SAM "Thor": the god of clear skies

70

If you look closely at the reports from the locations of the special operation, perhaps this is the complex that is mentioned most often. An airplane was shot down, a helicopter was shot down, a Bayraktar was shot down. And in most cases, the culprit of these unpleasant lines for the Ukrainian Armed Forces is precisely the anti-aircraft missile "Tor" complex, regardless of the letters and numbers indicating the modification. Whatever they are, the result is approximately the same: the report "Target hit".

Meanwhile, the age of "Thor" is calmly and confidently moving towards the half-century mark. What is the reason for such a success, it is worth understanding, because the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are also armed with more modern air defense systems and air defense systems, but where you don’t look, there is a Tor.



Indeed, the god of clear skies, only instead of a hammer he has rockets. Which, however, is no worse than the miracle hammer, and perhaps even more effective. In the days of "that" Thor, there were no supersonic targets.

Go to history?

1975 The Soviet government sets the task of developing a new air defense system. It was supposed to be a very innovative complex, designed to replace the Osa and Kub complexes in the troops. These air defense systems proved to be the best, but the rapidly changing situation and the emergence of new types of weapons (cruise missiles) on the arena required an appropriate response.


SAM "Osa"

SAM "Thor": the god of clear skies

ZRK "Cube"

Unlike the "Cube" and "Osa", which were still anti-aircraft systems, the new air defense system was supposed to become a station wagon capable of hitting cruise missiles at extremely low altitudes and suddenly emerging air targets in general. But the main emphasis was placed precisely on small-sized high-speed targets, moreover, the complex was supposed to hit them in the widest possible range of angles of attack of the covered object.

Moreover, it is worth noting that the complex was supposed to "take" targets flying not only along aerodynamic trajectories, but also along aeroballistic ones. That is, ballistic missiles were added to the list of probable targets.

In principle, the task was very difficult. For the air defense system to be “both a reader, and a reaper, and a player on the pipe” is not easy. It is worth recalling that the United States began work in exactly the same direction in 1960. Their project was called "Mauler" and ended in complete failure. Five years of work and about 350 million TEX dollars - and the output turned out to be such an indistinct air defense system, a bit reminiscent of the Wasp, that the US Army chose not to suffer and curtail the project.

And in the Soviet Union, the designers could. Our new project was named "Thor".


Moreover, in parallel with Thor, work began on the creation of a front-line air defense system, a complex that was supposed to destroy air carriers of anti-tank missiles BEFORE the ATGM launch line. This is how the Tunguska appeared. But we'll talk about the "Thor", "Tunguska" and "Shell" a little lower.

They worked on Thor for a long time. The complex was put into service only 11 years after the start of work, which indicates the complexity of the tasks when creating a fundamentally new air defense system. After all, it was necessary to provide the air defense system with a decent range and maneuverability, while at the same time equipping it with all the necessary equipment as much as possible.

Therefore, a very correct decision was made to unify the chassis with the Buk air defense system and the Tunguska air defense missile system. This provided patency, carrying capacity and reduced the number of tracked chassis in the nomenclature of the country's ground forces. We chose the GM-355 chassis of the Minsk Tractor Plant.


The chassis made it possible to place all the systems necessary for the service:
- target detection station;
- missile tracking station;
- optoelectronic means of tracking the target;
- anti-aircraft guided missiles (8 pcs);
- rocket launch automatics;
- means of missile control and communications;
- means of topographic location and navigation;
- equipment for missile testing and functional control;
- auxiliary power supply systems.

In general, the designers managed to make a full-fledged combat unit on the basis of one machine. "Thor" turned out to be very peculiar in terms of appearance, but absolutely autonomous and capable of solving combat missions, without relying on additional means of providing the type of radar and target designation points.

Is it difficult? I think it's archaic. It is enough to look at the material about the Buk air defense system, it becomes clear that the short-range and medium-range complex consists of at least four types of vehicles. And here is one.

Because of this, Thor looks more than specific. And it works too, since solving problems of detecting high-precision weapons required unusual approaches.


Indeed, the aviation and UAVs fly in a horizontal plane, but the same ballistic and aeroballistic missiles can have an angle of 50 to 80 degrees in the final part of the trajectory.

I had to take such a step as the implementation of an isodal (and not isoaltitude, as in normal air defense systems) target detection zone. The isodal target detection zone guaranteed target detection at a given distance, regardless of the angle of approach of the target to the target. I don’t see the point in going into details, since physics and higher mathematics with integrals and other delights are rampant there. However, for those who want to reach the end - Isodal detection zone

In fact, it was necessary to create a new radar with a new antenna system, which was placed on a specially designed gyro-stabilized platform, which provided the target detection system with the ability to work on the move. It was a real breakthrough.


To ensure the operation of all systems, a computer with logical blocks and elements of artificial intelligence was used. It turned out to implement the process of target detection and analysis, that is, the information from the SOC got into the computer, where the target data was analyzed and assigned importance. The 10 most dangerous targets fell into the priority range and the process of issuing target designation began.

