SAM "Ptitselov" on the eve of adoption

75
SAM "Ptitselov" on the eve of adoption
The alleged appearance of the Ptitselov air defense system in the form of a photo collage. Photo Telegram / "Vestnik PVO"


Over the past few years, Russian industry has been developing a whole family of self-propelled anti-aircraft missile systems based on the Sosna unified combat module. One of these air defense systems was named "Ptitselov" and was created specifically for the airborne troops. According to recent reports, the development of this project has been completed. Thanks to this, in the foreseeable future, it will be possible to launch mass production of such equipment and send it to combat units.



Completion of work


On May 15, the press service of the state corporation Rostec spoke about the latest successes of one of the latest projects in the field of air defense. According to the official statement, the High-Precision Complexes holding, which is part of the corporation, has completed the development of the promising Ptitselov air defense system.

Unfortunately, the press service of "Rostec" did without details. It is not specified what activities have been carried out to date, and with what results they have ended. There are also no plans for the future. In particular, the issues of future serial production and supply of equipment to the troops have not been disclosed.

At the same time, Rostec recalled the main provisions of the Ptitselov project. So, the new air defense system is being created specifically for the airborne troops, taking into account their specifics and requirements. The complex was built using the serial chassis of the BMD-4M airborne combat vehicle and the Sosna unified combat module. The latter is equipped with modern Sosna-R guided missiles and should provide air defense in the near zone.

Previously, High-Precision Complexes developed, built and presented several other variants of air defense systems with the Sosna combat module. They differ from each other by the type of chassis used, as well as the respective capabilities and characteristics. In particular, the Ptitselov for the Airborne Forces, thanks to the BMD-4M chassis, can be transported by military transport aircraft and parachuted.


Combat module "Pine". Photo by KB Tochmash

On development stage


According to known data, the development of an air defense system with the code “Ptitselov” for air defense units of the Airborne Forces started no later than the middle of the 2016s. The name of this complex first appeared in the open press in May XNUMX. Subsequently, officials and anonymous press sources repeatedly reported certain news, and also disclosed the details of the project.

It was reported that the design bureau of precision engineering named after Ptitselov is engaged in the development of "Ptitselov". A.E. Nudelman, which is part of the holding "High Precision Complexes". They were going to spend several years on the creation of the air defense system. At the same time, the deadlines for completing work and starting production were shifted to the right several times. Probably, the specifics of the project and the need to solve difficult technical problems led to this.

In 2021, the commander of the Airborne Forces, Colonel General Andrei Serdyukov, announced that the deployment of new equipment in the troops was planned for 2024. Since then, plans of this kind have not changed. A few years ago, it became known that the new air defense systems would go into service with the anti-aircraft missile regiments of the Airborne Forces. In 2021, A. Serdyukov clarified that four formations will undergo such re-equipment. Purchases and deliveries of the Ptitselov complexes to the troops will be carried out on a battery-by-battery basis.

Judging by the latest news, the developers coped with all the difficulties and successfully completed the creation of a new air defense system. This means that the project is now on schedule and no more shifts are expected. Accordingly, it can be expected that in the near future the industry will master the production of Ptitselov, and next year the Airborne Forces will receive the first battery set of such equipment.

From ready-made components


It is curious that Tochmash Design Bureau, High-Precision Complexes and Rostec have not yet officially shown the Ptitselov product. However, its appearance and technical features are already well known. In addition, the image of a new combat vehicle got into free access. Also, at various exhibitions, the key components of this air defense system and similar samples in a different configuration were repeatedly demonstrated.


"Pine" on the BMP-3 chassis. A frame from the reportage of the TV channel "Zvezda"

"Ptitselov" is a short-range self-propelled anti-aircraft missile system designed for air defense units of the airborne troops. It is made on the BMD-4M tracked chassis and is equipped with the Sosna combat module with the necessary controls and Sosna-R missiles. The SAM crew includes two people - the driver and the commander-operator.

