High performance and commercial failure. Israeli OTRK IAI LORA

118

Cutting layout of TPK with LORA rocket. Photo Wikimedia Commons

The Israeli industry offers domestic and foreign customers a lot of various complexes and weapons systems, but not all such developments receive the desired attention. So, the LORA operational-tactical missile system, developed by the IAI concern in the first half of the XNUMXs, is still not popular in the market. He entered service in only one country, and in very limited quantities.

Perspective sample


The development of the future OTRK LORA (Long Range Attack) started no later than the beginning of the 2003s. Already in 2004-2006. the complex was tested at land and sea ranges. Upon completion of testing, in XNUMX, the complex was shown for the first time at an international military-technical exhibition, and from that its promotion on the market began.



Before the LORA project, several main tasks were set, which were solved by creating a new quasi-ballistic missile and other components. It was necessary to obtain the maximum possible firing range corresponding to the operational-tactical class. High accuracy of hits and the ability to hit different targets were required. It was proposed to provide high flexibility of use due to compatibility with ground and surface platforms.

All tasks were successfully completed, resulting in a full-fledged OTRK. At the same time, the development of the LORA system does not stop. Concern IAI continues to improve the project and regularly conducts new tests. So, the last launches from the ship were carried out at the beginning of last summer.


A universal launcher in a firing position. Photo Wikimedia Commons

Despite a certain design perfection, high performance and declared capabilities, OTRK LORA was never able to take the desired place on the international market. Over the past 15 years, the development organization has received only one contract for the supply of a small number of such systems.

Technical features


The main component of the LORA complex is a single-stage solid-propellant quasi-ballistic missile. In the original version offered by the Israel Defense Forces, this product had a range of up to 430 km. The export modification complies with the restrictions and flies only 300 km.

The LORA rocket is made in a cylindrical body with a conical head and equipped with an X-shaped set of rudders that can be deployed in flight. The head compartment of the hull is given over to the warhead. Almost all other volumes are occupied by a solid fuel engine. The instrument compartment with control equipment is located in the tail, around the engine nozzle. The length of the product is 5,2 m with a case diameter of 625 mm. Launch weight - 1600 kg.

LORA is equipped with a guidance system with satellite and inertial navigation devices, which allows it to attack stationary targets with known coordinates. The possibility of using a television head was mentioned earlier. Flight control is carried out by means of electric rudders.


OTRK LORA of the Azerbaijani army is probably the only combat systems of this type, 2018 Photo AP Azerbaijan

The missile is made quasi-ballistic and has the ability to perform various maneuvers that provide a departure from a predictable trajectory. Automation retains the ability to control at all stages of the flight, up to hitting the target. Depending on the type of the intended target, a fall with an angle of 60 ° to 90 ° to the horizon is possible. KVO - 10 m.

The payload of the LORA rocket reaches 570 kg. A monoblock high-explosive fragmentation and penetrating warhead, as well as cassettes with submunitions of various types, were developed and offered to customers. At the moment, only a high-explosive fragmentation warhead appears in the official materials on the project.

The rocket is equipped with a solid propellant engine, which is responsible for the start and acceleration in the active phase. Such an engine provides a sufficient supply of energy for flight at a distance of more than 350-400 km and for maneuvering on a trajectory. During the flight, the rocket develops hypersonic speed, but it is not specified in which section. Probably, we are talking about the last descending part of the trajectory.

LORA missiles are delivered in sealed transport and launch containers. The guaranteed shelf life is 7 years. TPK has a rectangular section and characteristic ribbed walls. Inside it there is a longitudinal guide that holds the rocket during transportation and sets the starting trajectory.


Launch of a LORA rocket from a land-based installation on the deck of a ship, 2020 Photo by IAI

The OTRK LORA also includes fire control systems installed on the carrier. These include communications, a satellite navigation system, a high-speed computer, and equipment for entering data into the rocket's electronics. The possibility of the fastest possible preparation for firing is declared: from making a decision to defeat a target to detonating a warhead, depending on the firing range, it takes no more than 10 minutes.

Rocket carriers


TPK with a LORA rocket can be used on various types of launchers. First of all, a four-container unit was developed for mounting on a vehicle chassis. A cargo platform with a lifting jib under the TPK is mounted on a vehicle with a carrying capacity of at least 16 tons. The control equipment is installed in the cockpit.

OTRKs on a wheeled chassis were used during all major tests conducted by IAI and potential customers. Such complexes were fired from the ground and from the deck of surface ships. In all cases, it was possible to obtain high combat characteristics.

At the request of the customer, the launcher for four missiles can be placed directly on the ship. In this case, it is possible to modify the design, taking into account the specifics of sea operation, and the fire control means are integrated into general ship systems.


The rocket is in the initial phase of the flight. Photo by IAI

Missiles in the troops


OTRK LORA entered the international market in 2006, and the IAI concern began to wait for orders. Unfortunately for the developers, potential buyers were not interested in the new complex. The first order for it was received only many years after the start of the advertising campaign. However, the manufacturing organization does not lose hope and keeps the LORA missile system in the catalog of products available for order.

The starting customer for the LORA OTRK could be the Israel Defense Forces, but, for some reason, it was not interested in domestic development. However, there is also other information that can change the known picture.

So, in December 2017, Russian and foreign media reported about another attempt by the Israeli military to destroy Syrian facilities. It was mentioned that the LORA complex was used in this operation, but the Russian-made Pantsir-C1 air defense missile system shot down a flying missile. Israel did not comment on such news and did not confirm the presence of LORA in service. It is curious that on the same days news came in about the next tests of the complex at sea.

