even a tanker, either on the river or on the sea.
Placing the antenna higher, increasing the number of PUs is a matter of technology.

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: prior

Why can't this principle be repeated at sea?
Place the TOP on a separate boat of proper seaworthiness and give it even a corvette, even a landing ship, even a tanker, either on the river or on the sea.
Place the antenna higher

Because the higher antenna will not fit into the boat. And you won't go out to sea on any boat.
To walk the sea on a par with a corvette, you will have to make a "boat" the size of a corvette.

[prior]

That is, it is possible to make an autonomous specialized air defense unit on land, but not at sea?
Can the antenna fit on a tracked chassis, but not on a sea ship?

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: prior

Can the antenna fit on a tracked chassis, but not on a sea ship?

What's the task?
You can load the land Thor on any barge, but this will not make it an autonomous unit of the fleet.
On land there is no swing, storm, currents ... but there is work as part of a connection with target designation from the "higher antenna". At sea, for this, next to the barge, you will have to place a corvette / frigate / cruiser, why then this barge, if the large ship already has an air defense system?

[prior]

But this is exactly how the TOP was tested - "loaded onto a barge", installed on a helipad. And as I understood from the article, they got quite excellent results.
Why is the task bad? A ship fully tailored for the most promising air defense can be included in any order, be it a helicopter carrier, amphibious assault, or any other that does not have a sufficiently strong air defense.

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: prior

But this is exactly how the TOP was tested - "loaded onto a barge", installed on a helipad. And as I understood from the article, they got quite excellent results.
,

Tests have shown that even land-based equipment (the missile guidance station and the missile itself) copes well with sea conditions (the same pitching, reflections from water, etc.) and can be used in the marine complex with minimal alterations.

Why is the task bad? A ship fully sharpened for the most promising air defense system, included in any order

It will not work to include any boat or barge in any order, because there must be compliance in seaworthiness, speed, range, etc. etc....
Yes, and Thor provides a very narrow air defense task for the near zone, which is not enough for a separate ship, even a corvette in seaworthiness. For there is such a complex on a corvette, and on a helicopter carrier it is easier to fasten a land Thor to the deck than to tie a barge on a string.

[psiho117]

Quote: prior

Place the TOP on a separate boat

there is such a word - seaworthiness... The boat has none.

[prior]

Why do you only read the word boat? It is followed by the words "proper seaworthiness".
Imagine a separate specialized air defense ship, with complexes of different ranges, with naval Shells, frozen TOPs and / or S-300. Let it be the dimensions of Grigorovich, I do not mind. So that he could independently withstand a simultaneous massive attack of various air targets. A full-fledged air defense, and not cut down by several missiles deployed on a frigate with Caliber and Daggers.
In aviation, the TU-160 is not armed with short, medium and long-range air-to-air missiles, for this there is a plane.

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: prior

Imagine a separate specialized air defense ship, with complexes of different ranges, with naval Shells, frozen TOPs and / or S-300. Let it be the dimensions of Grigorovich,

Well, the C300 won't fit into Grigorovich.
For a full-fledged air defense, you will have to make the antenna higher, which is no longer Thor and not Armor on the radar, and not Grigorovich in terms of dimensions.
A ship, the size of a real one, but with stripped down functions, despite the fact that the industry can make a limited number of them - an odd choice. This miracle will not be in addition to Grigorovich, but instead of him.

[psiho117]

Quote: prior

Why do you only read the word boat? It is followed by the words "proper seaworthiness".

a boat and "proper seaworthiness" are incompatible concepts.

Imagine a separate specialized air defense ship, with complexes of different ranges

What is there to represent? An air defense ship is an air defense ship.
Daring as an example.

[Alexey RA]

In addition, the place of the new air defense system in the nomenclature of the Navy's weapons is unclear. A number of short-range complexes are already in service, such as the 3M87 "Kortik", the 3M89 "Broadsword" or the 3M47 "Gibka".

"Daggers" are no longer produced - the backlog is over. They and "Broadsword" are replaced by "Pantsir-M".
And "Gibka" is a MANPADS on a pedestal. "The last frontier complex" is an anti-aircraft missile analogue of the ship's anti-aircraft machine gun.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Alexey RA

And "Gibka" is a MANPADS on a pedestal. "The complex of the last frontier" - anti-aircraft missile "analogue" of the ship's anti-aircraft machine gun

Well said!

[demiurg]

The self-defense air defense system of the corvette / missile boat must hit targets at the maximum line-of-sight range. This is 30-40 km. This will give a chance to shoot down a more or less massive launch.
Thor is good as a military air defense system, but there is nothing to catch at sea with a range of 12. On land, Torahs can work as a battery, duplicated with tenth Arrows and Buks. And on a corvette / boat, there is usually one air defense system.