The danger criteria for targets operated by the onboard computer consisted of the target's speed, altitude, and time of approach to the object of attack. In addition, in the target designation system, recognition of the type of target being fired was implemented, and the radio fuse of the missiles was adjusted to the type of target for the most effective destruction.

With the help of a number of measures, the time that passed from the detection of a target to the launch of missiles at it was significantly reduced. For Thor, this time is from 3,5 to 10 seconds, which is still the best indicator among the world's air defense systems.

Such a short response time was provided by a phased antenna array of the search radar, which allowed not only instant additional search for a target, but also its automatic capture and tracking without the participation of an operator.






After everything was finished with the target in terms of search, identification and target designation, missiles went into action.


Thor managed to place 8 9M330 missiles, single-stage solid-propellant vertical launch missiles.


The launch was carried out by a powder charge, which threw the rocket to a height of about 20 meters, then the declination system was turned on for the azimuth of the target's flight, and then the rocket's main engine came into play. Reloading the air defense system took about 20 minutes.


As a result, an anti-aircraft missile system without authorities appeared at the exit. State tests confirmed the highest level of "Thor", which showed high capabilities, especially in the fight against small-sized high-precision weapons.

Anti-radar missiles were hit at a distance of 6-8 km, regardless of the angle of approach to the target. Aviation received its own at a distance of up to 12 km and at altitudes of 6 km.

Since the complex was brought into service for a long time, as soon as the Tor was adopted, and this happened in 1986, work began immediately on upgrading to the Tor-M1 model.

The main difference was two target channels, that is, one air defense system at a time could fire at two targets instead of one. Here, an ammunition load of 8 missiles turned out to be very useful, that is, 4 missiles per channel, which was in line with global trends.

In addition, a novelty appeared in the composition of the anti-aircraft missile battery: the Ranzhir automated battery command post, which communicated with combat vehicles via a digital telecode channel.


UBKP "Rangier" made it possible, when working as part of a battery, to completely eliminate the possibility of firing two combat vehicles on one target, determined by different vehicles as the most dangerous. The whole process of checking the target distribution took place automatically, without the participation of calculations.

It is worth noting that such a target distribution control system has not yet been implemented on any foreign air defense system of this class.

Another innovation was the “clip” of four 9M331 missiles in one transport and launch container, called the “9M334 missile module”. For the first time in the world, an anti-aircraft missile system was reloaded with two modules of four missiles, which were launched from modules.






These are the most global innovations made to the design of the Tor-M1 air defense system, which made it very attractive in the eyes of foreign buyers. "Tor-M1" was put into service in 1991 and until 2014 was mass-produced, being in service with the Soviet and Russian armies, and some countries of near and far abroad.

The third iteration of "Thor" - "Tor-M2"


This complex, which began to be produced in 2020, has become an even more serious opponent of everything flying. The channeling of the complex was doubled and now Tor-M2 is able to fire up to 4 targets at the same time.

This result was achieved with the help of a significant refinement of the antenna. The target search and tracking sector was enlarged, the processing computer was replaced with a more modern and productive one, and a number of on-board systems were improved.

"Tor-M2" can hit almost all types of aircraft in its range of altitudes and range. The only exceptions are ultra-small unmanned aerial vehicles, everything else is targets that will be successfully hit.

But the main feature of the Tor air defense system is its unique ability to search for targets and destroy them on the move, while being part of convoys of equipment. This makes Thor an indispensable complex, and if we add to this a simply amazing ratio according to the “efficiency-price” criteria, then it is difficult, if not impossible, to find something equal at all.

There are also ways to further modernize the Torah. In the very near future, it is possible to equip the complexes with 9M338 missiles with infrared seekers, which will increase the range of the complex to 15-20 km.

This is more than enough for the air defense missile system to directly cover objects and assets. Defense motorized rifle and tank units from the brigade and above.

"Thor" must act in conjunction with the complexes of direct cover for troops. In our case, this is the updated Tunguska and Pantsir-1S. These three complexes should harmoniously complement each other in order to achieve the maximum result in ensuring the security of troops from air attacks.

True, back in 2009, a comparative test of the Tor-M2 air defense system and the Pantsir-1S air defense missile system was carried out. Why this was done is not entirely clear to me, the complexes do not seem to compete with each other at all, but the results were more than curious.


The Tor-M2 air defense system and the Pantsir-S1 air defense missile system fired at the Saman target missile and at the E-95 target. "Saman" is a target based on a missile from the Osa air defense system, which plays the role of a small-sized high-precision weapon. The E-95 is a simulator of a cruise missile or medium class UAV.

"Thor" shot down three "Saman" with three missiles. "Shell" fired 8 missiles and did not hit a single one. Two E-95s were hit by both systems with one missile per target.

The comparison test showed that Tor-M2 is the most effective means of dealing with small high-speed targets. In defense of the Pantsir, it is worth saying that after being tested in combat in Syria, the complex has undergone significant refinement precisely in matters of intercepting small and high-speed targets.