In mid-2018, it became known about the first real order at LORA. Several launchers and missiles were acquired by Azerbaijan. In June of the same year, two combat vehicles were involved in a military parade in Baku. According to The Military Balance 2021, this was the entire fleet of new OTRKs of the Azerbaijani army. In the fall of 2020, the first combat use of LORA missiles was reported. Azerbaijan used this weapon to destroy a strategically important bridge in the area of ​​Shusha.


The rocket falls near the target - you can estimate the accuracy. Photo by IAI

Limited distribution


So far, nothing is known about the interest from new potential buyers. Perhaps the successful combat use of the LORA complex will attract attention and positively affect its commercial prospects. However, over the past decade and a half, the advertising campaign has not produced much results, and recent events will not allow counting on a change in the situation.

Due to the rather high tactical and technical characteristics, the LORA OTRK can be considered a successful modern weapon. The lack of any success and mass orders can be explained by a general decline in interest in the topic of operational-tactical missile systems and high competition in this part of the international market. For all its strengths, LORA does not have cardinal advantages over foreign developments.

Thus, due to objective factors and limitations, the Israeli OTRK LORA from IAI for a decade and a half did not become the subject of mass orders and did not go into a full-scale series. Taking into account the events of the past and the current situation, it can be assumed that this state of affairs will continue in the future - and a couple of Azerbaijani complexes will remain the only products in real service.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

118 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +10
    April 25 2021
    The rocket is more than twice lighter than that of Iskander, and it carries a good weight. Due to what: speed or compact equipment?
    1. -28
      April 25 2021
      The rocket is more than twice lighter than that of Iskander, and it carries a good weight. Due to what: speed or compact equipment?

      Because she's just worse. It follows from the article. Have you read the article? )
      1. +4
        April 25 2021
        In fact, it is simply smaller, but the launcher can accommodate 4 missiles and the launcher can be an eight-axle truck, which is cheaper and more mobile.
        1. +5
          April 25 2021
          so I ask: less, and they drag more, at the expense of what? and you again tell me about the white bull
          1. +2
            April 25 2021
            They do not drag anymore. Standard warheads are high-explosive 440 kg and penetrating 610 kg, but with the latter the range is reduced to 280 km. Iskandr-M, according to various sources, has a warhead from 650 to 800 kg.
            1. +2
              April 25 2021
              Yeah, it's true Iskander-M is another ton more, already three times heavier than Laura
              1. 0
                April 25 2021
                The stronger the rocket, the heavier it is - the more durable and deeper structures it can penetrate and destroy.
                1. +7
                  April 25 2021
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  The stronger the rocket, the heavier it is - the more durable and deeper structures it can penetrate and destroy.

                  penetrates a concrete-piercing warhead. The rocket itself crashes into a cake
    2. +3
      April 25 2021
      Wagging probably not with the same amplitude as "Iskander".
      1. +1
        April 25 2021
        Nobody knows this beforehand.
        1. +4
          April 25 2021
          Neither who nor what knows for certain, it is true. But if "Iskander" maneuvers more in quantity and with greater overload, then naturally more fuel is needed, so we must take into account the traditional lag in the quality of gunpowder (whether this lag has been eliminated or not, we also do not know for certain)
          1. +3
            April 25 2021
            Iskander flies further and picks up high speed at the peak of the trojectory and carries a heavier warhead. That's the whole simple secret, you need more fuel and, accordingly, more weight.
          2. +8
            April 25 2021
            Neither Laura nor Iskander are making any maneuvers.
            Possibly "wiggle" a few seconds after the start
            and correction is carried out at the terminal site.
            The main part of the trajectory of both missiles is ballistic without
            any maneuvers.
            It is called "quasi" because it is not optimal in terms of
            ballistics. But the rocket reaches the target faster.
            1. 0
              April 26 2021
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Neither Laura nor Iskander are making any maneuvers.
              Possibly "wiggle" a few seconds after the start
              and correction is carried out at the terminal site.
              The main part of the trajectory of both missiles is ballistic without
              any maneuvers.
              It is called "quasi" because it is not optimal in terms of
              ballistics. But the rocket reaches the target faster.

              Laura - maybe. Iskander performs exactly full-fledged maneuvers, no swaying. Its trajectory is called quasi-ballistic because the missile maneuvers, randomly deviating from the calculated ballistic trajectory, and not swaying, like the Israeli, you say. But the end point of the trajectory of the rocket will be exactly the one that is calculated according to ballistics.
              1. +4
                April 26 2021
                At high speeds, inertial forces dominate. They cannot be fooled.
                If you make a sharp maneuver, they will deploy any missile, damage it and carry it far (and irrevocably) from the trajectory.
                Therefore, what you call a "maneuver" -
                these are deviations by plus or minus two to three degrees from the main ballistic hypersonic trajectory.
                What I call "wiggle."
                To make an energetic maneuver, you first need to brake sharply.
                This occurs in the atmosphere, by braking against the air. After that, both Iskander and Laura make a final correction to hit the target with a 10 m CEP.
                1. -1
                  April 26 2021
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  What I call "wiggle."

                  But what are you talking about.
                  Well, here's the deal ... Iskander's missile actually controllable throughout the flight path. And she has a flight mission calculated on the ground. And this task implies active maneuvering, "with turns and turns" :) And now, within the framework of this flight task, she "sways" under the control of an onboard computer.
                  1. +3
                    April 26 2021
                    And the speed and range does not allow anything like what you describe. Or there is an alternative physics, but this is already to the conspiracy theories.
                    1. 0
                      April 27 2021
                      Quote: ironic
                      And the speed and range does not allow anything like what you describe. Or there is an alternative physics, but this is already to the conspiracy theories.

