Omsktransmash is completing work on the creation of a modernized version of TOS-1A "Solntsepёk"

The heavy flamethrower system TOS-1A "Solntsepek" will undergo modernization, the modernization option is being developed by the specialists of "Omsktransmash" (part of UVZ), the work is nearing completion.

According to the general director of the enterprise, Igor Lobov, the creation of a modernized version of the TOS-1A "Solntsepek" will be completed in the near future, after which work will begin on the modernization of combat vehicles. It is emphasized that the modernized version of the TOS will differ significantly from the basic one, changes will affect security, communications, fire control, etc.

The fact that the Ministry of Defense made a decision to modernize TOS-1 "Buratino" and TOS-1A "Solntsepek" was reported last year.

Modernization of flamethrower systems was required due to changes in tasks for TOS and increasing range. The modernized vehicles will receive modern digital communication facilities, as well as equipment for a closed data transmission segment, which will allow them to be integrated into automatic control systems (ACS) of the tactical level. In addition, long-range ammunition from TOS-1 (Tosochka) will be adapted for TOS-1 and TOS-2A, thereby increasing the range of TOS to 15 km instead of the currently available 6 km.

At present, the RChBZ is armed with about a hundred heavy flamethrower systems of two modifications: TOS-1 "Buratino" based on tank T-72 and the improved TOS-1A "Solntsepek" on the T-90 chassis. All complexes in service will be modernized. The combat vehicles will undergo mandatory modernization during the repair process.

Comments

[Maz]

Great news. Here they are to Syria for testing in combat conditions and send them. Good luck! Go Russia!

[Orange bigg]

The contract for the supply of TOS-2 has already been signed, and not only for TOS-2.

... Our blog has compiled an approximate list of contracts published at the Army-2021 forum (based on TASS data, press releases and other resources):


- Contracts for several years with JSC "Research and Production Corporation" Uralvagonzavod "for the supply of T-90M tanks and overhaul of T-90 tanks with modernization to the T-90M level.

- A contract with JSC Ural Transport Engineering Plant (UZTM, a part of Scientific and Production Corporation Uralvagonzavod JSC) for the supply of a serial batch of 152-mm self-propelled howitzers 2С35 "Coalition-SV", executed on the chassis of the T-90 tank.

- Contract with JSC "Research and Production Corporation" Uralvagonzavod "for the supply of a serial batch of heavy flamethrower systems TOS-2.

- Delivery of a heavy assault robotic complex "Shturm" developed by JSC "Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering" (UKBTM, part of JSC "Scientific and Production Corporation" Uralvagonzavod "), based, according to open sources, on the platform of the T-72 tank. is about a prototype.

- Contracts with JSC "Remdizel" for the supply of protected airborne special purpose vehicles (apparently, "Typhoon-VDV"), armored ambulances ("Lenza"), as well as overhaul of light armored tractors MT-LB,

- Contract with JSC "766 UPTK" for robotic systems "Uran-14", designed to fight fires.

- A contract with JSC Concern Kalashnikov for new 9M333 anti-aircraft guided missiles for the modernized Strela-10 anti-aircraft missile system.

- Contracts with JSC Concern Kalashnikov for new batches of AK-12 assault rifles with delivery from 2022.

- The contract with JSC "Kronstadt" for the supply of five unmanned aerial systems "Inokhodets-RU" ("Sirius").

- Contract with JSC "Ural Civil Aviation Plant" (UZGA) for the supply of additional unmanned aerial systems "Forpost-R".

- Contracts with JSC "Scientific and Production Enterprise" Strela "for the supply of two unmanned complexes of the helicopter type" Platform "and unmanned complexes of the helicopter type" Termit ".

- Contract with Tupolev PJSC for deep modernization of Tu-95MS strategic missile carriers to the level of Tu-95MSM.