[Scharnhorst]

[quote] demiurg (valera)
The self-defense air defense system of the corvette / missile boat must hit targets at the maximum line-of-sight range. This is 30-40km [/ quote
You are not entirely correct. For a corvette / RCA 30-40 km is the range of the radio horizon beyond which, in principle, it is impossible to look. Therefore, even the instrumental detection range of the SOC "Dagger" is limited to 45 km. The complex has a reaction time to a detected target and a missile flight time to the far border of the affected area of ​​12 km. In my opinion, everything is just harmonious. SAM "Dagger" is a short-range and self-defense complex of a specific ship. Its task does not include attempts to intercept anti-ship missiles and aircraft flying past the ship. And the desire to shoot down targets at a greater distance leads to an increase in the weight and size characteristics of the SAM and the equipment of the complex. The Tor M2 already has 16 9m338 missiles with a range of 15 km and an altitude reach of 12 km. It's just that everything in the Navy is driven to the point of absurdity. If the Thor combat vehicle weighs 37 tons, then on ships one launcher for 32 missiles (weigh no more than 5,5 tons) pulls 41,5 tons (without ammunition).

[Lt. Air Force stock]

It is not easier to use 9M100 missiles on ships. Now the main thing is that the rocket has an active homing head.

[demiurg]

Not. First of all, it is expensive for all occasions. Secondly, it is very good to have missiles with IR and radar seeker. And with guidance from the board. And also cheap, with a semi-active seeker. It is not always cost effective to waste an expensive rocket. In addition, it is easier to jam missiles with jamming than a ship's radar.
But now, for lack of countesses, we must be content with cooks. And 9M100 is quite suitable for this position.
Ideally, sometime a missile with a range of 30-40 km will be shot down for the Shell (at least sea). And now it will be a fierce wine. It will be possible to make real corvettes, with a displacement of about a thousand tons and full-fledged air defense, from one or two Shells. Two Carapaces, these are four channels per board. Generally gorgeous.

[Lt. Air Force stock]

Quote: demiurg

Not. First of all, it is expensive for all occasions. Secondly, it is very good to have missiles with IR and radar seeker. And with guidance from the board. And also cheap, with a semi-active seeker. It is not always cost effective to waste an expensive rocket. In addition, it is easier to jam missiles with jamming than a ship's radar.
But now, for lack of countesses, we must be content with cooks. And 9M100 is quite suitable for this position.
Ideally, sometime a missile with a range of 30-40 km will be shot down for the Shell (at least sea). And now it will be a fierce wine. It will be possible to make real corvettes, with a displacement of about a thousand tons and full-fledged air defense, from one or two Shells. Two Carapaces, these are four channels per board. Generally gorgeous.

On small ships, as a rule, there is no place for an air defense complex with several types of missiles. Therefore, you need to put the best one. It's not about profitability, it's about performance. The main thing is to stop the RCC.

[D16]

[quote] No. First of all, it's expensive for all occasions. [/ Quote]
That is, it is not expensive to fence rotating launchers, used only for TOR missiles, rotating antenna posts at maximum height, and it is expensive to use Redoubt launchers under 9M100 available on each new frigate-corvette or modernized TARK .
[quote] it's very nice to have missiles with IR and radar seeker [quote]
TOP has no GOS at all. In this regard, it is a direct analogue of the Pantsir with radio command guidance.
[Quote] In addition, it is easier to jam missiles with jamming than a ship's radar. [/ quote]
This is a short-range complex. Who will crush? Bursting Harpoons, or gliding bombs?
[Quote] Ideally, when something for the Armor (at least a sea one) they will gash a missile with a range of 30-40 km. [/ quote]
So he is already. SM shell with a firing range of 40 km. There is no point in breeding entities with a second close-range complex if the frigates have Armor M. They would have made him an artillery unit with one 57mm barrel from Derivation to finish shooting every little thing, beauty would howl.

[Castro Ruiz]

Modernizirovat Kinzhal s ispolzovanim narabotok (elektronika i novie raketi) Tor-2M idea khoroshaya, no omoriachivat Tor-2M v zamenu Kinzhala?
Nu neznayu kak poluchitsa. Uzhe s Kinzhalom bili proizvodstvenie problemi.

[Nikolaevich I]

Unlike the old "Dagger", the modern "Tor-M2" can use the whole range of existing 9M330 / 331/332 missiles. SAM 9M332 for "Thor"? When did you have time? Why dont know? Here's how to teach young people after that? So it is possible to embarrass yourself on "one-two"!

