The Krona air defense missile system is undergoing testing.

13 108 140
The Krona air defense missile system is undergoing testing.


The Kalashnikov concern has launched a new anti-aircraft system for testing. missile the Krona complex, designed to combat strike dronesIn the near future, it is expected to confirm its estimated performance characteristics and demonstrate its combat capabilities. After that, the system will be ready to enter service and strengthen the defense of Russian facilities against air threats.



At a new stage


On April 13, the concern's press service announced the project had entered a new phase. A prototype has already been manufactured and is entering preliminary testing.


The Krona air defense missile system combat vehicle on the BTR-80 chassis

The tests will be held at a Russian testing ground under conditions as close as possible to real-life operational conditions. Representatives from organizations that will use the Krona system in the future will participate in the tests. This approach will improve the efficiency of the process: testers will determine the system's actual performance and identify potential design flaws. As any identified flaws are identified, necessary modifications and further testing will be carried out.


Combat vehicle and command post in export version


The timing of the preliminary tests and their full program have not yet been disclosed. However, the target results are clear: following all the activities, the final design of the system, all technical details, will be determined, and the system will be recommended for adoption.

In record time


Development of the Krona began about two years ago. The project aimed to create a system capable of countering modern air threats, primarily the mass use of strike aircraft. dronesThe work utilized both proven practices and fresh combat experience.

The project was first publicly announced in early February 2025, when the Kalashnikov Concern was preparing its exhibit for the IDEX 2025 exhibition in the UAE. One of the announcements first mentioned an export version of the Krona-E. A few days later, a model of the future system was unveiled in Abu Dhabi.

Krona-E models were subsequently demonstrated at other international exhibitions. The concern presented customers with two variants featuring a unified combat module on different chassis.


In parallel with international market promotion, technical documentation was developed. In March 2025, a full-scale mockup of the combat module was shown to a potential customer. A prototype has now been built and is currently undergoing preliminary testing.

Technical features


The Krona is a close-in missile system designed for long-term combat duty and protection of military, administrative, and other facilities from air attack.

The main element is the combat module: a turret with launchers, radio-technical, and optoelectronic equipment. It is mounted on a self-propelled chassis or manufactured as a stationary version. Early footage showed a combat vehicle based on the BTR-80 armored personnel carrier, paired with a command post mounted on a four-axle KamAZ truck. Later, a second version was shown—based on the BMP-2 chassis.


Model of the Krona on the BMP-2 chassis

The carrier houses an automated operator workstation. The operator receives air situation data from the system's own assets or third-party sources and controls the deployment of weapons.

The Krona can use two types of surface-to-air missiles. The cylindrical launch containers indicate the use of 9M340 SAMs, originally developed for the Sosna system. These missiles engage targets at ranges of up to 10 km and altitudes of up to 5 km using laser beam guidance.


Full-size model of the turret-combat module

The second option is the 9M333 missiles from later versions of the Strela-10. They intercept targets at ranges of up to 5 km and altitudes of up to 5 km, using an infrared homing head with improved performance.

The standard configuration carries a mixed load of ammunition: six 9M340 missiles and four 9M333 missiles on side mounts. A flexible approach is provided: the ammunition load can be composed of a single type or in any desired proportion.

Tactical role


The Krona is designed for area defense and primarily intercepting attack drones. Using a self-propelled chassis, the system can quickly change positions and assume duty, increasing defense flexibility and allowing for rapid response to changing situations.

Detecting light and medium UAVs, especially at low altitudes, is a unique task with a number of limitations. Therefore, the system includes both radar and optical detection and fire control systems. Their combined use increases the likelihood of timely target acquisition.


A key feature of the project is its minimal number of newly developed components. The system is built on readily available chassis and utilizes missiles from existing arsenals. This simplifies serial production, operation, and combat deployment, and also ensures favorable cost characteristics.