                      You explain this to the designers of the rocket. :) They will support you. It can't, but it flies! Infection. :) It, you know, was created for strikes against vital targets protected by the air defense / missile defense of a technologically advanced enemy. Do you think the developers did not understand what is the chance to break through to the target along a ballistic trajectory simply by "shaking" the missile? But it was done on the basis of the prospects for the development of defense means. It is clear that she does not maneuver with 20g overload, this is indisputable.
                      1. 0
                        April 27 2021
                        Yes, in the Wishlist in general, this happens, even designers invent new physics, infections. But interceptor missiles today maneuver with longitudinal overload up to 70G and from transverse overload up to 20G, from infection. wink
                      2. 0
                        April 27 2021
                        Quote: ironic
                        Yes, in the Wishlist in general, this happens, even designers invent new physics, infections. But interceptor missiles today maneuver with longitudinal overload up to 70G and from transverse overload up to 20G, from infection. wink

                        So the point is that this is not an interceptor, but OTP and it with 20g is not necessary. She needs to avoid miscalculating her trajectory, she does it. Therefore, it does not need "new physics" for maneuvering. You see how quickly we came to a consensus. And interceptor missiles had previously maneuvered with similar overloads.
                      3. 0
                        April 27 2021
                        But that's not really a consensus. Interceptor missiles still quite recently could not overcome the lateral overload of 12G, and maneuvering at hypersonic speed in the extra-atmospheric distance, it looks more like a three-way correction to the target than maneuvering. Maneuvering at supersonic speed after entering the atmosphere is only possible with overloads of the interceptor missile, and not with the mass and inertness of missiles of this class, and even single-stage missiles. Everything else is from alternative physics.
                      4. 0
                        April 27 2021
                        Quote: ironic
                        But that's not really a consensus. Interceptor missiles still quite recently could not overcome the lateral overload of 12G, and maneuvering at hypersonic speed in the extra-atmospheric distance, it looks more like a three-way correction to the target than maneuvering. Maneuvering at supersonic speed after entering the atmosphere is only possible with overloads of the interceptor missile, and not with the mass and inertness of missiles of this class, and even single-stage missiles. Everything else is from alternative physics.


                        Okay, persuaded. The Iskander missile maneuvers with overloads of 20-30g :)
                        The 9M723 missile is a solid-propellant, single-stage missile with a warhead that cannot be separated in flight. The rocket is controlled along the entire flight path using aerodynamic and gas-dynamic rudders. The flight trajectory of the 9M723 is not ballistic, but controlled. The rocket is constantly changing the plane of the trajectory. She maneuvers especially actively in the area of ​​her acceleration and approach to the target - with an overload of 20 to 30g. In order to intercept the 9M723 missile, the anti-missile must move along a trajectory with an overload two to three times higher, which is practically impossible. Most of the flight path of a stealth missile with a small reflective surface travels at an altitude of 50 km, which also significantly reduces the likelihood of being hit by the enemy. The 'invisibility' effect is achieved due to a combination of design features and the treatment of the rocket with special coatings.


                        Were you too lazy to look for this information yourself?
                      5. +2
                        April 27 2021
                        This is a marketing campaign, a replicated copy in a copy on the Runet, and not an official statement by the manufacturer. Yes, the rocket corrects the trojectory at the launch site and can be retargeted, according to the declared capabilities, it corrects the trajectory and to hit the target with an accuracy of the used seeker, one of the components of which is declared to be optical, but for some reason such a subsonic missile launcher is inherent vorposes.
                        / / /
                        According to some rumors, in flight, the missile follows a quasi-ballistic path, performing evasive maneuvers in the terminal phase of flight and releasing decoys in order to penetrate missile defense systems.
                        / / /
                        But is it maneuvering with high overloads ...
                        / / /
                        It is rumoured that during flight it can maneuver at different altitudes and trajectories and can turn at up to 20 to 30 G to evade anti-ballistic missiles. This rumor causes great controversy between critics with many discussed that Iskander aerodynamic layout and cruising altitude will not allow it to perform high-G maneuver due to lack of lift.
                        / / /

                        But the opinion that this is from alternative physics is not my only opinion.
                      6. 0
                        April 28 2021
                        A. If you draw your doubts from English-speaking sources, then this explains a lot. Well, I have nothing to dissuade you. Those people who give me information will not talk to you, they communicate with me in the best traditions of the Pravda newspaper:
                        - Is it true that your rocket maneuvers at 20g?
                        - True (the newspaper Pravda answers :)) but not 20, but 30.

                        And by the way, I have NEVER been able to find something that these people whistled. BUT. You get information from other sources, obviously, you trust them more.
                      7. 0
                        April 28 2021
                        Well, yes, they are free from the patriotic scum of the shouts of the urge, they doubt which, there are quite good reasons for a practical pan. Not all, but certain. I am not dissuading you, I am only doing practical things. I quote the opinions and doubts that have taken place. And what you do with it is your choice.
    3. 0
      April 25 2021
      Maybe because there are no electronic warfare systems and false targets on the lore like on Iskander. They are similar to those used on Topol-M and still have no weight at all.
      1. +8
        April 25 2021
        There are no false targets there. Iskandr-M is an inseparable monoblock system.
    4. +3
      April 25 2021
      With weight there are inaccuracies in the article. There is a lightweight warhead for the export version and two for domestic consumption, and they differ from the one stated in the article.
    5. 0
      April 26 2021
      Quote: Tlauicol
      The rocket is more than twice lighter than that of Iskander, and it carries a good weight. Due to what: speed or compact equipment?