The use of "Tor" in the military conflicts of our time, from Yugoslavia to Ukraine, shows that the complex successfully performs all the tasks of intercepting and destroying targets in its range.

That is why today the Tor air defense system is not only a means of protecting motorized rifle and tank divisions, but may well be considered as a means of protecting especially important objects, including from high-precision weapons.

There are not that problems, but rather wishes that would be nice to take into account and send to development.

Pure arithmetic: Thor had one target channel, which accounted for 8 missiles. Tor-M1 had 8 missiles on 2 target channels, 4 per channel.

And Tor-M2 has only 2 missiles per channel. Yes, the capabilities of the complex to destroy targets have increased, but no one has canceled the means of counteraction. In reality, two missiles per target channel is not enough.

At the Buk complex, this problem was solved very gracefully, by creating a ROM, a launcher.


This was indicated in the article about the Buk, a machine was practically created, similar to the old TZM, a transport-loading machine, only the reloading process itself was abolished.

That is, it is possible to reload the air defense system using a ROM, but why?

The ROM was simply connected to the Buk control center, and the commands from it were used to launch missiles from the ROM. Considering that 9A316, the ROM for the Buk M2 can launch 4 missiles, and after 13 minutes only the same - it would be very nice to develop something similar for the Thor. Considering that there are fewer missiles for the Tor air defense system than for the Buk, there may be more of them. Thus, the transportable ammunition can be increased to 32 missiles.

Having the ability to launch 4 missiles simultaneously via 16 channels (8 for the BM and 8 for the PZU), one can think about having a second type of missile in the "clip". These could be missiles with modules EW, or, alternatively, with cassette parts filled with small-diameter metal balls to destroy ultra-small UAVs or so-called UAV swarms.

In general, there are more than enough opportunities for further modernization of the Tor air defense system, the only question is how much this will be implemented in the future.


Today, Tor-M2 is at the forefront of attention, the air defense system successfully hits a wide variety of targets in Ukraine, just as successfully as it did before destroying Azerbaijani UAVs during the last Karabakh conflict. If not for the Torahs of the Armenian army, the Azerbaijani unmanned aircraft would not have suffered such losses. It was the "Tors" who shot down 6 "Bayraktars".

In modern combat, the role of such successful air defense systems as the Tor family is increasing, as more and more new air weapons for destroying ground equipment appear. Airplanes, helicopters, cruise and ballistic missiles, and, of course, unmanned aerial vehicles, both attack and drones-kamikaze and loitering ammunition.

Today "Tor-M2" quite successfully solves all the tasks of protecting brigades and divisions from aerospace attack, but it is necessary to systematically solve the tasks of tomorrow. The successful air defense operations of the Russian army in Ukraine will definitely entail an analysis of the potential enemy and the improvement of its strike systems.

Any war is primarily a source of information about weapons for designers. There is not the slightest doubt that as a result of the special operation on the territory of Ukraine, Western weapons developers will receive a lot of useful information and orders.
And this is a given, with which it is necessary to come to terms and play ahead of the curve.
70 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +10
    April 11 2022 05: 25
    A real air defense mini cruiser! And taking into account the likely acceptance by the naval comrades, then the marine.
    1. +6
      April 11 2022 11: 12
      Excellent article! good Without water, everything is clear and justified. TOR is indeed a very high-quality development and, it seems to me, has a huge potential for upgrading to a raging one.
      1. +2
        April 11 2022 19: 57
        Quote: NIKNN
        which, it seems to me, has a huge potential for upgrading to a raging one.
        I don’t think: now our most likely adversaries have received ATGMs with a range of 28 km. This means that it would be nice for Thor to get a range of 30-35 km. The problem is that Thor has missiles with radio command guidance, at such a range they will smear. And the transition to other methods of guidance will raise the price of the rocket (now it is small). If the accuracy is compensated by the power of the charge, then the rocket will greatly increase (the radius of destruction is proportional to the cube of the power). I would make part of the missiles (for long range) with multi-channel guidance (radio command at the beginning and semi-active or IR near the target), but then the whole machine would have to be redone.
        1. +3
          April 11 2022 21: 25
          The problem is that a missile with a range of 30-35 km will not fit into Tor, regardless of the type of guidance.
        2. 0
          April 12 2022 07: 21
          Will TOR (yes, probably at least some kind of air defense system) see a low-flying target at such a distance?
    2. +2
      April 11 2022 21: 25
      https://topwar.ru/180004-kakim-budet-korabelnyj-zrk-tor.html
      1. 0
        April 12 2022 05: 59
        Quote: Maxim Davydov
        https://topwar.ru/180004-kakim-budet-korabelnyj-zrk-tor.html