"Krona" will not be the only tool of this kind. In the territorial Defense The Pantsir-S1 missile and gun system has long been in use; it also intercepts unmanned targets and is superior to the new system in a number of ways. However, both systems can operate in tandem—as part of a layered defense designed to engage different types of targets. In this scenario, the Krona would occupy the short-range interception position.


detection radar


Long-term benefits


The Krona's key design features, characteristics, and combat capabilities are already known. Now the system must prove them in practice. Testing will confirm the calculated parameters, identify weaknesses, and make adjustments. Expect more details from the developer soon—as testing progresses, the system will move closer to entering service.
140 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    April 15 2026 04: 16
    The Krona won't be the only system of its kind. The Pantsir-S1 missile and gun system has long been used in territorial air defense.

    This is precisely what's unclear. Why use the Krona when we have the Pantsir? How is the Krona better than the Pantsir? Why isn't there a price comparison? The Pantsir has very cheap missiles. And they're most likely cheaper than the Krona's missiles. They also have better range and altitude characteristics.
    1. + 15
      April 15 2026 05: 48
      Why do you need a crown when you have a shell?

      What's the point? The Pantsyr is a product of the Tula Design Bureau. It's one of the world's best short-range anti-aircraft missile and gun systems. And the Krona is yet another attempt by the "effective managers" at Kalashnikov Concern to demonstrate "active imitation" to the leadership. Changing the color of the plastic grips on a well-deserved AK doesn't exactly qualify as a modernization.
      1. +3
        April 15 2026 19: 12
        Another attempt by the "effective managers" from the "Kalashnikov Concern" to demonstrate to the management a "simulation of active activity."
        It will surely be successful, since Kalashnikov's main shareholder, Krivoruchko, is a close associate of the Minister of Defense. He has never spoken about selling his stake, and there is no confirmation of this.
      2. -2
        April 16 2026 01: 35
        It's immediately obvious that the Krona is in a different niche. It's simpler and lighter, meaning it's cheaper. Look at the chassis and the design of the guides.
    2. +1
      April 15 2026 05: 53
      The Krona has optical fire detection and control equipment.
      1. +7
        April 15 2026 11: 19
        Quote: stels_07
        The Krona has optical fire detection and control equipment.

        Come on?
        1. +2
          April 15 2026 15: 12
          Why are highly mobile, specialized convoy escort systems used to protect military and other facilities? It's cheaper to use a distributed air defense system for such missions, for "site-based" air defense. It's cheaper and more convenient. Several launchers, a command center with adequate manning facilities, a power plant, a remote radar, or other detection equipment. Everything is separate. Easy communication with other detection systems and the use of civilian towing vehicles for transport... Redundancy is possible. And such a system is easier to mount on a ship.
          I spoke with TOR manufacturers at Army-2024. They said outright that such a configuration could easily be implemented, but they hadn't received any orders...
          1. +2
            April 15 2026 15: 30
            Quote: BOCTOK 77
            Why are highly mobile special convoy escort vehicles used to protect military and other facilities?

            Mobility and economy.
            One MTF can cover a maximum of 500 meters of line, but in fact, R~=300 meters, if there is no guided weapons or Skynex with Oerlikon Mk3 and the appropriate ammunition (which is not the case). Combat crew of 3 people, 24/8 = 3 shifts.
            9 people per 1 km of the "front"
            A typical oil refinery is ~600 hectares (the Omsk oil refinery is 1290 hectares) and has a radius of 1400 meters. An additional 1000 meters should be added to ensure a safe margin.
            The circumference is 15,1 km. We need 15-17 stationary points and 180-200 personnel (commanders, clerks, supply officers, a medical assistant, a political instructor, a cook).
            The UAV is not limited in maneuver: it can even climb in from the rear.
            1. 0
              April 15 2026 15: 47
              15-17 points are three teams of three people each with the ability to manage everything from any point. They may be non-military or part-time. They work in shifts. What are the difficulties? What kind of cooks and clerks?
              1. +2
                April 15 2026 16: 09
                3 crews? Stationary with cul-guns at 2 x 3,14 x 2400 m?
                I'm lost
                Quote: BOCTOK 77
                What difficulties, what cooks and scribes?