- Contracts with JSC "RSK" MIG "for the re-equipment of a batch of MiG-31 fighter-interceptors into the MiG-31K version of the carrier of the" Dagger "aviation complex, and for the repair and modernization of the next batch of MiG-31 fighter-interceptors to the level of the MiG-31BM.

- The contract for the supply of a new batch of hypersonic missiles of the Kinzhal aviation complex (apparently, with the Scientific and Production Corporation "Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering" JSC)

- Contract with NPO Mashinostroyenia JSC (as part of KTRV) for the supply of shipborne hypersonic missiles 3M22 of the Zircon complex.

- The contract with JSC Concern VKO Almaz-Antey for the supply of the next batch of 3M14 cruise missiles of the Kalibr ship complex.

- The contract with JSC Russian Helicopters for the delivery of the first 2022 Ka-2023M combat helicopters in 30-52 (as the first part of the framework contract for 114 Ka-52M).

- A contract with the UEC for the supply by 2024 of eight additional NK-32 engines of the second series for the Tu-160M ​​strategic bombers.

- Contract with JSC "Zelenodolsk Plant named after A. M. Gorky" for the construction of two medium reconnaissance ships (presumably based on the hull of a small sea tanker project 03182)

- A contract with Sredne-Nevsky Shipbuilding Plant JSC for the construction of another base minesweeper of Project 12700 (apparently the ninth in the series, with serial number 529).

- Contract with JSC "Corporation" Moscow Institute of Heat Engineering "(MIT) for the supply of a" mobile complex of command missiles "(apparently," Sirena-M "based on the missile complex" Yars-M ").

- Contract with JSC "Plant of radio-technical equipment" (JSC "ZRTO", part of JSC "Concern East Kazakhstan region" Almaz-Antey ") for the supply of more than 20 sets of digital radio relay stations R-416GM for operational and strategic command and control of troops, during 2022-2023 years.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4380952.html

[Cananecat]

These are only large contracts ... and how many more small ones ...)

[Alexander Pseudonym]

Why don't foreign firms make such systems? Technically, they can do it. How effective are such systems against a regular army?

[NDR-791]

Quote: Alexander Pseudonym

Why don't foreign firms make such systems? Technically, they can do it.

Because they are afraid to approach the enemy at a distance of 6 km. And they are afraid of 15. And in general it would be a violation of copyright. The law is on our side !!!

Quote: Alexander Pseudonym

How effective are such systems against a regular army?

You'll like it

[Orange bigg]

The range is small, of course, so that it is against modern armies. But the effect is certainly impressive. For the final stripping of the enemy, TOC is better only for nuclear weapons.

The greatest effect of its uncontrollable rockets in thermobaric equipment is achieved in mountain conditions: due to the mutual overlap of air shock waves and their multiple reflection from the surrounding rocks, the destruction of the soil and stone debris. The ammunition creates a cloud of explosive mixture and then undermines it, forcing all the oxygen in the cloud to enter into this reaction. After an instantaneous detonation, the pressure rises sharply, and then drops below atmospheric by about 160 mm Hg. Thus, even if the enemy managed to survive the explosion, the pressure drop leads to his guaranteed death from rupture of internal organs. High accuracy of salvo firing of the flame-thrower system is provided by direct aiming of the launcher and automated aiming at the target, which can be located at a distance of 6 km.

https://topwar.ru/60880-kak-rabotaet-ognemetnaya-sistema-solncepek.html

[APASUS]

Quote: Alexander Pseudonym

Why don't foreign firms make such systems? Technically, they can do it.

The West put on precision weapons, which is why we are lagging behind there, and we put on the destructive effect

Quote: Alexander Pseudonym

How effective are such systems against a regular army?

Very effective. With instantaneous pressure drop, there is no way to hide in cover or vehicles

[Piramidon]

Quote: APASUS

The West has put on precision weapons

And we, as in that joke - "Dobrynya, sprinkle it with chalk"

[Alexander Pseudonym]

Quote: NDR-791

Quote: Alexander Pseudonym

Why don't foreign firms make such systems? Technically, they can do it.