        Yes, thanks, but for now this is experimental work.
  2. +21
    April 11 2022 06: 14
    No, how so? The Arctic version of the Tor-M2DT was not mentioned, the tests of the modular one, including on the ship, were not mentioned. And most importantly, the modernization to increase the number of missiles, which is mentioned in the article, there are now 16 of them.
    1. +2
      April 11 2022 11: 16
      The missile is clearly longer than the height of the rotating "superstructure". I have always wondered how 8 rather thick missiles (not arranged in a circle) fit into this "tower", and even more so 16! Or is the height of the TPK equal to the height of the tower?
      1. +5
        April 11 2022 11: 38
        Quote: MBRBS
        It was always incomprehensible to me how 8 rather thick rockets fit into this "tower"
        So the turret compartment, the missiles are within the shoulder strap! Consider that the rocket is like a tanker, the legs are in the body, and the body and head are in the tower.
        1. +3
          April 11 2022 13: 41
          Thank you, clear. In general, I assumed so, just visually the packages with TPK look "wider" than the estimated diameter of the shoulder strap. In short, an optical illusion
          1. +1
            April 15 2022 16: 18
            The same crap, I understand in my mind that everything is exactly as the comrade described above, but when I see a rocket flying out, I immediately think - the rocket is longer than the tower )))
  3. +5
    April 11 2022 07: 14
    Toru a trailer with PU is necessary to repel massive raids
    1. +1
      April 12 2022 07: 24
      Yes, and not only massive raids, but also to protect stationary objects would be useful.
  4. +1
    April 11 2022 07: 40
    The car is great, of course. We have a lot of systems: from Eagle to C500. Only here is the question - after the shame with Rust, the passage of lousy helicopters to the oil storage. Is our air defense sleeping?
    1. +11
      April 11 2022 08: 01
      Doesn't sleep. It's just that articles like this form a false impression of the capabilities of the air defense system.
      As someone said, "Your expectations are your problems."
    2. +1
      April 11 2022 08: 34
      The question is about money.. It would have been possible to completely block off Donetsk and the threatening direction, but how much would it have cost? It would have been necessary to remove air defense systems from other parts of the country, bring them, place them, organize the combat missions and everyday life of these units.. And this is very expensive.. The fact that as a result of a single operation or something else, prestige is lost for sums of orders of magnitude greater, this is not something the financiers of the Ministry of Defense do not think about, they take into account specific damage and nothing more. And since it is minimal, then everything is fine.. Everything always comes down to money..
      1. +8
        April 11 2022 11: 59
        Quote: max702
        It was possible to block Donetsk and the threatening direction tightly, but how much would it result in?

        Quote: max702
        .. And this is very expensive ..


        Everything is relative! On the other side of the scale:
        - The airfield near Millerovo - 2 or 3 Sushki at least in a very serious repair;
        - The airfield near Kherson - reported 10 - 15 burned-out turntables, plus vehicles and other equipment. It was reported that these were Ukrainian, there were old helicopters, but for some reason I think that ours were also damaged there ...
        - Oil depot of Belgorod - most likely they will not tell us how much oil products, equipment burned down there and damaged structures;
        And this is without taking into account the destruction of civilian buildings and structures in the DPR/LPR since February 24th.
        This is without taking into account human casualties ... For how to evaluate human lives?
        1. 0
          April 11 2022 12: 37
          So they always think it’s strange, let’s say 20-30 billion would have to be spent on deploying the right amount of air defense (war is very expensive), and what you listed costs much less, but you correctly noticed people’s lives and the moral effect is much greater than the same 30 billion costs ..but .. The fact remains ..
          1. +6
            April 11 2022 13: 16
            Quote: max702
            let's say 20-30 billion would have to be spent on deploying the required amount of air defense (war is very expensive)

            20-30 billion? Seriously? Do you need so much money to transport equipment, personnel, place it on the border of the Belgorod-Rostov regions, in the suburbs of Donetsk/Lugansk, to establish the service and life of air defense units? Moreover, some parts of the air defense were originally located there ...
            I understand that there is a potential threat to the entire territory of the country, but there are always not enough resources. Always make a choice between "should" and "very, very necessary." Move from the least dangerous directions and then gradually fill these gaps with supplies from the factories of newly purchased equipment. Calculate the risks, compare and make a decision. Here, as they say, it's better to overdo it than ...
            I think the reason is something else...
            1. 0
              April 11 2022 13: 28
              If you do it right, it will work out, and not as usual, throw them out into an open field and alga... Take them from other regions of the country, bring them in, prepare new deployment sites, organize security, supply everything necessary, food, accommodation, ammunition, spare parts, establish interaction, ensure rotation, and all this in fact throughout the entire territory of Donbass and along our border with the ruins.. As if my 30 billion would still turn out to be very modest.. Here the financiers in the army understand this perfectly well and they always feel sorry for the money because this is professional deformation, and here the question is, why? And also that same maybe.. Everything and always rested on the money..
              1. +5
                April 11 2022 16: 29
                Quote: max702
                If you do it well, it will work out, and not as usual