For use as part of the air defense system, the BMD-4M chassis undergoes minimal changes, mainly related to the layout and composition of internal units. At the same time, bulletproof / anti-fragmentation armor with enhanced frontal projection, high driving performance, etc. are preserved. A key feature of the chassis and air defense systems as a whole is the possibility of parachute landing.

The Sosna combat module is a full-rotation turret designed for mounting on a chassis with a payload capacity of at least 4 tons. Optoelectronic equipment is located inside the turret cap, and two rocking missile launchers are placed on its sides. Each is attached to six transport and launch containers with missiles.

OES "Sosny" has day and night channels with stabilization, and is also equipped with a laser rangefinder-target designator. The data from the optics is fed into the weapons control system, which calculates data for firing and guiding the missile. Work is carried out in automatic or semi-automatic mode. Air targets of the "aircraft" type are detected and taken for escort at ranges up to 30 km.

The 9M340 Sosna-R anti-aircraft guided missile is a two-stage bicaliber munition with a maximum diameter of 130 mm and a mass of 30 kg. The solid propellant engine accelerates it to 900 m/s and provides a launch range of up to 10 km and an altitude reach of 5 km. The missile can maneuver with a longitudinal overload of up to 40. The flight to the target is carried out "along the laser beam." The automatic air defense system directs the laser at the target and guides the missile at it.


"Pine" on a wheelbase. Photo by KB Tochmash

The missile is equipped with two warheads. With a direct hit on the target, the defeat is provided by armor-piercing. In case of passage nearby, there is a fragmentation warhead of a rod type with a proximity fuse. The total mass of two warheads is 7 kg.

The Ptitselov air defense system can move and conduct combat work in the same order as the Airborne Forces equipment - BMD-4M landing vehicles and BTR-MDM armored personnel carriers. Joint landing is possible, thanks to which the Winged Guards are not left without cover in any operations. Also unification of the chassis simplifies operation and maintenance.

While on duty and using missiles, the Ptitselov does not unmask itself with radiation, with the exception of a rangefinder laser. The probability of detection and defeat of the complex is sharply reduced. The high combat qualities of an air defense system are determined by the characteristics of a high-speed and maneuverable missile. In this case, guidance along the laser beam gives high resistance to interference.

With the use of the Sosna module, several other combat vehicles have already been manufactured and tested. They were built on the MT-LB, BMP-3 and BTR-80 chassis. Back in 2019, it became known that such air defense systems would go into service with the ground forces. Finished samples of this kind were shown at exhibitions.

Upcoming Upgrade


In general, even at the level of known data, the new Ptitselov air defense system compares favorably with the later modifications of the Strela-10 complex. The appearance and receipt of such an air defense system in a known way will improve the air defense of the airborne forces and, accordingly, increase their overall effectiveness.

For a number of reasons, the development of the Ptitselov product was delayed, and the terms for adoption had to be postponed several times. However, now the work has been completed, and the appearance of finished equipment in the troops is only a matter of time. The same applies to other options for the use of Sosna, which will have to strengthen the air defense of the ground forces.
Our news channels

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

75 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +17
    17 May 2023
    Thanks to this, in the foreseeable future, it will be possible to launch mass production of such equipment and send it to combat units.

    This must be declared when they are already in combat units ... we must get rid of the vicious practice of premature statements to our society.
    Learn from the Americans ... they make promising statements when the weapons are already in the possession of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
    1. +6
      17 May 2023
      Good morning Alexey, good morning Comrades!
      Well, what the hell are we to look up to anyone?
      Essentially a traditional article announcement from Kirill, which was born from the appearance in the media of information from Rostec in three paragraphs.
      Moreover, the Author violated his own rules, before he always posted information about the product in the news, then he repeated it in the "weapons" section. However, I may have missed something.
      My attitude to the complex is good because it does not glow in the radio range, bad because there is no “fire-and-forget” option. Although I may be missing something.
      1. +3
        17 May 2023
        Izvestiya wrote at the beginning of the year that there would be two types of missiles, including those with IR seeker (that is, just fired and forgot).
        https://iz.ru/1286362/aleksei-ramm-bogdan-stepovoi/ten-desantnika-parashiutistov-vooruzhat-ptitcelovami
      2. +3
        17 May 2023
        bad in that there is no “fire-and-forget” option. Although I may be missing something.