                Economic
                Without clerks, cooks, storekeepers and a political officer, a company is not a company.
              2. 0
                April 15 2026 21: 23
                The 15-17-point approach is a demagogic ploy that's been used here repeatedly. They don't build air defense systems, not even point defenses, only machine gun and cannon mounts.
    3. D16
      +3
      April 15 2026 08: 09
      How is crown better than shell? Why isn't there a price comparison?

      IMHO, it's an excellent option for a small-scale operation. The 9M333 "fire-and-forget" missile increases the system's channel capacity. The 9M340 is essentially a 130mm recoilless rifle guidance system. The Ptitselov, which was adopted by the Airborne Forces in 23, has a 9M340 that can be guided by both radio command and laser guidance. The surveillance radar can be mounted on any tower.
      The Pantsir has very cheap missiles.

      The Pantsir has a 152mm or 76mm first stage, while the 9M340 has a 130mm first stage. They are similar in design. The 9M333 is more expensive, but it exists and is in production.
    4. +2
      April 15 2026 08: 16
      Quote: Stas157
      Why do you need a crown when you have a shell?

      The armored car has two radars, which automatically makes it very expensive.
      The crown has only optical guidance, which will allow crowns to be produced in large quantities.
      1. +4
        April 15 2026 09: 35
        Quote: rytik32
        The armored car has two radars, which automatically makes it very expensive.

        Radar is an advantage, not a disadvantage. You only need to buy it once. But the missile's low cost is a key advantage. That's the point. Missiles consume much more fuel than radar.
        1. 0
          April 15 2026 11: 23
          Quote: Stas157
          But the rocket's low cost has a key advantage

          combined with the required level of efficiency. The pursuit of cheapness can go too far.
        2. +1
          April 15 2026 16: 00
          Stas157, remember that many UAVs are made of radio-transparent material, so they can only be detected by optical devices. And systems without radars don't reveal themselves.
          It was mobile air defense systems with optical detection that were activated in Iran right now. This is because all enemy aircraft are equipped with radar sensors and radar-guided missiles.
          1. 0
            April 15 2026 16: 28
            Quote: Igor M.
            Stas157, remember that many UAVs are made of radio-transparent material, so they can only be detected with optics

            Is the engine also from RPM?
            Cables, wiring, and SINS are made of composite, but servos are made of plasticine?
            🥱
            24 GHz (K-band) is optimal for detecting small UAVs, as it can detect even the slightest blade movement. The "propeller modulation" method: Rotating blades reflect the radio signal, creating specific Doppler frequencies that distinguish drones from birds.
            Carbon fiber propellers provide a stronger signal reflection than plastic ones, making them easier to detect.

            The Hirth F-23 is a two-stroke, two-cylinder, opposed-twin aircraft engine producing 45–50 hp. (Pictured)
            I won't take a tape measure and figure out the angles and reflections, but with 100% probability the image intensifier here will be ~0,5 sq.m.
            (How then did they knock the F-22/35 and other B-2s out of the sky? With them, it's 0,0000 5 m^2.)
            Would you argue that the Su-30's RCS will be an order of magnitude (3-4 m^2) higher?
            I'll object: a furiously sweating plane approaches you at a speed of 150 km/h, while a Su-30, smoking at 900 km/h (and can even produce deep supersonic speeds), you won't even have time to fart.
            There is time for a story.
            And so on.
            In the ORL, the detection range is ~ the 4th root of the EPR/EOP
            You reduced it by 10 times, but the range decreased only by a distant 1,78 times.
            1. 0
              April 16 2026 01: 40
              The 4th root of power, not of EPR.
              1. 0
                April 16 2026 09: 36
                Quote: stankow
                The 4th root of power, not of EPR.