                Totally agree with you! I will add only - "to do in conditional peacetime." What you described fits the realities of the 1960s-80s or 2005-2021. (plus or minus).
                Now the situation is somewhat different - combat missiles fly across the sky. NURS helicopters are scattered, firing from cannons ... Of course, it’s wonderful to have the House of Officers, a cinema, a couple of cafes and a bath and laundry plant in the new location of the air defense division. And also - a hostel for young and lonely officers and concrete paths to each launch site!
                However, I think that for a couple of months it is possible to serve the Motherland in harsh field conditions, covering the sky from the adversary! How does air defense differ from tankers, paratroopers, artillery, and infantry?
                Why "..prepare new deployment sites, organize security, supply with everything necessary, food, accommodation, ammunition, spare parts, establish interaction, ensure rotation ... "for howitzer divisions and crews of the Iskander OTRK, you can do it in a Spartan way, but for air defense units, in your opinion, something is required that will cost 20-30 billion rubles?
                1. 0
                  April 11 2022 17: 34
                  But it needs to be done well, just imagine how many kilometers need to be reliably covered, and that's the amount that will come up, and I think if they tell us how much the Iskander and howitzer regiments cost us, you'll be pretty surprised by the amounts, war is very expensive, especially modern war.. Believe me, a billion for the state these days is not money at all.
              2. +1
                April 12 2022 07: 31
                support. How much air defense is needed for a border with a length of 1000 km? Moreover, the declared radius of destruction and the real work on low-flying targets are different things. We don’t have so many complexes, and if you consider that the helicopters don’t have your alien system, you get tired of filtering out your own. IMHO it is not realistic to close the borders tightly 100%.
          2. -1
            April 12 2022 17: 26
            Abramovich's yacht costs about 5 billion, and he has 3 of them .... that is, a lot of money ... but not for those for some reason ...
            1. 0
              April 12 2022 17: 33
              300_400 in the accounts is also a sum of nothing...and this year Bloomberg promises a 321 billion/dollar surplus in our budget...
    3. 0
      April 12 2022 14: 28
      Quote: Alexander Romanov_6
      Only here is the question - after the shame with Rust

      With Rust there was a planned action to destroy the army. Gorbachev's treacherous time. Starting from the Chernobyl accident and ending with the withdrawal of our troops from Germany to Russia, into an open field in the literal sense. And as for the helicopters and Belgorod, yes, it was a blunder. But the war is not with Ukraine alone. But with the Western powers, England and the USA. Which conduct satellite reconnaissance and provide data. Our planes have just taken off and everyone has already ducked into shelters. In my opinion, this is why things are not working out near Donetsk.
    4. 0
      April 15 2022 16: 20
      with Rust there is a disgrace to the top leadership, they were air defense, but they didn’t give a command to shoot down. There are questions with Belgorod. certainly.
  5. +4
    April 11 2022 09: 00
    SAM in its class, which I like the most. Although the 9K332 Tor-M2 air defense system has doubled its ammunition load (up to 16 missiles), it is necessary to have a small missile to destroy small UAVs, like the "Pantsir" - "nail".
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Тор_(зенитный_ракетный_комплекс)
    1. 0
      April 11 2022 21: 22
      16 missiles for Tor-M2, Tor-M2DT and their export versions Tor-E2, Tor-A, respectively.
  6. +2
    April 11 2022 09: 43
    Then, as a TZM, make a machine 1,5-2 times larger than the Buk itself and hang 20-30 missiles on it; you can adapt old tank chassis.
    1. +3
      April 11 2022 13: 29
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      Then, as a TZM, make a machine 1,5-2 times more than Buk itself

      Ha! Then why the Buk itself? A couple of illumination and guidance vehicles, one control vehicle for 5-10 ten launchers with 20-30 missiles... But then the question arises, how to load these mega-launchers? A TZM with 60 missiles? Bring the BKs in by road trains?
      I agree that with the advent and mass use of UAVs, BCs in the amount of 8-10 missiles, it will somehow be not enough. But everything should have a measure ...
      Although, in case of a "hands-on", the addition of a TZM missile launch capability is very much nothing!
      1. +5
        April 11 2022 15: 28
        A couple of illumination and guidance vehicles, one control vehicle for 5-10 ten launchers with 20-30 missiles ...

        You just described the S-350 .. well, almost.
        1. 0
          April 11 2022 16: 32
          Quote: Wedmak
          You just described the S-350 .. well, almost.

          Exactly! And I didn’t even understand it myself - I kept imagining how such TORs would be on the march, covering the columns, reloading from separate columns for the delivery of missiles.
      2. +1
        April 12 2022 07: 33
        Why target illumination? All this is done by TOR himself. TZM, which is practically a container with vertically standing vehicles, a kind of container with missiles on a tank chassis. The machine is connected to the TOR either by wire when they work stationary, or by radio. A lot more missiles can be put into the container, since there is no need for space for operators and radars.
        1. +1
          April 12 2022 11: 25
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          Why target illumination? All this is done by TOR himself. TZM, which is practically a container with vertically standing vehicles, a kind of container with missiles on a tank chassis. The machine is connected to the TOP either by wire when they work stationary, or by radio.