        No, the usual "laser trail".
        1. +3
          17 May 2023
          And the more strange. What prevented adding a pair of Willows on each side. There, in fact, for a polish and three skeins of electrical tape.
          It is flexible to sort out and rewind.
          1. 0
            19 May 2023
            Still worse. After all, there is a living example - the Chrysanthemum ATGM, which has missiles in two modifications - with radio command and laser command guidance. Who prevented the production of laser-command missiles for "Thor" and "Shell"? Why this drank "Pine"? And who is stopping you from attaching "Bending" with Willows to the "Tor" and "Shell"? Probably evil Martians?
            1. 0
              24 May 2023
              The price of a bird catcher is several times less than the Shell or Thor. And there should be many more of them in the troops.
    2. +2
      17 May 2023
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      .we must get rid of the vicious practice of premature statements to our society.

      Alas, we live in a "market economy" and such statements are not for an internal, but for a possible external customer ...
    3. +1
      17 May 2023
      I support ...
      It was also funny from this phrase ...
      "Armata" ihe for several years only in parades and rides !!!
    4. -1
      20 May 2023
      Again, we are developing special weapons for useless troops. It would be better to cover the infantry
  2. +4
    17 May 2023
    It is unlikely that there are two separate warheads. Two fuses are simple: contact and non-contact
    1. 0
      20 May 2023
      Quote: Tlauicol
      It is unlikely that there are two separate warheads. Two fuses are simple: contact and non-contact

      There are two separate warheads: high-explosive fragmentation 1.2 kg and rod - 6 kg. SAM is capable of penetrating up to 60 mm of aluminum armor.
  3. +16
    17 May 2023
    Again "parachute landing"! Am I the only one who has the impression that Rostec and the RF Ministry of Defense are doing the wrong thing?
    1. -20
      17 May 2023
      Where are they to you. You have so much knowledge and experience, and you comment here. Not order. Because of people like you, couch potatoes, we can’t finish the NWO, and we don’t understand what we spend money on.
    2. +5
      17 May 2023
      Quote from Andy_nsk
      Again "parachute landing"! Am I the only one who has the impression that Rostec and the RF Ministry of Defense are doing the wrong thing?

      The air defense system based on the BMD is a strange decision, however, like all of our airborne forces.
      It will not be dropped by parachute. The armored personnel carrier, as the base of the air defense system, is no worse in terms of air mobility, but many times cheaper. If you really want to go on tracks and through mud - MTLB.
      1. Eug
        0
        October 25 2023
        And I immediately remember Strela-10M...
  4. -2
    17 May 2023
    Is it that the cannons were removed from the "Shell" and the result was the "newest" "Birdcatcher"?
    1. D16
      +11
      17 May 2023
      removed the guns and got the "newest" "Birdcatcher"?

      They removed the radar, radio command guidance, used a smaller caliber rocket, reduced the cost of eleven times, and so one to one laughing .
      1. -1
        18 May 2023
        ... - well, the "cardboard" for the "son-in-law" to see the "trailer" parted. :(
    2. +2
      17 May 2023
      Quote: Amateur
      Is it that the cannons were removed from the "Shell" and the result was the "newest" "Birdcatcher"?

      belay oh, these generals of couch votssk ...
      The Sosna air defense missile system is completely unified with the Palma (Broadsword) ship-based missile and artillery system in terms of its main structural elements - means of destruction and control. The Sosna-R missile from the complex is also used in the Strela-10M4 air defense system.
      birder:

      Sword

  5. +1
    17 May 2023
    A very strange product. Beauty for DRG. An expensive prodigy is obtained on the basis of the BMP-3. Since any drone with a good camera zoom up to 50 km can easily detect a single target such as a tank without entering the range of the air defense system, they also put expensive heat packs on reconnaissance UAVs.
    And is a remote control provided, or again, as in the Sumy region it will be with the BMD-3-4, when the paratroopers dug in and the crews, together with the BMD, were burned with anti-tank systems ????? This CLOSE action complex is also called, NO it is a rear action complex - a gray zone, as it is now commonly called.
    It needs to be hidden, protected, and only after the command has arrived, leave and work on an already working target, which can already start killing.
    Moreover, while you arrive, while you detect the target .... Why are there no autonomous radars designed to monitor the sky and use them to receive target designation by reading information from them while being in the complex, hiding safely hiding it ???
    Oh, this Soviet autonomy is a good example of the BRYANSK REGION and the death of the link, because the crews could not receive real-time information after the first ones were shot down ...
    It would be possible to work out protection against fragments, but this also turns out not to be necessary.
    There is a laser rangefinder, so why didn’t they at least make it possible to launch the 1st Kornet ATGM. Let the loading be manual. Is this unification? He smiled about the landing))))) and the electronics will withstand the landing ???? after all, a fragile product. And where are they going to land where)))
    1. +5
      17 May 2023
      Oh, those drones that spot a tank for 50 km!
      1. 0
        18 May 2023
        Ahah, yes) There is impossible cotton wool in people's heads
  6. +14
    17 May 2023
    A year and a half has passed, and the clowns continue to write about airborne landing. 15 years of a strict man for this one word must be given. My old 17 year old dog already understands that airborne landing is unnecessary for anyone and never. But Rostec continues to wash the loot.
    1. +4
      17 May 2023
      It would be worth forgetting about airborne landing since the time of Operation Mercury in 1943, when many German paratroopers flew to the ground dead
      1. +2
        17 May 2023
        since Operation Mercury 1943

        At the end of May 41st.
        many German paratroopers flew to the ground dead

        This, in principle, could not be, since the German paratroopers jumped from a height of 100-120 meters. It was to avoid losses in the air that such a parachute system was developed, but the disadvantage of this system was that it was necessary to jump out of the plane upside down and without weapons, although containers with weapons were thrown from the same height, but it took time to search and arm. The paratroopers jumped only with pistols. Relatively large losses were due to combat operations with the almost complete absence of heavy weapons, from artillery they had only 75mm recoilless rifles, although mortars would have been more useful. And still, the loss of personnel among the Germans was much lower than that of the Allies.
        1. 0
          17 May 2023
          Didn't the transport workers themselves and, accordingly, the landing force inside, at such a height, come under heavy fire from the ground, including infantry weapons?
          1. +3
            17 May 2023
            Didn't the transport workers themselves and, accordingly, the landing force inside, at such a height, come under heavy fire from the ground, including infantry weapons?

            Got it, there is a photo



            But basically the landing was successful, as German aircraft suppressed anti-aircraft fire from the ships of the British fleet and the actions of fighters

            The operation was preceded by a thorough study of all actions, and the dense landing of the units greatly contributed, there was no need to look for our commanders, unlike, for example, our Bukrinsky landing, but this is a different story. We must act according to the mind, and not just by order
            If you are interested in the photo chronicle of Operation Mercury, then see
            https://waralbum.ru/photo/war/mediterranean/crete/
            1. +1
              17 May 2023
              But now a few infantrymen with MANPADS can turn a transporter into burning debris.
    2. +3
      17 May 2023
      Quote: Vincent Price
      clowns continue to write about airborne landing. 15 years of a strict man for this one word must be given