                And from the power (or rather the ratio of the radiated power/received power - sensitivity) and from the EPR.
                Otherwise, your range would be the 4th root of J.
                But the emitter power has nothing to do with the image intensifier of a 2-stroke engine and this issue.
        3. +2
          April 15 2026 21: 09
          Quote: Stas157
          Radar is an advantage, not a disadvantage.

          I don't argue with that. Krona will never replace Carapace, but it complements it beautifully.
          The positions of the Panzers are clearly visible from space, and radar is visible via SIGINT systems, so the Svitoljets avoid them. This is where the Krona can come in handy, operating from ambush...
          Laser-guided missiles will not be expensive; this technology has long been proven on ATGMs, but it has some weather limitations.
      2. -1
        April 15 2026 09: 37
        The crown has only optical guidance, which will allow crowns to be produced in large quantities.

        The article states that it is not just optics: “Therefore, the complex includes both radar and optical means of detection and fire control.”
        1. -1
          April 15 2026 21: 29
          Quote: Lynnot
          "Therefore, the complex includes both radar

          Strange text... but the crown doesn't have radar! https://life.ru/p/1741075
          Perhaps they meant the ability to receive information from third-party radars? Or operating in passive mode?
        2. +4
          April 15 2026 22: 11
          Got it. The radar is implemented on a separate vehicle. Or from other air defense systems.
          1. 0
            April 16 2026 10: 53
            The radar is implemented on a separate vehicle. Or from other air defense systems.

            The Life article states, "Furthermore, the air defense system can receive data from a portable compact radar system or by exchanging information with battery command posts." Even for a very short-range air defense system, optics and a thermal imager alone are clearly insufficient, especially given the enemy's objectives and tactics. The main thing is to keep this in mind during deployment.
            1. +1
              April 16 2026 20: 57
              Quote: Lynnot
              In addition, the air defense missile system can receive data from a small-sized remote radar system or by exchanging information with battery command posts.

              This is standard functionality for any modern Russian air defense system. For example, the Pantsir receives information from the S-400 radar, which "sees" further.
      3. +1
        April 15 2026 11: 33
        Quote: rytik32
        The crown has only optical guidance, which will allow crowns to be produced in large quantities.

        Was the article read with ears?
        9M340 SAM: A combined control system is used to guide the missile – a radio command system at the initial stage of the trajectory and a high-precision, interference-resistant laser beam after the engine has separated and the missile has reached the line of sight.
        A 3Ts99 radar (or a land-based analogue - with a phased antenna array (PAR) of circular scanning, used for target designation

        Quote: rytik32
        The shell has two radars

        2RL80 But it gives the ability to see up to 80 km, and detect small-sized objects at 10-15 km
        1. VlK
          +1
          April 15 2026 13: 37
          Why don't MOGs use MANPADS against drones like Lyutyi? The target isn't locked on? It would seem that in the 21st century, MANPADS should be the primary armament of such groups, not the reincarnation of the first half of the 20th century's air defenses, such as anti-aircraft machine guns and homemade AK-47 batteries.
          1. +1
            April 15 2026 14: 13
            Quote: VlK
            Why don't MOGs use MANPADS against drones like Lyutyi? The target isn't locked on.