Because they are afraid to approach the enemy at a distance of 6 km. And they are afraid of 15. And in general it would be a violation of copyright. The law is on our side !!!

Quote: Alexander Pseudonym

How effective are such systems against a regular army?

You'll like it

I'm serious. How effective are such systems, for example, against the armies of NATO countries? The foreign press writes that they are not effective and are easily vulnerable.

[Orange bigg]

Well, it depends on who shoots first.

[URAL72]

The systems are extremely effective against sheltered manpower and equipment. Have you tried to storm the city, fight in the forest? I tried. Had these machines been in 1940, the Mannerheim line would not have stood a day. Only a hundred cars for Russia is a cat wept. Of course, there is still ODAB - this is by the way to your question about Western counterparts. The same thing, only an air bomb. Sometimes CBT is better, sometimes a bomb. America used napalm in Vietnam - have you heard? This is an analogue, but our chemical composition is different.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: URAL72

America used napalm in Vietnam - have you heard? This is an analogue, but our chemical composition is different.

These are completely different things. Napalm is a thickened binzin (a gel-like substance that is difficult to extinguish)
In our country, a substance is being sprayed, which, when mixed with air, is a suspension, similar in its properties to explosives. In the future, all this suspension is set on fire and in the affected area everything where it has penetrated and near. In general, close to the explosion of the gas-air mixture.

[Alexander Pseudonym]

Thanks, I heard about napalm.

[hrych]

These systems were created initially for RCBZ, i.e. burn (clean) the site from bacteriological and chemical weapons. I liked the successful use in local wars, and not by us, and therefore increased the range of shots, more than the engagement zone of ATGMs. As you understand, an increase in the range will lead to a decrease in the warhead. But this is dictated by the market and the process has begun. We have more effective and long-range MLRS weapons, including cluster ones, but on a wheeled platform. Here, the all-terrain vehicle and the range is already commensurate with the same Grad. Therefore, the prospect against the enemy, not bacteria and chemistry, appeared literally. If a modern control system, guidance, etc. is put on it, then it is quite possible to use it against NATO countries. And 15 km is over-the-horizon work and requires other algorithms. And the RChBZ, in addition to its main functions, and in normal times and during local wars, as if unemployed, will now quite work for themselves against manpower and equipment. The key word is versatility. It will be a means of supporting tanks, and the most powerful one at that. Although RChBZ is also a support for tanks. but limited.

[kot423]

Quote: Alexander Pseudonym

The foreign press writes that they are not effective and are easily vulnerable.

You have VNA 404 on each fence they also write "Ukraine ponadus", what's in real life? Togolese Republic?

[spectr]

As far as I have heard, the systems after a volley must urgently leave their positions so as not to be too vulnerable.

[Paranoid50]

Quote: spectr

systems after a volley must urgently leave their positions so as not to be too vulnerable.

This also applies to artillery systems. Action on the principle of "threw-merge". Tactics, s.

[Cat Alexandrovich]

Tell me, gunners, if there are any on the site. Why aren't these cute things in the artillery? Chemists, of course, are nice people, but is it their business? I'm not funny, just by logic.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Cat Alexandrovich

Tell me, gunners, if there are any on the site. Why aren't these cute things in the artillery?

Because officially it is flamethrowers... And we have them in the RChBZ - both "Bumblebees" and "Buratino".
In fact, this is a typical departmental parochialism. Which creates a mess and unnecessary duplication.
For example, RKhBZ now has TOS-2. Which formally refers to flamethrowers because of the main ammunition projectile, but in fact is a MLRS. At the same time, it will have to form full-fledged readiness in the RChBZ, since otherwise it is impossible to shoot at 12-14 km, without preparing data for firing.
And conventional rocket artillery in the same caliber has the same shells for the Uragan MLRS.
We get two systems that can perform the same function.
And so in almost everything. The RChBZ has "Bumblebee" flamethrowers. The infantry has TBG-7V duplicating them for RPGs.