      Write air transportability 20 times, maybe it will feel better. Question: what modern air defense systems can be easily and quickly deployed by aircraft. Without prior preparation, in normal quantities. I suspect a few. The same Shell with Thor under 30 tons pull
      1. +2
        17 May 2023
        No one needs to air transport anything without prior preparation. This is absurd and idiotic. No one transported anything with the requirement to conduct combat operations on landing.
      2. 0
        17 May 2023
        Who prevents to lighten Thor? How to conduct target detection at night and in conditions of poor visibility?
      3. +1
        17 May 2023
        what modern air defense systems can be easily and quickly transferred

        modern (!?) complex with a height limit of 5 km and laser guidance ???

        ps Khokh.lov’s modern complexes are portable, but we will always go our own way, which has no analogues ....
        1. 0
          17 May 2023
          Unparalleled in swindling pensioners in my country with the characteristics of unnecessary systems
        2. 0
          17 May 2023
          Have you heard about the incredible British stormers?
  7. +7
    17 May 2023
    Ryabov's "newest" article is a compilation of "Internet material" in recent years ... What Uncle Ryabov told about will not necessarily appear in the troops! Something (1 out of 2-3 data) will appear from the Internet "list" ... that's when it appears in the troops, then we will "know the truth"! This is me to the fact that over the history of the development of the "Pine-R" missiles, the performance characteristics of the "products" changed every now and then! For example: there was a name 9M337 with performance characteristics -8 km and 3,5 km ... it became -9M340 with performance characteristics: 10km and 5km ... The initial speed was indicated at 1200m / s ... it became 900 m / s ... It was fragmentation -rod warhead ... became armor-piercing-fragmentation-rod ... then again fragmentation-rod ... and again armor-piercing + fragmentation-rod! There was a dual-mode guidance (radio command of the first booster stage and laser-beam marching stage ...), then the mention of the "radio command" somehow imperceptibly disappeared; but did the radio command system of the first stage itself disappear?
    1. 0
      20 May 2023
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      There was a fragmentation-rod warhead ... it became armor-piercing fragmentation-rod ... then again fragmentation-rod ... and again armor-piercing + fragmentation-rod!

      Warhead armor-piercing, high-explosive fragmentation and rod.
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      but did the radio command system of the first stage itself disappear?

      The "radio command system", which ensured the introduction of missiles into the laser beam, disappeared.
  8. -2
    17 May 2023
    For the use of bicaliber ammunition and swivel carriages, you must put it against the wall. And how to conduct detection without radar? Whom will operators see at night and in poor visibility conditions? There is Tunguska and there is Thor, everything else is in the scrap.
    1. +5
      17 May 2023
      Quote: Evil_minusator
      For the use of bicaliber ammunition and swivel carriages, you must put it against the wall.

      Ashotak? And the personnel of Raytheon, Rafal and all other foreign ones? My God, Minusator, you are so radical. Straight carbonari. Why so much irritation? Did you get an A in school?
      Quote: Evil_minusator
      And how to conduct detection without radar?

      And who said that the radar should be on the same platform as the launcher? Is it to turn on the radar and immediately fly in? Or to make it heavier and reduce portability?
      Quote: Evil_minusator
      There is Tunguska and there is Thor, everything else is in the scrap.

      Yes, it's time for you to the General Staff
      1. -1
        17 May 2023
        Oh captain obvious, with the geometry of the problem? WHY increase the length of missiles in conditions of limited dimensions. Once again there is a TOP where the air defense problem has long been resolved. Why fence a garden, with Shells and Bird Catchers?
    2. +8
      17 May 2023
      Quote: Evil_minusator
      And how to conduct detection without radar?

      Just like they've been doing for the last 70 years.
      ZRV does not search for targets. This is done by RTV with their OVTs radar. And the air defense systems receive ready-made general data on the air situation and target designation for the targets assigned to them from the command post. This is followed by a short cycle "search in the sector along the azimuth of the designated target - detection - capture - tracking / launch - defeat or miss and re-launch - collapse and change of position."

      Yes, air defense systems can detect targets with their radars. But if the air defense systems begin to search for targets themselves, this means that system The air defense of the enemy is suppressed. And the air defense system, shining on the air for detection, did not have long to live.