            The spectral wavelength of the IR seeker is 1-5 µm: this corresponds to the maximum radiation of heated rocket and aircraft engines.
            And long-range detection at 8-12 microns
            The Law of Wine Mixing
            <lambda> max=b/T
            🥱 Who expected that 2-stroke internal combustion engines with exhaust T ~300-400K would climb into the sky, and so annoyingly...
            They are also weak: 50 hp = 37 kW (40% efficiency), in heat 55 kW, blown by a propeller.
            Compare with helicopters with 2000+ hp
            Generals, they always prepare for past wars (they graduated from academies, but it was of no use), although there was a time reserve between the Karabakh war and theirs
            1. VlK
              0
              April 15 2026 14: 40
              Is it even possible to create something for a MANPADS against such drones, or would the cost per shot be prohibitive?
              1. +1
                April 15 2026 15: 01
                ™️ "You can... but why?"
                Still, the 9M336 will be a bit expensive.
                And there are no such GSNs in the series. And the size is larger.
                Here it would be better to use something with capture and guidance through the operator's eye, eye tracking/oculography (the most valuable thing doesn't die, and is constantly learning), and the speed of the SAM is not so important, range and autonomy are better
                A type of SAM with a turbofan engine, 500-600 km/h, a ceiling of 7000 m, a television camera/IR, capable of loitering for 2-3 hours, up to 10 km.
                Or, like an American laser attachment on a stupid, cheap hydra
              2. +2
                April 15 2026 16: 03
                VLK, several types of mini-MANPADS for drones are currently being tested. For example, the Hermes.
              3. +3
                April 15 2026 21: 04
                The Verba has a three-band targeting head and is excellent at detecting and shooting down drones. But the price...
                1. VlK
                  -1
                  April 16 2026 10: 10
                  and what about the price, it’s not more expensive than a burned-down oil depot, is it?
                  If it's not too much trouble, could you give some approximate figures in comparison with other means of defeating drones, just to get an idea?
                  1. +1
                    April 17 2026 07: 53
                    Quote: VlK
                    Could you give some approximate figures in comparison with other means of destroying drones, just to get an idea?

                    From open sources. The escort price of a missile for the willow is 170 euros, and for the Pantsir, $200.
                    1. VlK
                      0
                      April 17 2026 10: 22
                      Thank you, I see. Where do these astronomical prices for disposable ammunition come from? I understand that the export price is listed, meaning the maximum possible, but still? Is everything inside made of gold and platinum, or does the price of the finished product include all possible expenses and cost overruns, and the production batches are small?
                      1. 0
                        April 17 2026 16: 03
                        Quote: VlK
                        all possible expenses and cost overruns of the enterprise

                        More likely, it is. I personally witnessed how, 10 years ago, OPR and OHR accounted for almost 1000% of direct costs.
            2. +1
              April 16 2026 11: 06
              "Generals always prepare for past wars."

              In this case, it somehow reminded me of a phrase that flashed by once, like, no one thought that a nuclear power would be pecked to death like this.
        2. +3
          April 15 2026 21: 22
          Quote: don_Reba
          A radar

          What does radar have to do with it? There is no radar in the crown.
          https://life.ru/p/1741075
          1. -1
            April 15 2026 22: 44
            Quote: rytik32
            What does radar have to do with it? There is no radar in the crown.

            in the "crown", not in the "crown".
            Yes hi
            I somehow missed the point, focusing on the 9M340 (pine-r) ammunition, with a radio command system that brings it to the line of sight.
            On the Corona it looks like it's a cover, not an antenna sheet.
      4. +1
        April 15 2026 12: 23
        The main thing is reliability and effectiveness on the battlefield, and if we again pursue only cheapness and simplification of design, then we will soon return to spears and arquebuses.
      5. +1
        April 15 2026 19: 15
        will allow the production of crowns in large quantities
        The missiles are said to be three times more expensive, though. And a full load of ammunition probably costs as much as the crown itself.
    5. 0
      April 15 2026 11: 13
      Quote: Stas157
      Why do you need a crown when you have a shell?

      Denushka.
      This is like an “innovation” from Chemezov:
      "Breakthrough" BTR-MDM "Rakushka":
      https://rostec.ru/media/news/rostekh-postavil-v-voyska-partiyu-btr-mdm-rakushka-m/#start
      Ryabov also wrote about him many times.
      Quote: Stas157
      Why is the crown better than the shell?