          You see, what's the matter ... the capabilities of the air defense system are determined not by the number of missiles, but by the number of guidance radars and channels. Plus, the problem of the combat stability of the complex arises - the more missiles we "hang" for guidance from one radar, the more we will lose if it is hit. The same "Buk" with its pair of SOU-ROM appeared just as a result of the failure of the concept of "one radar for several launchers", which was embodied in the "Cube" and did not stand the test of the war. Alas, in the conditions of the use of URO and especially PRR by the enemy, "clean" launchers turned out to be useless after the defeat of the SURN complex.
          1. +1
            April 12 2022 13: 06
            That's when 10 targets are heading towards you, or rather three or four waves of targets (first jamming aircraft, then anti-aircraft missiles, then fighter-bombers, and between them drones that you can see and fire at, and you only have 8 missiles, then you can tell that capabilities are determined not by the number of missiles, but by the ability to see. Tell how Pantsirs were destroyed after the missiles were fired? Modern combat is massive, missiles come in packs and there simply won't be time to reload, and it is the number of missiles that sometimes determines the capabilities of the system. In modern combat, 20 minutes to reload is death for the one you are covering, and for you too.
            1. 0
              April 12 2022 15: 23
              Quote: Victor Sergeev
              That's when 10 targets will go at you, or rather three or four waves of targets (first, jamming aircraft, then PRR, then fighter-bombers, and between them there are also drones that you see and can fire at, and you have only 8 missiles, then you will tell that opportunities are determined not by the number of missiles, but by the ability to see.

              It is in this situation that channeling is important, not BC. Because while you will take targets for tracking with a limited number of radars and channels, launch and direct missiles, the rest of the targets will simply reach the launch line and knock out the radar. And no missiles will help when there is no one to guide them.
              The smaller the radar, the higher the chances of the enemy to oversaturate the air defense with targets.
              Quote: Victor Sergeev
              Tell how the Shells were destroyed after the missiles were fired?

              If you forget that air defense is a system, then it will not be like that. A single division with a large missile defense system will be knocked out in the same way.
              Some divisions are charging, others are covering them. Then they change. And nothing else. And if you drive into an open field with one car, then this is not air defense, but profanation.
              Quote: Victor Sergeev
              The modern battle is massive, the missiles go in batches and there simply will not be time to reload, and it is the number of missiles that sometimes determines the capabilities of the complex.

              Only if the enemy launches the missile defense system alternately at intervals equal to the time that the air defense system spends on the cycle "search, capture, guidance of the missile defense system until the target is hit" - up to the consumption of the missile defense system.
              In any other case, the capabilities of the air defense system are determined by the number of radars and the channel. And the division commander would gladly exchange a multi-charged blind ROM for another SOU and ROM with a smaller number of missiles.
  7. +6
    April 11 2022 09: 58
    And Tor-M2 has only 2 missiles per channel. Yes, the capabilities of the complex to destroy targets have increased, but no one has canceled the means of counteraction. In reality, two missiles per target channel is not enough.

    At the Buk complex, this problem was solved very gracefully, by creating a ROM, a launcher.



    The article was twitching from various sources with quotes in a hurry.
    Even control on reading - did not carry out.

    In general, "a job for nothing!"

    We make a hunchback.
    We give the country coal - small, but dofiga ...
  8. 0
    April 11 2022 11: 21
    If you carefully look at the reports from the places of the special operation, perhaps this complex is most often mentioned.

    but I have not seen the specifics of what was shot down. Thought it was secret. I wonder if the S-400 shot down anything? Though in the Donbass, even in Syria.
    1. +1
      April 11 2022 11: 38
      You are right, they don’t write what they shot down. More precisely, they spoke several times about the work of our fighters.
      The S-300/400 did not show themselves anywhere, although there are already 3 armed conflicts where they are involved. This leads to bad conclusions.
      There are also many questions about the torus and shell, but at least they shot down something, and not only defiled on the video from the UAV cameras.
      What really works is Beech. Here they show their work. Successful complexes turned out.
      1. +3
        April 11 2022 13: 39
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        The S-300/400 did not show themselves anywhere, although there are already 3 armed conflicts where they are involved. This leads to bad conclusions.

        There are questions, of course. But I think that using the S-300/400 on UAVs is somehow wasteful. Stormtroopers, helicopters are perfectly knocked down by Buks. What they were sharpened for initially - the middle link of air defense, the near rear of the front.
        Still, the S-300/400 is a "strategic" air defense - bombers, WTO, AWACS on distant approaches ... It is probably still expensive to use them for tactical purposes. I may have missed something, but I have never seen ours deploy S-300/400 somewhere in Ukraine during denazification ...
  9. +7
    April 11 2022 11: 36
    1975 The Soviet government sets the task of developing a new air defense system. It was supposed to be a very innovative complex, designed to replace the Osa and Kub complexes in the troops.