The only unique product in the RKhBZ is TOS-1. And that is probably because a heavy assault flamethrower is very difficult to divide between GAU and GABTU: on the one hand, it shoots RSs (GAU), and on the other hand, it has heavy armor and works at the front edge with almost direct fire (GABTU). Last time, in the Great Patriotic War, assault self-propelled guns were divided in this way - and given them to tankers.

[Cat Alexandrovich]

Thanks. "Departmental dreaminess" ... I thought so.

[Paranoid50]

Quote: Cat Alexandrovich

"Departmental dreaminess".

Not that it is. Initially, TOS-1 was created specifically for the needs of the RKhBZ, but in the process of operation, a "side" useful effect emerged, which the ancestors of the current Taliban were the first to know. And hardly any of those who have read it have survived to this day. In general, the work of TPSs can be described as extreme disinfection.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Paranoid50

Initially, TOS-1 was created specifically for the needs of the RKhBZ, but in the process of operation, a "side" useful effect emerged, which the ancestors of the current Taliban were the first to know.

Rather enemies of the current Taliban - it was the Taliban who drove the dushmans out of Kabul.

If RHBZ had stopped at TOS-1, a heavy assault flamethrower, no one would have said a word. But they got into the spheres of responsibility of other branches of the military, duplicating them.
TOS-2 is no longer a flamethrower, but a full-fledged MLRS, duplicating the Hurricane. Isn't it easier to supplement the Hurricane BC with TOS-2 shells, especially since the interaction of the infantry and artillery is at the very least well established in our country? And not to build parallel rocket artillery in the RChBZ and bother with the interaction of the infantry and the READN RChBZ.
And "Bumblebee" is generally much more suitable for engineers than RKhBZ.

[Paranoid50]

Quote: Alexey RA

But they got into the spheres of responsibility of other branches of the military, duplicating them.
TOS-2 is no longer a flamethrower,

Forced measure - in modern conditions, the range is 6 km. became suicidal. Do not remove from service the time-tested reliable and effective device. Moreover, no one has canceled the main appointment for the RCBZ. In general, they are not on purpose, they just coincided.

[Sands Careers General]

One of the tasks of the RChBZ is inflicting losses on the enemy using incendiary weapons.
Artillery already has enough systems. Take it away from the chemists, then what? Dichlorvos will fight?))

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Sands Career General

One of the tasks of the RChBZ is inflicting losses on the enemy using incendiary weapons.
Artillery already has enough systems. Take it away from the chemists, then what? Dichlorvos will fight?))

That is, the bottom line is: "chemists want to fight too". And for this, structures and models of weapons duplicating the infantry and artillery are being fenced. Our country is rich, why is there ...
Why not return the "short-range" flamethrowers to the Invoys? Moreover, assault units are now being revived in them, which cannot be without flamethrowers. And give the TOS to the gunners - they already have everything under TOS-2.

[Reserve buildbat]

Initially, this system was created for the disinfection and degassing of the area. Just to burn out any infection. Therefore, the RKhBZ. Then it turned out that the bearded ones with machine guns were also well burned out. "So why artificially limit yourself? There is no need ..." (c) c / f "Radio Day"

[Wolf]

Terrible artillery weapons, today the most effective, will be needed when terrorist fortifications in urban areas, they will simply make a barbecue in the basements of ice, nowhere to hide and on large surfaces. Let the approximation of nuclear weapons be low in power. Can turn a large army concentration into fire.

[Nikolaevich I]

Unfortunately, it is not yet clear how this happened ... it was 6 km ... and suddenly - 15 km at once! If. Without increasing the length of the projectile (or a slight increase ...) and without reducing (or slightly reducing) the weight (volume) of the warhead, then ... a "crossword puzzle"!