[Anton 17]

A strange attempt to cross the sea and land. Apply a land structure with a maximally horizontal structure to a naval ship with a vertical architecture. The components of the complex can be the same, but the overall structure must inevitably be something vertical. Everything that can be closer to the waterline, and at the top of the arsenal and radar is an integrated shipboard with a phased array.

[Scharnhorst]

The article is very relevant and topical, it's just that the author is not very much in the topic of air defense and naval air defense in particular, but this is not viciousness and not a sentence.

A hypothetical naval air defense system based on the land-based "Tora-M2" will be able to effectively solve the assigned tasks and increase the air defense potential of the carrier ship and the ship formation.

The main disadvantage of the ships of the first rank, pr. 1155, pr. 1155.1, was considered to be weak air defense, the main element of which on these ships were two short-range air defense systems "Dagger". It was because of the weakness of the air defense that these ships had to cover themselves from the air threat with medium and long-range air defense missile carriers.

A number of short-range complexes are already in service, such as the 3M87 "Kortik", the 3M89 "Broadsword" or the 3M47 "Gibka". A naval version of the "Shell" is created. Perhaps the new version of the "Torah" will have to compete with other domestic developments.

Speech about the competition between the listed anti-aircraft weapons of ships is not appropriate, each complex has its own target niche and they need to be harmoniously combined. On Project 1155.1, the Kortik ZRAK replaced the AK-630 used in the previous project, but is used in conjunction with the Dagger. Also, both complexes are located on the TARK "Peter the Great", TAVKR "Kuznetsov" and patrol boats pr.11540.

The own radars of the anti-aircraft complex are inferior in their basic characteristics to similar systems of any ship. Therefore, "Thor" should be able to receive data from shipborne detection equipment.

In military air defense, the "Ranzhir" automated control system processes radar images from both controlled firing vehicles and from reconnaissance radars. The operating mode in the ACS is the main one for the battery and divisional level.

[businessv]

Quote: Scharnhorst

In military air defense, the "Ranzhir" automated control system processes radar images from both controlled firing vehicles and from reconnaissance radars.

Thanks for the fairly complete and competent information, colleague!

[d1975]

Our air defense has always been at its best during the Soviet Union, if this is really the best solution, then why not. Here an air defense corvette can and should be done, and not an AK-630 to poke where it does not hit, the same new BDK is really empty. Our fleet went its own way and there was no need to turn off. YES and competition is also needed, for the same Armor -M. While we are using Soviet developments and brains have to be done, it always works almost 100%.

[arkadiyssk]

How did you decide that the air defense was at its best in the USSR? Did they say on the TV? The USSR is '89 and that's it ... And in '82 there was the devastating Bekaa Valley, where the Jews on the shit of a mammoth rolled the vaunted Soviet air defense to smithereens. In my opinion, all the best things began to be created much later - already in Russia.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: arkadiyssk

And in 82 AD there was the devastating Bekaa Valley, where Jews, on the shit of a mammoth, rolled the vaunted Soviet air defense to smithereens.

Now the Americans feel hurt - for their ancient F-15 and F-16. And the Jews - for their ancient UAVs, ground launch missiles and decoys TALD.

If we talk about ancient systems, it’s about the Syrian air defense. S-75, S-125, "Cube" - and also in export performance. SAM DD - absent as a class. AWACS - well, here and the sponsor was all bad.

[sivuch]

AWACS - well, here and the sponsor was all bad.
Are you talking about the USSR? In principle, yes, but the Tu-128s were still there and were already preparing for decommissioning. But there was no question of giving them to Assad. And they still saw targets against the background of water.

[sivuch]

In my opinion, all the best things began to be created much later - already in Russia.
And in my opinion, you just poorly know the materiel. Reluctance to tell common knowledge for the 101st time.

[sivuch]

Arkady, for the Bekaa valley you closed up minus? I can prove everything I wrote.
If you are really interested in what, and most importantly, why, happened there, then the best debriefing, in my opinion, is here
https://imtw.ru/topic/50391-boinya-v-doline-bekaa-vozdushnoe-srazhenie-9-11-iyunya-1982/page__st__10
Bekaa Valley Massacre: Aerial Battle June 9-11, 1982
Operation Medvedka-19: dismantling myths, establishing the truth
By the way, Mr Paggot is an aviation historian from the Israeli side (he interviewed Yitzhak Mostov)

[Pavel57]

On the naval version it would be worth adding an accelerator, the rocket would become longer, but the range would also increase. on the ship, in contrast to the land version, the length restrictions are not so strict (in a certain range, of course.)

[Kazarinovsergen]

Why the hell should we push land air defense systems on ships? To bring the Redoubt to mind, let it remain unified for all ship platforms. The variety of shipborne air defense systems has been a real headache since Soviet times

[Basarev]

Isn't it easier to just adapt his missile for the UKSK?