      Judging by the performance characteristics of the complex, this is a replacement for Strela-10. And that spawn did not have a radar, only a radio range finder.
      1. 0
        17 May 2023
        Yeah, and how are Thor and Tunguska doing then? The Strela radar can independently search in a narrow segment, while Ptitselov is generally blind.
  9. +2
    17 May 2023
    where did you gather to land in the king?
    where do they run with slingshots?
  10. 0
    17 May 2023
    and what is the advantage of the "bird catcher" from the "shell"?
    1. -1
      17 May 2023
      and what is the advantage of the "bird catcher" from the "shell"?

      bulletproof booking, otherwise ... better keep silent ...
  11. +6
    17 May 2023
    Now, to combat ultra-small UAVs, it is necessary to supplement such installations with aircraft machine guns of 7,62 and 12,7 caliber.
    1. +1
      17 May 2023
      I almost agree with you! On the "Tunguska" there would be a pair of six-barrel guns according to the Gatling scheme in 23-mm caliber.
      1. 0
        17 May 2023
        I almost agree with you! On the "Tunguska" there would be a pair of six-barrel guns according to the Gatling scheme in 23-mm caliber.


        This is already against heavier ones, such as bayraktars. But much more problems are caused by a trifle that performs reconnaissance and guidance.
    2. 0
      17 May 2023
      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
      Now, to combat ultra-small UAVs, it is necessary to supplement such installations with aircraft machine guns of 7,62 and 12,7 caliber.

      Nonsense! Getting into a small drone from a bullet weapon is on the verge of fantasy or chance! No wonder all the hunters in the world use a shotgun for such targets! But, again, this is a but! The firing range of this ammunition (sighting, effective) is 35 meters! Maximum 50 meters. Which naturally cannot satisfy the military! Yes, actually, just about nothing. In my opinion (I do not pretend to be true), the return of a shrapnel projectile and the return of large-caliber memory devices will give a more positive result. Of course, provided that the detection and tracking of the target will not be carried out by the VNOS of the 40s model!
      1. +1
        18 May 2023
        What is the preferred shrapnel projectile in this case? - A large number of damaging elements and their high density at the location of the target. The same effect, in principle, can be obtained when using multi-barreled machine gun mounts. The famous ZPU M4 of the 1931 model, a quad from Maximov, had an effective altitude reach of ~ 1500 m, a firing range of ~ 3900 m, a combat rate of fire of ~ 1500 rounds per minute, a target speed of up to 500 km / h. To combat small UAVs, it is quite enough.
        1. 0
          18 May 2023
          Quote: Oleg812spb
          What is the preferred shrapnel projectile in this case? - A large number of damaging elements and their high density at the location of the target. The same effect, in principle, can be obtained when using multi-barreled machine gun mounts. The famous ZPU M4 of the 1931 model, a quad from Maximov, had an effective altitude reach of ~ 1500 m, a firing range of ~ 3900 m, a combat rate of fire of ~ 1500 rounds per minute, a target speed of up to 500 km / h. To combat small UAVs, it is quite enough.

          I do not agree. Bullet weapons hit the target when hit, but the shrapnel projectile, in addition to scattering the striking elements, also has a high-explosive effect. For airplanes, this is discomfort for the crew, more energetic piloting of the aircraft, but for a drone it can be critical! Let's remember the Amer drone that sank in the Black Sea just because Sushki passed nearby!
          1. 0
            19 May 2023
            Modern ballistic computers with laser rangefinders have long solved the problem of accuracy. Look at modern sniper weapons. Gatling compensates for accuracy with accuracy.
            1. +1
              19 May 2023
              Quote: Timur_kz
              Gatling compensates for accuracy with accuracy

              This is impossible. On the contrary, rather laughing
  12. -2
    17 May 2023
    Another analogue of shit. It has long been a bad form to remember about landing in modern conditions.
    1. +5
      17 May 2023
      Quote: AVESSALOM
      Another analog shit.