      Worse.
      This is the same "STRELA-10M" (ML), but with anabolic steroids
      9M333-zur of the last century
      The decision of the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) and the Rostec corporation to resume serial production of the 9M333 missile at the recently built facility in the city of Kovrov, was made public in 2018.
      , but of course 9M37 and 9M37M are better.
      The 9M340 SAM is newer (I think this is work on the Sosna-R(A)
      It will probably cost $120 million in ruble equivalent.
      The combat module has been toting around exhibitions since 2013.
      The complex also needs a control and inspection station on a KamAZ-6560 chassis.
      The radar situation is unclear. It should be a 3Ts99 FAR radar (like the one on the Palash), but it's very heavy (3,5 tons in the module).
      Affected areas: also not "everything is so clear-cut"
      Quote: Author
      "Krona" is a close-range complex designed for long combat duty

      Ryabov should be sent to the BTR-82 for a long time
      1. 0
        April 16 2026 11: 32
        Ryabov should be sent to the BTR-82 for a long time

        As I understand it, a self-propelled chassis like an armored personnel carrier (APC) is needed for convoy escort vehicles or other operational missions. For point-based air defense, given its modular design, it could be mounted on some kind of trailer-type platform. Perhaps even an unmanned one.
    6. 0
      April 15 2026 13: 49
      I'm an uninformed non-specialist, but after reading all sorts of things, I suspect the new system is capable of 3-4-5 salvoes at 30-40 targets simultaneously. Although, perhaps that's just yesterday's specifications...
    7. +4
      April 15 2026 15: 53
      Stas157 is an updated version of the Strela-10 system. It's much cheaper than the Pantsir.
      These systems (Krona and Strela-10) can operate on the move, for example, when escorting troop columns.
      A new type of missile for the Strela-10 was developed relatively recently, and the old system has begun to return to service. The Ukrainian Armed Forces have been using the Strela-10 with the new missiles for some time now, and it has apparently proven its effectiveness.
      The more diverse the air defense, the more protected the objects will be.
    8. -1
      April 15 2026 23: 30
      Quote: Stas157
      This is precisely what's unclear. Why have a crown when there's a shell? How is a crown better than a shell?

      Pantsir plus Krona is better than just Pantsir.
  2. +4
    April 15 2026 04: 30
    I'm not entirely sure why the new Pantsir and this Krona ditched the cannon armament? Rapid-fire cannons are perfect for drones, in my opinion!
    1. + 10
      April 15 2026 04: 53
      Programmable missiles were not delivered, missile manufacturers are lobbying for their own interests and because of this, more cost-effective anti-drone weapons have been stifled
      1. -3
        April 15 2026 23: 41
        Quote from iommy
        programmable shells were not delivered

        Programmable projectiles merely reduce the average consumption of 30mm projectiles by 2.6 times compared to non-programmable ones, but are also significantly more expensive. There is no shortage of HE (non-programmable) projectiles for 30mm cannons in Russia.
        1. +2
          April 16 2026 03: 57
          A non-programmable missile needs a direct hit, while a programmable missile will only need a 2-3 meter deviation. Here, not 2.6 but 26 times the ammunition can be saved. 1400 shells, if you spend 20 on 1 target, you can shoot down 70 drones.
          1. 0
            April 19 2026 15: 03
            Quote from iommy
            A non-programmable target needs a direct hit, while a programmable target can be hit with a 2-3 meter deviation. Here, not 2.6, but 26 times the ammunition can be saved.

            You can fantasize about 26 times or 260 times, but comparative test firings yielded 2.6 times. Moreover, a programmable projectile is, according to various sources, at least four times more expensive than a fixed-wing projectile.
            1. 0
              April 20 2026 07: 28
              Where are these studies? Is there a link?
              1. 0
                4 May 2026 00: 15
                Quote from iommy
                Where are these studies? Is there a link?

                Here:
                https://topwar.ru/252465-vysokaja-tochnost-porazhenija-celej-polsha-predstavila-zenitnuju-ustanovku-sa-35mm-dlja-borby-s-dronami.html
                Field test results showed that 99 shots of conventional TP-T/FAPDS-T munitions were required to achieve a 24 percent kill probability with at least one projectile, while the ABM with programmable detonation achieved a kill probability of 97 percent with one out of seven projectiles, each of which releases more than 50 submunitions.