      The Israeli missile is made of composites. The Iskander missile is metal, it was created from the calculation of the possibility of destruction by air defense weapons. This is a full-fledged combat missile for war against the army of a high-tech enemy.
      1. 0
        April 26 2021
        Quote: abc_alex
        Iskander rocket metal

        Uh-huh, cast iron.
        ALL modern rockets are made with extensive use of composites, otherwise they would be no different in quality from the Scud.
        1. 0
          April 26 2021
          Quote: psiho117
          Uh-huh, cast iron.
          ALL modern rockets are made with extensive use of composites, otherwise they would not differ in quality from the Scud.

          Lead! To protect against damaging factors. :)
  2. +16
    April 25 2021
    In principle, LORA was developed primarily for the IDF to remove dependence on these weapons. Well, a foreign order is just a nice bonus. In general, how many countries today can not only acquire, but are also interested in OTP? Units. In the same aircraft, such weapons are not in service at all. In Africa, only Egypt and Algeria have such systems. In Asia, those who wish are huddled by China, India and the United States. So we're still lucky.
    1. +3
      April 25 2021
      The author of the article is inaccurate. From open sources it is known about three strikes by the "Laura" squadron from the side of the Azerbaijani army.
      1.blow on the bridge near Lachin.
      2. A blow to the culture house in the city of Shusha during a meeting of the employees of the Armenian militia who arrived in the city.
      3. Ammunition depot.
      All three strikes were sniper accurate. Only the bridge was half
      collapsed, in other cases the objects are completely destroyed.
      Didn't India buy these OTRKs?
      1. +3
        April 25 2021
        Quote: Albay

        Didn't India buy these OTRKs?

        Not. India has its own missiles.
      2. +3
        April 25 2021
        There was one application in Syria. Laura demolished the wing of the multi-story
        military research institute building.
  3. +14
    April 25 2021
    So, in December 2017, Russian and foreign media reported about another attempt by the Israeli military to destroy Syrian facilities. It was mentioned that the LORA complex was used in this operation, but the Russian-made Pantsir-C1 air defense missile system shot down a flying missile. Israel did not comment on such news in any way and did not confirm the presence of LORA in service. It is curious that on the same days news came in about the next tests of the complex at sea.


    These are stories. The decision to accept the missile into service was made by Defense Minister Lieberman. Before being adopted for service, the military use of the missile by the troops is not even theoretically possible.
    1. -2
      April 25 2021
      Why? We have a lot of things that have not been adopted for service, but have been used for years in Syria, for example. Or the Su-34 in Georgia - it was not from the combat unit, and even in a single copy ...
      1. +20
        April 25 2021
        Quote: URAL72
        Why? We have a lot of things that have not been adopted for service, but have been used for years in Syria, for example. Or the Su-34 in Georgia - it was not from the combat unit, and even in a single copy ...

        1. Who is responsible for the consequences, for a non-standard situation? Manufacturer?
        2. Who implements the application? The military has not yet been trained, the instructions have not been written. Civilians?

        For testing, there are polygons, not a battlefield.
        1. +1
          April 25 2021
          What are the tests? He is already in service with Azerbaijan. The complex is more than fifteen years old. In Syria, you can hit even from the landfill, even from the factory shop. The army tested it and even now there are at least ship launches. What, while there is no trained staff? And the battlefield, I cited as an example as an existing fact, not an axiom.
          1. +4
            April 25 2021
            Quote: URAL72
            What are the tests? He is already in service with Azerbaijan. The complex is more than fifteen years old.

            Adopted for service? Has the army completed the test?

            Quote: URAL72
            In Syria, you can hit even from the landfill, even from the factory shop.

            Nonsense. Who will be responsible if the missile is in progress test in Syria will go to the hospital, and not on target? Who will be responsible if the missile fails to hit the target?

            Quote: URAL72
            The army tested it and even now there are at least ship launches.

            Not ships, but ships, as the steamer is civil.



            Quote: URAL72
            What, while there is no trained staff?

            There is not a single trained soldier, so all launches are carried out by the manufacturer.

            Quote: URAL72
            And the battlefield, I cited as an example as an existing fact, not an axiom.

            You have your own rules, we have ours.
            1. +2
              April 25 2021
              Nonsense. Who will be responsible if the missile hits the hospital during the tests in Syria, and not the target? Who will be responsible if the missile fails to hit the target? "

              They made me laugh. Does Israel often admit striking? Neither yes nor no is a common tactic. So it is with nuclear weapons. Were there not enough mistaken strikes against civilian targets, both Israeli and American? Someone answered? Yes, quite a few such attacks are the result of misinformation on the part of the enemy, but they have been, are, and will be. America is bombing weddings in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen on schedule. Nobody answered.
              1. +1
                April 25 2021
                Quote: URAL72
                They made me laugh. Does Israel often admit striking? Neither yes nor no is a common tactic.

                Often. And when there are multiple victims among the local population, it will not be possible to get out.

                Quote: URAL72
                So it is with nuclear weapons.

                Has Israel denied its existence?

                Quote: URAL72
                Were there not enough mistaken strikes against civilian targets, both Israeli and American? Someone answered?

                Of course he answered. Kfar Kana in South Lebanon ...

                Quote: URAL72
                America is bombing weddings in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen on schedule. Nobody answered.

                We are not America.
                1. +3
                  April 25 2021
                  So it is with nuclear weapons.

                  Has Israel denied its existence? "


                  And I wrote that I denied? Read it again - neither yes nor no - the usual tactic.
                  1. -1
                    April 25 2021
                    Quote: URAL72
                    And I wrote that I denied? Read it again - neither yes nor no - the usual tactic.