    "Thor" was supposed to replace "Cube"? However... belay
    A new air defense system was made to replace the "Osa". The place of "Cuba" was supposed to be taken by "Buk" - between them there was even a transitional version of the 9K37-1 air defense system.
    Pure arithmetic: Thor had one target channel, which accounted for 8 missiles. Tor-M1 had 8 missiles on 2 target channels, 4 per channel.
    And Tor-M2 has only 2 missiles per channel. Yes, the capabilities of the complex to destroy targets have increased, but no one has canceled the means of counteraction. In reality, two missiles per target channel is not enough.

    Author, author ... back in 2018, here, on VO, they wrote that:
    It is known that the Arctic "Tor-M2DT", as well as the standard self-propelled "Tor-M2U", as well as the modular "Tor-M2KM", have an updated and 2 times expanded ammunition load, represented by 16 more compact short-range anti-aircraft guided missiles 9M338 ( RZV-MD).

    So that there is no doubt - here is a photo of the module from above:
  10. +3
    April 11 2022 13: 34
    Now, after such a cool and interesting article, I would like to ask a question - why do videos from Ukrainian drones that hang over our troops still appear?
    1. +3
      April 11 2022 13: 55
      Quote: certero
      ...why do videos still appear from Ukrainian drones that hang over our troops?

      So the video can be obtained from the cheapest quadcopter bought on Ali ...
      Aiming a rocket, getting a topographical position may not work, but making a video is easy! But to bring down such a "flyer" is difficult. Rather, it is easy to bring down - it is difficult to detect. Solid plastic, it is not visible in the thermal imager, radio emissions are zero or completely miserable ...
  11. +1
    April 11 2022 13: 42
    There is enough information about the combat use of Thor and the whiter Shell. And what about Tunguska?
  12. 0
    April 11 2022 14: 57
    ... a good review of excellent technology!
  13. +1
    April 11 2022 16: 31
    I was surprised that the Shell shoots down Tochka-U missiles
    1. 0
      April 11 2022 21: 13
      It doesn't work well, as we can see. Lacks - it strikes, but does not destroy, the warhead still flies and works. For the Point, you need a Beech at least.
  14. +2
    April 11 2022 17: 50
    A wonderful complex, but for completeness, I would like to recall the well-known shortcomings:
    - few channels - the author mentioned;
    - simultaneously serves targets in only one sector - the area of ​​view of the guidance radar, that is, one machine is defenseless from a group attack from different directions, for example, a UAV;
    - large, does not fit into IL-76, strategic mobility suffers;
    - does not swim, tactical mobility suffers, because to accompany the column when overcoming water obstacles, Tor requires pontoons or bridges.

    Some of the problems are solved in the Shell, however, due to the appearance of a mass of new ones, and in general it is for other purposes.
    1. +3
      April 11 2022 21: 10
      It will float - it will not pull many missiles, or the missiles will be miniature, with a short range and a weak warhead. For this, there is Strela-10 and the Pine coming to replace it - they swim, they will fit into the IL-76.
      True, both of them are already without radar - retribution for compactness and buoyancy. Now, if only Strela-Pine, in addition to a radar on a separate chassis for detection and target designation! 8 PU vehicles and 2 radar vehicles in a battery, for example?
      1. 0
        April 11 2022 21: 43
        Arrow and Pine swim and are more secretive due to the lack of radar, but they are much weaker than Thor, at least in range and altitude. Different class: regimental and divisional air defense systems.
      2. +1
        April 11 2022 23: 00
        Pine is not going to replace Strela-10. The release of Strela-10 has been resumed.
        1. 0
          April 12 2022 19: 30
          It’s going on, it’s just that for now they will produce this and that in parallel, given our pace of production of new equipment, it’s necessary.
      3. 0
        April 12 2022 07: 38
        He won't even swim without rockets laughing
    2. +1
      April 11 2022 21: 37
      1. Four target channels per BM - not so little. Even quite a few, given that the missiles do not start at the same time.
      2. One vehicle of any air defense system is defenseless against a group attack from different sides.
      3. Already possible. Separate combat module and chassis.
      4. Tanks don't float either.
      5. The shell of another air defense system.
      1. +1
        April 11 2022 21: 47
        1. Not enough for 5 UAVs.
        2. This is a disadvantage common to all air defense systems with teleguidance or telecontrol. With missiles with IR seeker, Thor would have been deprived of it.
        3. This is dancing with a tambourine, not air mobility. So the MBT, and the Pantsir, and the Mi-8 in the IL-76 are transported with disassembly-assembly.
        4. Thank you, cap. They cross the river up to 5 m along the bottom. And Thor?
        5. Thank you, cap. That's what I wrote.
        1. +2
          April 11 2022 22: 57
          1. Do UAVs fly at the speed of light? A UAV with an EPR of 0.1 m is detected by Thor at a distance, EMNIP, 23 km. Even at a speed of 70 m / s, the UAV flies a distance of 14 km in 200 s. How many times will this Thor UAV be fired upon in 200 s? And multiply that number by 4.
          2. One vehicle of any air defense system is defenseless against a group attack from different sides, regardless of the type of guidance. We are talking about existing air defense systems. In the world of fictional air defense systems, anything can happen. IR seeker does not work well even in fog.
          3. The fact is that it is possible.
          4. In a real combat situation, tanks do not walk along the bottom of the river, they walk along pontoon bridges.
  15. +5
    April 11 2022 20: 08
    Quote: Perforator
    So the video can be obtained from the cheapest quadcopter bought on Ali ...