[vadivm59]

just used a new solid rocket fuel. with the same weight and dimensions, it is more energy-intensive, hence the increased range.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: vadivm59

just used a new solid rocket fuel. with the same weight and dimensions, it is more energy-intensive, hence the increased range.

Oh, is it? I can't believe it! What kind of scientific breakthrough must be made in the development of solid rocket fuel in order to increase the range by 2,5 times at once? Moreover, it has been said for a long time that since the times of the USSR, Russia has not been getting along very well with solid propellants ...

[vadivm59]

the first MLRS SMERCH, the range was 70 km, with modern systems 120 km. don't know how? the weight of the PCa has not changed much.

[Nikolaevich I]

The eres' weight hasn't changed much ... really! There are "fluctuations" in the weight of warheads of different types ... It has long been known that the first types of RS "Smerch" with a range of up to 70 km were equipped with powder solid propellants ... with a range of up to 90,120 km they were equipped with mixed solid propellants ... up to 6 km, composite propellants were already well known! Ways to reduce the "dead" weight of missiles ...: making a rocket body from a lighter material, reducing electronic components ...

[Reserve buildbat]

They used new fuel, reduced the mass of the warhead, but equipped it with a more powerful explosive

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Stroibat stock

They used new fuel, reduced the mass of the warhead, but equipped it with a more powerful explosive

1.Used new fuel? In principle, it is possible ... but in recent years, as it were, there has been no "revolutionary breakthrough" in the creation of a "super-duper" rocket fuel! There was a "breakthrough" when in Russia they began to switch from "powder" solid propellants to "mixed" solid propellants! But it was already
2. Equipped with a more powerful explosive? And the fig (!) ... "accordion goat"? In "heavy flamethrowers" in the first place is the mass (volume) of the fire mixture or "thermobaric" (volume-detonating) mixture! BB is usually understood as something familiar, "classic"! "Workers' substances" for TB, ODB are well studied and well known ... I do not think that in this case a breakthrough has been made! Moreover, in ODB, it is not so much the blasting properties of the "mixture" that matter, but the area of ​​"spreading" of the mixture ... which also requires a sufficient volume of it ... I haven't been interested in this for a long time! Thanks for the idea!)
3. Have you reduced the mass of the warhead? To me, personally, it seems more real! And if you applied a new TB (TB) "mixture", smaller in volume, but with the same "coverage area" ... then you should think ... And if there is no "new mixture", then again questions arise ... "why Is this done? Why is it better than the "conventional MLRS?"

[Reserve buildbat]

New types of fuel are constantly being produced, reducing the mass of warheads became possible with the development of more efficient explosives. Just as an example, on one modification of the NAR S-8, the mass of the warhead is 3,6 kg, but this is 8 kg in TNT equivalent. Here and here, consider, TNT was replaced with some new composition. That is, the efficiency of the explosion of the mixture remained the same or increased with decreasing mass.

[Nikolaevich I]

I would like to know if the "rabid Syrians" in VO began to annoy me? No matter what the message about some new, modernized weapons, ammunition, as soon as the "offer" flies: to Syria it! Urgently! ... "And why? For what? Is it necessary, really? The authors of the proposal do not have time to think!

[Alexfly]

Why don't the old versions of the T-55 and T-62 tanks use, the TOSs will not take part in direct clashes ..?

[Alexander Pseudonym]

Quote: URAL72

The systems are extremely effective against sheltered manpower and equipment. Have you tried to storm the city, fight in the forest? I tried. Had these machines been in 1940, the Mannerheim line would not have stood a day. Only a hundred cars for Russia is a cat wept. Of course, there is still ODAB - this is by the way to your question about Western counterparts. The same thing, only an air bomb. Sometimes CBT is better, sometimes a bomb. America used napalm in Vietnam - have you heard? This is an analogue, but our chemical composition is different.

in the Dolomite Region, what's going on?