                    If there are casualties among the civilian population, you will not get out.
                2. +3
                  April 25 2021
                  Quote: professor
                  Has Israel denied its existence?
                  Repeatedly
                  1. 0
                    April 25 2021
                    Quote: bk0010
                    Quote: professor
                    Has Israel denied its existence?
                    Repeatedly

                    For example?
                    1. +2
                      April 25 2021
                      Quote: professor
                      For example?
                      “Firstly, we have no nuclear weapons, and secondly, if necessary, we will use them.” - Golda Meir
                      1. +1
                        April 25 2021
                        Uh-huh, this is undoubtedly an argument about the use of LORA in Syria. Hmm, how do people know the meaning of the word "argument" at all? That's how they shot her down, according to Golda they aimed.
                      2. -1
                        April 25 2021
                        Quote: bk0010
                        Quote: professor
                        For example?
                        "Firstly, we have no nuclear weapons, and secondly, if necessary, we will apply it. "- Golda Meir

                        Can you link to the original "her" quote? So it looks like a bike.
                      3. 0
                        April 25 2021
                        Quote: professor
                        Can you link to the original "her" quote?
                        Well, the original will be easier for you to find yourself, I have no idea how it will be in Hebrew. Just type it into a search engine. I can orientate the phrase according to the timing - 1974 (in our opinion).
                      4. +2
                        April 26 2021
                        Quote: bk0010
                        Quote: professor
                        Can you link to the original "her" quote?
                        Well, the original will be easier for you to find yourself, I have no idea how it will be in Hebrew. Just type it into a search engine. I can orientate the phrase according to the timing - 1974 (in our opinion).

                        On the Hebrew-speaking Internet there is no such statement by Golda Meir "אין לנו נשק גרעיני אבל לא נהסס להשתמש בו".
                        Sometimes it is attributed to Shimon Peres, but there is no evidence for this either.
                        So that's a bike. hi
            2. +1
              April 25 2021
              Oleg, what was that?
              1. +5
                April 25 2021
                Quote: Tlauicol
                Oleg, what was that?

                Write that Laura's application. If so, then Laura worked normally in accordance with the performance characteristics.
                1. +3
                  April 25 2021
                  I agree, it worked well. But is she still not in service in Israel? Azerbaijan is dumbfounded ..
                  Or is it like with Shell: first to the Arabs, then to yourself?
                  1. +3
                    April 25 2021
                    1. In Israel, many weapons are produced that have not been adopted by the IDF. The military-industrial complex has redundant capabilities.
                    2. And today (20.12.16/200/450) a message was published on the ynet website that the Ministry of Defense is carrying out intensive staff work on the purchase of a large number of ballistic missiles with a range of over 500 km and warheads weighing 2015-1 kg. The missiles will make it possible to strike targets in Syria and Lebanon without involving aircraft, apparently to avoid a clash with Russia, whose troops have been in Syria since 3. The cost of XNUMX rocket is estimated at about XNUMX million shekels. The Israeli Air Force, as usual, is against: the purchase of such an expensive weapon will require a reduction in the Air Force budget in favor of the artillery troops.
                    https://oleggranovsky.livejournal.com/8164.html
                    3. A decision was made to equip the IDF with long-range missiles
                    https://oleggranovsky.livejournal.com/112484.html
                    1. 0
                      April 25 2021
                      The missiles will make it possible to strike targets in Syria and Lebanon without involving aircraft, apparently to avoid a clash with Russia, whose troops have been in Syria since 2015.


                      Similar thoughts were the impetus in the development of Soviet OTRKs .... only in the European direction.
                      1. -1
                        April 25 2021
                        It’s our Air Force nicknames who probably fell asleep. As soon as the howl wakes up, you take away from Israel the only defensive force - our salaries of Air Force officials in leather chairs!
                  2. +2
                    April 25 2021
                    I agree, it worked well. But is she still not in service in Israel? Azerbaijan is dumbfounded ..
                    Or is it like with Shell: first to the Arabs, then to yourself?

                    Well, it's good, everything is relative and is learned in comparison)))
                    1. +2
                      April 25 2021
                      I hit the target ...
                      1. -1
                        April 26 2021
                        I hit the target ...

                        Rather hooked and did not destroy, the cars continued to drive across the bridge.
                      2. +1
                        April 26 2021
                        LORA is not a very suitable weapon for such a defeat with an accuracy of 10m. 10M may well be critical for the bridge to stand.
              2. 0
                April 26 2021
                It is interesting that it happened at the carrier, that he continues to go straight into the gap. It doesn't look like being hit by shrapnel, it looks like a whole car.
            3. +1
              April 26 2021
              Greetings professor!
              The Urals are right here, if Azerbaijan bought this complex, then it is obvious that it has long been adopted by the Israel Defense Forces, because somewhere Azerbaijani missilemen were trained in handling this complex. And how can you sell weapons that have not passed the test.
              Above, I wrote about Laura, during the war with the Armenians, it was adopted several times. There are objective and indirect proofs you can google.
              1. +2
                April 26 2021
                Quote: Albay
                Greetings professor!
                The Urals are right here, if Azerbaijan bought this complex, then it is obvious that it has long been adopted by the Israel Defense Forces, because somewhere Azerbaijani missilemen were trained in handling this complex. And how can you sell weapons that have not passed the test.

                No, not obvious. Most of the weapons produced by Israel are exported, not to Tsakhal.
                The seller trains the buyer.
    2. -1
      April 25 2021
      Quote: professor
      Before being adopted for service, the military use of a missile by troops is not even theoretically possible.
      In the USSR, hundreds of aircraft served for decades without adopting them for service.
      1. -3
        April 25 2021
        Quote: bk0010
        Quote: professor
        Before being adopted for service, the military use of a missile by troops is not even theoretically possible.
        In the USSR, hundreds of aircraft served for decades without adopting them for service.