      Vice versa. This is ADATS - the same range, missile guidance system, dual-mode missile warheads.
      Unless there is no radar - but this is now for the better.
  13. +6
    17 May 2023
    So the development on Sosna has been going on since 2005 and is still ongoing. As far as I know, a programmable projectile for Derivation-Air Defense is being developed in this design bureau. And this complex, oh, how needed in the NWO!
  14. +4
    17 May 2023
    At least for self-defense and close range, some kind of machine gun would be added. Apparently, it was created to deal with helicopters, attack aircraft and missiles near the line of contact. There were no small-sized attack and reconnaissance UAVs then ....
    1. +2
      17 May 2023
      Quote: Oleg812spb
      At least for self-defense and close range, some kind of machine gun would be added.

      And we again get ADATS - an early version with a Bushmaster on a Bradley chassis. smile
      1. 0
        17 May 2023
        So vehicles of the same purpose, in principle, are also similar. Technology is still about the same level. And in ADATS, it seems, the possibility of working on the ground was laid. It’s just that while something is being brought to the series, the current conditions of use are already changing and moral obsolescence and lagging behind modern requirements are taking place.
    2. +1
      17 May 2023
      Or maybe an anti-drone gun can be attached there somehow?
  15. +3
    17 May 2023
    Are 12 guides not enough for modern conflicts? The rockets are small, twice as many would fit there.
    1. 0
      20 May 2023
      Quote: And Us Rat
      Are 12 guides not enough for modern conflicts? The rockets are small, twice as many would fit there.

      12 missiles per target channel is enough, even with a margin.
      1. 0
        18 September 2023
        No, not enough, it would be quite possible to combine it with at least 16 missiles.
  16. 0
    17 May 2023
    So it can only highlight one target at a time?
  17. +2
    17 May 2023
    It would be an excellent mobile air defense system if it had appeared 10-15 years ago.
    And now, based on the experience of military conflicts, a picture is clearly emerging and affirming that:
    1. Airborne landing is extremely situational and creating heavy equipment for this is an extremely controversial decision.
    2. Limited guidance channels. In the modern world, in order to be guaranteed to detect a target and shoot it down with a high chance, 2-3 observation channels are needed that complement each other.
    3. The characteristics of the complex are extremely vulnerable against small drones. The complex itself is capable of hitting, at best, reconnaissance drones flying at an altitude of a couple of kilometers or several hundred meters. It lacks the ability to fire on smaller targets.
    1. -1
      19 May 2023
      Why? In the thermal imager and mavics are perfectly visible.
  18. 0
    17 May 2023
    In light of the threat from drones, such vehicles are also needed on a truck trolley and a 57mm art system is needed ... so that it would be possible to complete batteries according to threats .... and, preferably, a car with a Radar and a connection with the Shell or TOR ... for CC
  19. 0
    17 May 2023
    Quote: Muzzle
    A very strange product. Beauty for DRG.

    And here DRG??? DRG and S-400 will destroy in a successful scenario!
  20. 0
    24 May 2023
    I understand everything, the BMD-4 chassis, well, why are there no guns or at least a YakB machine gun.
    The Airborne Forces are always on the front line, air defense without small arms / machine guns will not take off.
  21. 0
    July 2 2023
    Drones are cheap, they are sometimes launched from very short distances, conventional air defense, located in the rear, does not have time to shoot them down, and the cost of destroying a drone is more expensive than itself. It seems to me that in such a situation it is necessary to make something like a well-armored Shilka, only with simpler guns, put anti-aircraft machine guns, detection equipment, more ammunition. And she will work at the forefront, not being afraid of light weapons, monitor the sky, destroying everything larger than a sparrow with direct fire. A couple of queues - and there is no drone. Cheap, angry, at least a few dozen per trip shoot down - there are a lot of cartridges and, unlike missiles, they will not run out quickly. And when nothing flies, you can shoot at infantry, and in urban battles such a thing will come in handy, especially if robotic control without a crew is provided.
    In other words, we need specialized air defense for the front line, capable of very quickly detecting any small objects larger than a sparrow, having relatively light weapons to destroy unarmored targets, but a very large ammunition supply so that both infantry and drones are enough, even if there is a whole swarm.