                P.S. However, I would like to point out that you have not provided any references to any studies or tests to substantiate this assertion of yours:
                Quote from iommy
                ...here you can save ammunition not 2.6 but 26 times...
    2. +1
      April 15 2026 04: 54
      Rather, it was postponed for a while, apparently the current level of cannon armament is not up to par
    3. +7
      April 15 2026 08: 28
      Where's the infamous Derivation, with its 57mm autocannon and programmable fragmentation shells? That's the theoretical real drone killer in close quarters! But it's been a while since we heard anything about it.
      1. -1
        April 15 2026 10: 28
        The question immediately arises about the cost of an "artillery shot" from Derivation and the average consumption of these shots to hit one target....
        1. 0
          April 15 2026 14: 56
          A German 35mm Oerlikon shell costs 4 Euros with a soft detonation.
          1. -2
            April 15 2026 15: 36
            So, let's apply that to our reality. I think ours would cost tens of thousands of euros. Now, it would be a good idea to look up the statistics on ammunition consumption by anti-aircraft gunners during WWII per aircraft shot down. It came out to 900 small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery rounds (25-37mm) and 600 medium-caliber anti-aircraft artillery rounds (76-85mm). Yes, 80 years have passed, and detection and guidance systems have advanced significantly, but not so dramatically that you'd be able to shoot down a target with the first or even third shot.
            1. 0
              April 15 2026 16: 22
              Well, at the moment, the Pantsir missile's cost and effectiveness are unrivaled.
              1. -1
                April 15 2026 16: 40
                It turns out that it's cheaper to shoot drones from the Pantsir
                1. 0
                  April 16 2026 06: 12
                  Well, it also has 30mm cannons.
          2. -1
            April 16 2026 01: 45
            How much is 4t? And in what currency?
            1. 0
              April 16 2026 06: 12
              Euro 4t. Projectile with a programmable fuse
              1. 0
                April 16 2026 09: 30
                4000 euros? In reality, with such quantities, a 30mm shell costs 30 euros. The fuse adds another 15 euros. The electronics are very cheap.
          3. 0
            April 17 2026 10: 16
            Can I get a link to the price of 4000 euros?
            I was recently interested in this issue and found a price of 1400. 1000 for the fuse and 400 for the projectile itself with tungsten GPE.
            But I came across the price of 4000 in the comments several times.
            I want to understand what is wrong.
            Thanks in advance.
            1. 0
              April 18 2026 07: 57
              The estimated export price of the Skynex system is approximately $98 million for a battery of four self-propelled wheeled anti-aircraft guns, a fire control vehicle, and a radar, which is quite high for this type of weapon on the global market. Each 35mm shell for the Skynex self-propelled anti-aircraft gun costs $4,300. By comparison, the export price of the French SAMP-T medium-range air defense system reaches $80-90 million for a battery of six launchers and command vehicles.
              1. 0
                April 18 2026 12: 54
                ABOUT EXPORT
                Monopolists rule.
                In fact, the cost price should be significantly lower.
                There is essentially technology from the 90s in the fuse.
                Proven and highly optimized technology.
                So the production cost of 1000 euros does not seem unrealistic.
                1. 0
                  April 18 2026 14: 17
                  Production cost for whom?
                  These are all private concerns. They sell to their own armies at a healthy markup.
                  1. 0
                    April 18 2026 15: 34
                    This line of conversation originally arose from a question about the possible cost of a controlled/programmable shot to Derivation.
                    If the West can produce for 1000 euros, then perhaps we can do it too.
                    Russia is in a slightly different situation. The military-industrial complex won't be left without profits, but they won't be allowed to generate excess profits either.
                    1. 0
                      April 18 2026 16: 08
                      Well, $1k is a different amount of money for them and for us.
                      1. 0
                        April 18 2026 19: 52
                        But admit it, 1K euros and 4K euros are a noticeable difference. 1K euros sounds better somehow. And while such an overspend is hardly justified for 30mm, it certainly makes sense for 57mm.
                      2. 0
                        April 18 2026 22: 04
                        Well, there is a choice here, you need to count.
                        How many shells per target? And compare it to a hypothetical laser-guided S-8 and a Pantsir missile.
                      3. 0
                        April 19 2026 10: 16
                        Well, if you take 57 mm, that's over a kilogram of GPO. For UAVs, 1-1,5 grams is enough.
                        This is a GPE cone with a diameter of several meters with a density of 1 GPE per square meter.
                        With such parameters, the guidance system will be crucial, especially the accuracy of target range determination. At ranges of 5-6 km, with an average projectile velocity of 1000 m/s, hitting targets with a low angular velocity and a stable trajectory with a single projectile is quite likely.
      2. 0
        April 15 2026 16: 05
        paul3390, that's what I heard. But they're saying something went wrong with the shells. They're trying to fix it.
      3. +3
        April 15 2026 18: 32
        "Derivation" is in War Thunder.
      4. +1
        April 15 2026 19: 19
        The list of things that were talked about between 2000 and 2022 is huge, but what remains as a result can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Morpheus could have shot down apocalyptic drone strikes if it had existed.
    4. 0
      April 15 2026 23: 38
      Quote: Schneeberg
      I don't quite understand why the new model of the "Pantsir" and this "Krona" did not have cannon armament?