        In the USSR, much was the other way around and this served as the closure of this 70-year-old experiment.
        1. -1
          April 26 2021
          Quote: professor

          In the USSR, much was the other way around.
          Therefore, the USSR won the 3rd Reich ...
          1. +2
            April 26 2021
            Quote: cat Rusich
            Quote: professor

            In the USSR, much was the other way around.
            Therefore, the USSR won the 3rd Reich ...

            Nazi Germany was defeated by the anti-Hitler coalition.
            1. -1
              April 26 2021
              Quote: professor

              Nazi Germany was defeated by the anti-Hitler coalition.
              Did you remember about France or Poland?
              1. +2
                April 26 2021
                Quote: cat Rusich
                Quote: professor

                Nazi Germany was defeated by the anti-Hitler coalition.
                Did you remember about France or Poland?

                Ethiopia.
    3. 0
      April 27 2021
      Quote: professor
      The decision to accept the missile into service was made by Defense Minister Lieberman. Before being adopted for service, the military use of the missile by the troops is not even theoretically possible.

      It has long been no secret that military conflicts, there is the best testing ground for testing new types of equipment and weapons in combat conditions. Maybe in Israel everything is different ............
      1. -1
        April 27 2021
        Quote: APASUS
        Quote: professor
        The decision to accept the missile into service was made by Defense Minister Lieberman. Before being adopted for service, the military use of the missile by the troops is not even theoretically possible.

        It has long been no secret that military conflicts, there is the best testing ground for testing new types of equipment and weapons in combat conditions. Maybe in Israel everything is different ............

        I don't know about "everything", but it's different. Tests at the range, combat use in battle. Combat application is the best engine of the arms trade!
  4. 0
    April 25 2021
    Azerbaijan was "sounded" ... but there were talks, in my opinion, in Kazakhstan about the acquisition of "multi-caliber" MLRS with "participation" and LORA .... Or am I mistaken?
    1. 0
      April 25 2021
      There is a rather strong competitor in the face of China .... They have similar systems.
  5. -5
    April 25 2021
    You can equip a nuclear warhead
  6. +4
    April 25 2021
    Of course, greedy bourgeois, and even more so Jews, for the sake of momentary profit, are simply obliged to take off and sell even their last cowards, but alas ...
    Since the concern is a state-owned concern, it is the State that decides on the sale of certain systems of offensive weapons to a potential buyer and gives permission or prohibits it. At the same time, numerous risks are assessed - from the possibility of the customer transferring weapons to a third party, to, God forbid, the use of these weapons against Israel itself. The political consequences of such sales are also assessed and taken into account. So, maybe it is quite possible, someone wanted to get such a system, but he was refused. hi
  7. +5
    April 25 2021
    Due to the rather high tactical and technical characteristics, the LORA OTRK can be considered a successful modern weapon. The lack of any success and mass orders can be explained by a general decline in interest in the topic of operational-tactical missile systems and high competition in this part of the international market. For all its strengths, LORA does not have cardinal advantages over foreign developments.


    All the same can be said about Iskander ...
    It is necessary to compare the weight of missiles, the weight of warheads, ease of use and storage. Prices ....
    1. +2
      April 25 2021
      The main thing to compare is the ability to break through the air defense.
      1. +2
        April 25 2021
        Laura has all the goodies that Iskander has implemented
        1. +1
          April 26 2021
          So I say, there would be more specific information from reliable sources. And compare the breakthrough opportunities.
  8. -13
    April 25 2021
    A short-range ballast missile LORA is a supersonic and large-sized missile (without a detachable guided warhead after the solid propellant rocket ends), which means it knocks down many types of air defense systems at once.
    Now the trend for ballistic missiles is medium range, hypersound and detachable guided warheads - see Iskander-M and Dagger.
    1. +11
      April 25 2021
      Neither Iskander nor Dagger has warheads detaching.
      1. -6
        April 25 2021
        "Your call from Israel is very important to us" bully
        1. +4
          April 25 2021
          It is very important for you to state your Wishlist, otherwise the personal devil will bite painfully on the liver and yell in the inner ear - tell him, do not be silent! wink
          1. -4
            April 25 2021
            You, it turns out, are also an expert on hell. laughing

            Here, I remember, one expert hydromayor (part-time Russophobe of the local spill) ascended to VO, so he kept screaming that the Supreme Command of the Russian Federation, in his speech about Poseidon, confused the NPA with a torpedo. Now it doesn’t squeal - including due to my merit.
            1. +2
              April 25 2021
              For people like yours, oh yeah. Such interesting creatures. I even followed with interest the origin of the word "sudra" in Sanskrit. It came from these devils. lol

              Hydromayor is a real patriot, in contrast to the theoreticians' poztreotov. You would be glad to have real patriots. And what happened to him? Have you dashed off a denunciation on him where necessary?
    2. +3
      April 25 2021
      Iskander-M is a slightly larger and slightly faster, at the top of the trojectory, a classmate of LORA. It also gets confused. Everything goes astray. Iskander-M in its basic version of a ballistic missile with a range of up to 500 km, and not an MRBM. The launcher with the KR, based on the Iskander-M, became a violation of the treaty on medium-range missiles because of which it collapsed. So-so political achievement. The dagger is generally an aerobalistic version. All this has nothing to do with hypersound in the atmosphere. As usual, a set of loosely coupled things without any understanding of why, just to write something.
      1. 0
        April 25 2021
        The Dagger's hypersonic speed is officially declared, and its range corresponds to the hypersonic speed.