    And this thing is landing. Well, they will throw it on the front line or behind enemy lines with a parachute, and then it will become the primary target for destruction and will be easily destroyed.

    This is my couch opinion.
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. 0
    August 25 2023
    I understand everything, except for one thing, why do we need a "pine" without a shooting companion ...
    This is an army air defense system, not an air defense system of the Aerospace Forces. Taking into account the over short range, it will be, if not in the first line of trenches, then in the second, at a depth of no more than 1-2 km, and a maximum ...
    Advance to positions along roads where ambushes by enemy forces are real...
    Why isn’t a machine gun or cannon system bolted to the missile system, anything, at least the GSHG, so that the complex can also hit small drones and protect itself from enemy infantry. Do not care what to put, GshG, YakBYu, zu-23-2. What can you do to protect yourself from copters and at least somehow from infantry if you are ambushed ... Ideally, in general, the ability to put all 3 options molulno, and the integration of the suo to all 3 types of weapons ...
    Okay, YakBYu, rather rare and controversial, but the GshG and Zu-23-2 options, since there are as many as you want, there are no problems with cartridges / shells, and so that the replacement of modules can be done best by the crew, well, at least by the mechanics brigades, right in the field.
    So that the machine can be quickly equipped for current tasks ...
    Otherwise, it's a dead topic. You can’t aim a rocket at a copter, but it will hang and point artillery ...
    Such a topic...
    1. 0
      21 September 2023
      For the first line, in general, the best option would be a well-armored BMPT-air defense weapon, armed with machine guns, a huge supply of ammunition, means of detecting flying targets and some kind of sophisticated computer for automatic aiming and tracking of targets. Such a vehicle would ride in the same lane as tanks and infantry fighting vehicles and would do the same thing as infantry fighting vehicles, suppressing and destroying infantry, but its primary target would be drones and anti-tank missiles, upon detection of which the crew would abandon all other targets and destroy everything that flies. There is no other way, recently there was news that the Ukrainians are ambushing drones from a short distance, so no conventional air defense will have time to protect the tanks.
  24. 0
    21 September 2023
    Since all this parachute bullshit is not used in practice, the question arises: did you drink the dough? It seems to me that the Airborne Forces should somehow rehabilitate themselves from such doubts about them. Send them to parachute into the Odessa region to cut off its southern part from the rest of Ukraine, then send the marines. All this will be supported by aviation and missiles. Let them do what they were taught. At the same time, those concepts will be tested for viability in order to further improve military strategy and doctrine. Nobody but them will do this. Let the Russian army have its own landing “in Normandy”. At least there will be some significant progress in the Northern Military District.
  25. The comment was deleted.
  26. 0
    30 September 2023
    The Ptitselov air defense system can move and conduct combat operations in the same formations with airborne equipment - BMD-4M landing vehicles and BTR-MDM armored personnel carriers. Joint landing is possible, thanks to which the Winged Guard is not left without cover in any operations.


    The Ptitselov air defense system is needed only for rearming the parachute regiments of two airborne divisions.
    There is no point in arming air assault divisions with airborne equipment.
    In fact, the DShD is an elite infantry armed with heavy armored vehicles: Tanks, MLRS, self-propelled guns Msta-SM1....
    The main combat vehicle for DShD personnel should be the BMP-3M and armored vehicles based on it, including the SOSNA air defense system.
  27. -1
    October 30 2023
    It would be interesting to know how these air defense systems fundamentally differ from the missile component of the Tunguska-M air defense system.
  28. The comment was deleted.

"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"