    Correct. And get target designation for artillery fire. I remember how this was pointed out here, but "our electronic warfare will tear everyone apart" was written by the ultra-patriots and the questioners were downvoted. Why does the enemy have equipment to suppress DJI drone control channels, but ours don't?
    And why do not each of our departments have these "Chinese quadrocopters"?
    Maybe raise money by the folk method and send it to the troops? I'm ready to give my phantom.
  16. 0
    April 11 2022 21: 39
    Quote: Maxim Davydov
    A wonderful complex, but for completeness, I would like to recall the well-known shortcomings:
    - few channels - the author mentioned;
    - simultaneously serves targets in only one sector - the area of ​​view of the guidance radar, that is, one machine is defenseless from a group attack from different directions, for example, a UAV;
    - large, does not fit into IL-76, strategic mobility suffers;
    - does not swim, tactical mobility suffers, because to accompany the column when overcoming water obstacles, Tor requires pontoons or bridges ...
    Well, we have floating ones - the same "Osa AKM", "Strela10", which are involved in the operation, but the newest "Pine", which seems to have been put into service, I think no one has seen on the theater of Ukraine Ukraine. sad
  17. +2
    April 12 2022 00: 50
    "Such a short response time was provided by a phased array of search radar" - target detection station (SOC) on TOR and TOR-M1 - coherent-pulse all-round radar, does not have phased array. A phased antenna array is used in the TOR in the guidance station - CH.
    Well, it is undeservedly not mentioned in the article about the developers of the TOP system - the parent company is the Research Electromechanical Institute (NIEMI, Antey, A-1845 - I hope this PY is no longer a secret, it was 30 years ago :-)). General designer - Efremov Veniamin Pavlovich, chief designer of the complex - Drize Iosif Matveevich, now already gone.
    PS And one more thing - in the stories on the special operation, I rarely saw the mention of the TOR, mainly the BUKs and Shells ...
  18. 0
    April 12 2022 07: 48
    In the very near future, it is possible to equip the complexes with 9M338 missiles with infrared seekers, which will increase the range of the complex to 15-20 km.
    how does the IR seeker increase the range of destruction?
    designed to replace the Osa and Kub complexes in the troops

    Okay, "Wasp", but how are you going to replace "Cube"? Kub has another replacement, Buk. Nothing is said about the radar, the HEADLIGHTS are used in the guidance radar, not the search. As far as I understand.
  19. 0
    April 12 2022 11: 14
    The article is good. Thanks to the author.
  20. +1
    April 12 2022 23: 47
    Saw a lot of questions in the comments about SOS (Target Detection Station) Thor. The current SOC Tor uses a slotted antenna array with frequency scanning in the elevation plane. Which, as it were, is already the day before yesterday compared to the two-sided two-dimensional headlamp of the modernized Pantsir-S1 / S1M.
    IR seeker in missiles. Apparently, it means that in the vicinity of the target, the linear error during RK guidance increases in proportion to the distance to the target, and when homing, it does not depend on the range. Well, it is supposed that this will increase the range of the target. But the IR GOS will add mass to the missiles, increase the length of the missiles, and even increase the drag, to compensate for which it will be necessary to install a drop fairing (another increase in length). And given the capabilities of the Torah RES, the range of 16 km is practically the maximum for targets with an EPR of the order of 0.1 m ^ 2, which is fully provided by the existing 9M338 SAM. For long ranges there is Buk.
  21. 0
    April 13 2022 00: 36
    Very interesting, everything is clear
  22. -1
    April 14 2022 15: 19
    I don’t know what the Author smokes, and not only him, but Ukrainian UAVs both flew and fly ...
  23. -1
    April 15 2022 18: 01
    How tired of this advertising PR.
    Where was Tor2m when the dill shelled Belgorod and the Kursk region?
  24. 0
    April 15 2022 18: 06
    Quote: Usher

    Okay, "Wasp", but how are you going to replace "Cube"? Kub has another replacement, Buk. Nothing is said about the radar, the HEADLIGHTS are used in the guidance radar, not the search. As far as I understand.

    What do you want?
    This is an advertising article, a PR company in the press.
    Therefore, one should not be surprised by a single serve.

    To whom is war, and to whom is mother dear ..
  25. 0
    18 October 2022 07: 49
    I don’t know how TOR works - but, Pantsir in Belgorod honor and praise them .. There was an attack by 16 missiles at the same time, they shot down everything - fragments of 2 fell near the airport. But they work out for 5+.
  26. 0
    6 June 2023 01: 29
    The Tor air defense system is a good, I would even say a legendary anti-aircraft missile system.