        But you personally can believe in your own "cartoons" just as you used to believe that Soviet-made Syrian anti-aircraft missiles would not be able to reach the nuclear reactor in Dimona.

        I wonder if Iranian Russian-made anti-aircraft missiles of 2010 can reach this reactor? bully
        1. +4
          April 25 2021
          The dagger has hypersonic speed only in the atmospheric section of the trojectory, and you personally can believe in your own Wishlist, and the Dagger fundamentally differs from Iskander only in issues related to aerobalistic start, and that's all. Theoretically, a lot of things can fly, but, as it could not, it cannot get there. Faith is in the temple, and I know, unlike you. wink
          1. +1
            April 25 2021
            Yes, yes, yes, you in Israel know everything better than the Russian publishers of official data on the speed and accuracy of Iskander-M / Dagger laughing
            1. +4
              April 25 2021
              Well, the publishers have published it, only in English, without any screaming propaganda. And uryakalka always know everything even better, and even better than even the publishers themselves. lol
              1. -7
                April 25 2021
                The characteristics of export modifications of our products are published in English - but for Israeli crackers this is incomprehensible laughing
                1. +1
                  April 26 2021
                  In English, data are published that the Uryaks of the Poztreoty are not able to read, because they do not know languages, as well as just knowledge, even popular science, only Uryaks. Oh, yes, and even racism, how can it be without it. negative
                  1. 0
                    April 26 2021
                    And faith forbids using a google translator, obviously laughing
                    1. 0
                      April 26 2021
                      And I just don't need it, I can read English fluently. And it is not commanded to believe, commanded to know. wink But you don't know that either. lol
                      1. -2
                        April 26 2021
                        We know everything bully
                      2. 0
                        April 26 2021
                        The only thing you do not know is the meaning of everything that seems to you to be known. Yes
          2. +1
            April 25 2021
            Iskander also has the same missile (second option). For the same purposes - shooting at large sea targets
      2. +5
        April 25 2021
        Quote: ironic
        The launcher with the KR, based on the Iskander-M, became a violation of the treaty on medium-range missiles due to which it collapsed
        Well, yes, because of drones, target missiles and the ground Aegis, it did not collapse, but because of our launcher, it collapsed, yes. The United States canceled the treaty because of the Chinese, who produced medium-range missiles, refused to enter into restrictions, and the states had nothing to answer.
        1. +1
          April 26 2021
          Naturally, because it was he who violated the contract, and not all of the above. There are no agreements with the Chinese. And the contract was curtailed because of your ground-based CD.
          1. 0
            April 26 2021
            Quote: ironic
            Naturally, because it was he who violated the contract, and not all of the above.
            The launcher did not break anything. But the target missile is a ready-made medium-range missile, you just need to replace the telemetry head with a combat one. And the states' drones are quite capable of reaching ground-based RSDs in terms of range. I'm not even talking about the Aegis Ashore with Tomahawks.
            1. +1
              April 27 2021
              Not. They violate missiles, not launchers. The Russian Federation also had target missiles, but no one discussed their presence, because they were not part of the agreement. Drones are drones, they do not violate the contract. No one called the dagger a violation of the treaty, although it is an Iskander converted into an aerobalistic rocket. Don't make it up. Aegis Ashore is not equipped with Axes. Again. The missiles violated the treaty, not the launchers.
              1. 0
                April 27 2021
                The Russian Federation also had target missiles, but no one discussed their presence, because they were not part of the agreement.
                What RF target missile can fly 5000 km?
                Quote: ironic
                Drones are drones, they do not violate the agreement.
                Attach explosives to the drone and the cruise missile is ready.
                Quote: ironic
                Aegis Ashore is not equipped with Axes.
                And what's the problem with stuffing them there? The states did not provide evidence of the impossibility of this.
                Quote: ironic
                The missiles violated the treaty, not the launchers.
                The rocket was presented, the Americans could not prove the violation, they simply announced it.
                1. 0
                  April 27 2021
                  Hera and LRALT do not have this range, they are created from defective ICBM designs and cannot carry storey warheads. This is not possible with simple methods. They do not violate the treaty, because the treaty deals with combat missiles.

                  Drones are not medium-range missiles.

                  Not everything that can be crammed can work. The treaty speaks specifically about missiles in combat condition, and not about where they can be crammed.

                  The missile was shown not the one that violated, but adjusted in length, which the Americans called a fiction for show and accused the Russian Federation of fabricating alternative meanings of the word "proof". It was approximately your phrase that eventually destroyed the contract.
                  1. 0
                    April 27 2021
                    Quote: ironic
                    Hera and LRALT do not have this range, they are created from defective ICBM designs and cannot carry storey warheads.
                    Well, yes, they can carry telemetry, but not the combat one?
                    Quote: ironic
                    the treaty deals with combat missiles
                    And what prevents then from riveting non-combat missiles (without boots or something)?
                    Quote: ironic
                    Drones are not medium-range missiles.
                    What's the difference? Reusable? The USSR also had disposable reconnaissance drones.
                    Quote: ironic
                    The missile was shown not the one that violated, but adjusted in length, which the Americans called a fiction for show and accused the Russian Federation of fabricating alternative meanings of the word "proof". It was approximately your phrase that eventually destroyed the contract.
                    Oh well, directly adjusted? And there is evidence? Or was it proof that the missile did not meet US charges and was therefore fake? The states destroyed the treaty at will. Indirect proof is the appearance of a new medium-range cruise missile in them a couple of months after the collapse of the treaty. If they had not prepared in advance, then even the development contract for this period would not have had time to conclude.
                    1. -1
                      April 27 2021
                      Yes, they can't fight.

                      You can rivet, but they will not become combat MRBMs.

