"Russia shakes off dust from a belated rocket": Western observer on the resumption of work on the 300M rocket

Russia, decades later, resumed work on an aircraft-based short-range missile.

Moscow is dusting off a belated close-combat missile [...] There are indications that Russia is taking steps to fill this gap in its arsenal of weapons aviation of protection

writes Western columnist Douglas Barry for the IISS think tank.

According to him, after almost 20 years of inactivity, the KTRV concern seems to have resumed work on a project to create a successor to the R-73 missile defense system.

The lack of an improved short-range missile defense system is a noticeable omission in the VKS missile arsenal, as well as a gap and weak point in the KTRV export portfolio.

- believes Douglas Barry, pointing out that the successor to the R-73 under the designation K-30 began to be created in the mid-1980s as part of the MFI multi-role front-line fighter development program. After 10 years, the work was stopped.

Instead, the Air Force continues to rely on more modest enhancements to the P-73 to meet the growing demands for short-range missiles, and even these are relatively recent.

- the author writes, explaining that the modernization of the R-74M (or M1), which has improved destruction capabilities and an increased detection range for the GOS, was presented only in 2016. A further version of the R-74M2, involving the replacement of the infrared seeker, is in the final stages of testing.

The 300M product should be a completely new creation. However, already now the current R-74M1 missile in its export form RVV-MD "is facing growing problems in traditional markets." China has a much more powerful infrared-guided missile, the PL-10, while India has purchased an ASRAAM [British missile] for some of its non-Russian aircraft and is exploring the possibility of integrating it with the Su-30MKI.

Surely only a successor rocket will avoid a further decline in market share

- concludes browser.

Comments

[Aerodrome]

P-73 guided missile

https://topwar.ru/19961-upravlyaemaya-aviacionnaya-raketa-blizhnego-boya-r-73.html 15 октября 2012.."Древний",дружище,появись ! тут без тебя сложно разобраться.

[Maz]

Article - Just to write something. Pancake connoisseurs

[svp67]

Short-range missiles

SAM is an anti-aircraft guided missile, it has little to do with equipping fighters. But the short-range "air-to-air" missile is for aviation.

[Victor_B]

Quote: svp67

SAM - anti-aircraft guided missile

Bl Journalists!
Sir!

[svp67]

Quote: Victor_B

Bl Journalists!
Sir!

Koekaker ..., comrade!

[Victor_B]

Quote: svp67

Koekaker ..., comrade!

And also these ... anikeys!

[Fotoceva62]

The second oldest profession. ProfessionalsAnalysis of non-violent behavior.

[mark1]

They are developing and thank God, that's how it should be! Still, there were no problems with production.
And one more thing - we do not have small stocks of R-73. I wonder if there is a program for the modernization of these already finished products (of course, not to the detriment of the production of new ones)

[Thrifty]

Such "experts" of the herd roam the Internet! Well, should we each "storyteller" believe in words? Let's see what kind of rocket we get, then we'll argue with the "experts" about their correctness!

[rotmistr60]

"Powerful" articles about Russia and its armaments come from the pen of Western observers. Read this

Moscow shakes off dust from a belated rocket

and I immediately recall the statements of Western leaders - "a gas station country", "an economy torn to shreds", "these are cartoons ...." etc. , well, what can we say about some observers. Sometimes it is useful to shake off the dust, because later it turns out that the enemy has nothing to shake off even the dust.

[Souchastnik]

Sometimes it is useful to shake off the dust, because later it turns out that the enemy has nothing to shake off even the dust.

Totally agree with you. Often closed projects get a second wind due to the development of technologies: in the field of materials, digital, software, communications, etc.

[Andrey sh]

Almost everything in a real confrontation will be determined by the banal number and command. And it's not a fact that 10 expensive missiles are better than 1000 cheap and outdated ones. Better, of course, to have both. The problem is that the Russian Federation will most likely not be able to produce thousands of missiles - it simply does not have the required number of factories. And with the development - they developed the Armata, and began to produce the outdated T-90. Although this is also a question - each device has its own pros and cons. The T-90 completely replaces the previous models of tanks, which can be sold off, and with the proceeds to produce modern weapons for YOUR army.