                      The difference is that the drone is not a KRBD or MRBD.

                      When reconnaissance detects a missile with some physical dimensions, and instead of it another appears, this is a statement. How else to call it? Yes, it's fake. The States did not have any new missile, they took a naval missile and adapted it to launch from a land-based container, an analogue of which had already been produced in the past by the United States, before the treaty was signed, there were land-based CDs. The fact that no such launcher is now being produced, even in limited batches, unequivocally proves the handicraft and experimental launch - proof of concept.
                      1. 0
                        April 28 2021
                        Quote: ironic
                        Yes, they can't fight.
                        Why?
                        Quote: ironic
                        You can rivet, but they will not become combat MRBMs.
                        And the people who are killed with these missiles will not be so dead, right?
                        Quote: ironic
                        The difference is that the drone is not a KRBD or MRBD.
                        Can it accurately deliver the charge to the target without a pilot? It means a rocket.
                        Quote: ironic
                        When reconnaissance detects a missile with some physical dimensions, and instead of it another appears, this is a statement.
                        No, the politicians are lying. Well, or the intelligence has screwed up.
                        Quote: ironic
                        The United States did not have any new missile, they took a naval missile and adapted it to launch from a ground container, an analogue of which was already produced in the past by the United States, before the treaty was signed, there were land-based CDs. The fact that no such launcher is now being produced, even in limited batches, unequivocally proves the handicraft and experimental launch - proof of concept.
                        They did it too quickly, which means they were preparing in advance.
                      2. 0
                        April 28 2021
                        Because it is not possible to simply stick the existing nuclear warhead somewhere there, this is a whole system.

                        They will simply not be killed with these missiles, because they will not be able to kill anyone.

                        No, not a rocket. And not medium range. And not nuclear.

                        They lie, and the intelligence screwed up, so they made a show and screwed up with her too.
  9. +2
    April 25 2021
    The arms market has its own specifics. And sometimes it goes against the basic commercial calculations. For example: not so long ago on VO there was an article about our Drying. The plane is not worse than its competitors, it is cheaper, but its commercial success is very modest. Well, Drying will be bought by those countries that have a cool relationship with "mattress makers". Will they be able to buy LORA?
    LORA is equipped with a guidance system with satellite and inertial navigation devices, which allows it to attack stationary targets with known coordinates.
    It is not difficult to guess what kind of systems they are and by whom they are controlled. And if not for this factor, the export potential of this complex would be higher.
  10. +2
    April 25 2021
    LORA missiles are delivered in sealed transport and launch containers. The guaranteed shelf life is 7 years.
    It will not be enough ... Without TPK it would be understandable, but because of what? Mixed fuel or something?
    At the request of the customer, the launcher for four missiles can be placed directly on the ship
    There was an agreement not to put ballistic missiles on surface ships.
  11. +1
    April 25 2021
    NATO has its own OTR.And "banana" countries where to shoot. The price of OTR and the price of the object may not be comparable. The UAV is cheaper. Whoever needs it, they will give it themselves! Iran itself learned, so even the Americans noted its progress in rocketry ...
  12. +1
    April 25 2021
    To have successful advertising, you need to buy and use weapons yourself. For many years, the Israeli Air Force has been exerting unprecedented pressure to reduce the importance of artillery and many other components of the IDF, which has long begun to annoy not childishly and more than once has backfired with unnecessary casualties. And on the other hand, the purchase price of 800 thousand dollars is the stupid greed of the abandoned manufacturer.
  13. +4
    April 25 2021
    The bridge was not destroyed in the video. Damaged slightly off the edge
  14. +1
    April 25 2021

    Weapon of retaliation. Iskander-M. Unique frames (HD) Film by Arkady Mamontov
  15. 0
    April 25 2021
    Such missiles could be installed on a submarine. You just have to float up to fire.
  16. +3
    April 26 2021
    Quote: abc_alex
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Neither Laura nor Iskander are making any maneuvers.
    Possibly "wiggle" a few seconds after the start
    and correction is carried out at the terminal site.
    The main part of the trajectory of both missiles is ballistic without
    any maneuvers.
    It is called "quasi" because it is not optimal in terms of
    ballistics. But the rocket reaches the target faster.

    Laura - maybe. Iskander performs exactly full-fledged maneuvers, no swaying. Its trajectory is called quasi-ballistic because the missile maneuvers, randomly deviating from the calculated ballistic trajectory, and not swaying, like the Israeli, you say. But the end point of the trajectory of the rocket will be exactly the one that is calculated according to ballistics.

    What full-fledged maneuvers can the Iskander perform on the trajectory if its OUT lasts about 70 seconds (maybe a little more)? After that, as the fuel burns out, the gas rudders stop working (for which the thrust was not very good) and the only control body remains the aerodynamic planes of a small area. A small "wiggle", as Alexei says, the product can make, but in the passive section, such evolutions can lead to the fact that the missile may not even reach the target area. Accidental deflection without the ability to return to the trajectory means that the rocket was released into milk

    Quote: bk0010
    At the request of the customer, the launcher for four missiles can be placed directly on the ship
    There was an agreement not to put ballistic missiles on surface ships.

    Soap agreement between the USSR (Russia) and the USA. And even then for missiles with a range of more than 600 km
  17. 0
    April 28 2021
    with KVO 10m. it is not surprising that the bridge could not be demolished, it could have completely missed
  18. 0
    28 May 2021
    Such a touching concern for the financial situation of Israel that makes you want to cry with emotion. It is difficult to hide the mimicry of hatred built on stupidity, and therefore for us, survivors of the shelling, tell us when something similar happens to you that you thought before, money or life:

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"