[Quadro]

Since when is the T-90 obsolete? The T-72 is the same age as the Abrams and leopards. And the T-90 based on it is much younger, especially the T-90m.

[ccsr]

Moscow shakes off dust from an overdue missile designed for close air combat

This Western observer, apparently, did not enter, that the very concept of the air operation has changed so much that it does not provide for close air combat in the traditional way, which is why our military has cooled to this type of weapon. If we proceed from the confrontation between Russia and NATO, then in any case it will not come to such clashes in the air, because our strategic aviation is unlikely to enter the enemy's air defense zone, and our fighter aviation is unlikely to be able to accompany them without refueling to patrol areas ... In general, in the presence of aviation missile weapons with a range of 1 to 5 thousand km, it is unlikely that we should bother to create something unique for the near zone.

[Souchastnik]

In general, in the presence of aviation missile weapons with a range of 1 to 5 thousand km, we hardly need to bother creating something unique for the near zone.

Let me disagree with you. Super-maneuverability is still relevant, the cannons are not yet removed from the planes.

[ccsr]

Quote: Souchastnik

Super-maneuverability is still relevant, the guns are not removed from the planes yet.

This is a natural reaction to the development of UAVs. But to think that it is the super-maneuverability of aircraft in a strategic war that will give us advantages would be super-naive.

[Pandiurin]

"This western observer, apparently, never entered, that the very concept of the air operation has changed so much that it does not provide for conducting close air combat in the traditional way ..."

In vain you are so.
In fact, the most frequent variant of an air operation is all kinds of escorts, interception, patrolling, etc.

And the distance is just closer.
If it does not come to the use of weapons, then you must have the potential to use them.
Those. for such a mission, the aircraft must fly with the appropriate weapons and in sufficient quantities.

Small-radius air-to-air missiles can be added to the "distant" missiles much more.

In addition, such weapons do not have to be used only against aircraft; they may well be used as an anti-missile.
And here, too, size and weight are important.

[ccsr]

Quote: Pandiurin

In vain you are so.
In fact, the most frequent variant of an air operation is all kinds of escorts, interception, patrolling, etc.

At one time, the commander of the 16th VA (or the chief of staff dubbed him) made regular reports at the command training sessions for officers of the GSVG headquarters about how air-ground operations in the European theater of operations would take place, what forces would be used, what would oppose us, how they would act NATO aviation. From the point of view of military science, these were classic classes at the highest level, which are not taught even in the air academies, because both our enemy and our capabilities were really assessed on them. And only the intelligence officers (and not only them) strongly doubted that everything that the commander of the 16th Air Force had planned would be actually implemented - they perfectly understood that a strike on a group of American strategic nuclear forces would put an end to all planning of not only air, but also land operations.
So go down to the ground - now all this will happen much faster, there will be no time for air battles in the near zone. This means that we need to think that our strategic aviation does not suffer, and pre-occupies the lines of round-the-clock patrolling during the threatened period. And everything else is secondary, and maneuverability, and near-field missiles, and even amphibious operations.

[Viktor Sergeev]

Yes, the term "short-range aircraft-based missile" killed me. Well, the SAM is a control shot. Author, maybe you don't need to write anymore?

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Victor Sergeev

Author, maybe you don't need to write anymore?

And what ... does this nonsense have an Author?

[Pavel57]

Also revive the P-14.

[sinoptic]

The article is not credible. Generally.
PL-10 is an analogue of R-27 with PARGSN.
This rocket is not only of a different weight category (medium-range), but is also technologically arranged, it is guided in a different way.

[AC130 Gunship]

What range, author? About what is the topic in general? For close combat, the Russian Federation has a licked black copy of the American Sidewinder. Nice rocket, even if not the first freshness

[Pavel57]

Quote: AC130 Ganship

For close combat, the Russian Federation has a licked black copy of the American Sidewinder.

Copies of the R-3S have not been in service for a long time, as well as their own modification of the R-13M. But its own version of the P-14 was killed by the P-73.