      The new Pantsir SAM system retains its cannon armament. The new Pantsir SAM system is the Pantsir-SM (S1M in the export version). Its cannons are still in place. Cannons were removed from two SAM systems based on the previous Pantsir model, the Pantsir-S. This was due to the operating conditions of these two SAM systems. There is no room for cannons on the Krona.
      Quote: Schneeberg
      For drones, in my opinion, rapid-fire guns are the best!

      Rockets are better.
      1. 0
        April 16 2026 15: 52
        Rockets are better.

        For specialized short-range air defense, heavy machine guns, not even cannons, would have been suitable as a last resort weapon. Even the quadruple Maximov "M4" from 1931 was effective against low-flying enemy aircraft at altitudes of up to 1400 meters, at ranges of up to 1600 meters, and at speeds of up to 500 km/h.
  3. +6
    April 15 2026 04: 52
    Strengthening short-range air defenses is good, but this SAM system is still defenseless against FPV drones. This means it can't be brought closer than 20-30, or even more, kilometers from the LBS. Not with the Khikhs' FPV advantage.
    1. +2
      April 15 2026 06: 23
      This air defense system is still defenseless against FPV drones. This means it can't be brought closer than 20-30 km, or even more, from the LBS.

      That's true. The lack of electronically programmable small-caliber cannon shells and, correspondingly, cannons for them, makes even self-defense against a group of approximately 20 or more FPV units impossible. This means these systems are best suited to protecting targets at least 20-30 km from the LBS. Furthermore, defense with machine guns and cannons is cheaper.
      1. +2
        April 15 2026 12: 51
        20-30 km for FPV is the level of a year ago...now it's under 50 km...and maybe even with Starlink and auto-targeting with AI elements.
      2. -2
        April 15 2026 23: 44
        Quote: Alexey Lantukh
        The absence of electronically programmable small-caliber cannon shells and, accordingly, cannons for them makes it impossible to even defend oneself against an attack by a group of FPV in quantities of approximately more than 20 pieces.

        Let me reiterate, programmable 30mm projectiles reduce the average projectile consumption by 2.6 times. There is no shortage of conventional HE projectiles in Russia. Therefore, there is no urgent need to reduce their average consumption, i.e., to develop a programmable projectile.
    2. 0
      April 15 2026 16: 06
      Vladimir_2U, there's a powerful armored personnel carrier there, it can be equipped with protection against FPV drones.
      1. 0
        April 15 2026 16: 43
        Quote: Igor M.
        Vladimir_2U, there's a powerful armored personnel carrier there, it can be equipped with protection against FPV drones.

        Is this some kind of irony?
    3. 0
      April 15 2026 16: 23
      What is protected from drones' FPV?
      1. -1
        April 15 2026 16: 43
        Quote: Zaurbek
        What is protected from drones' FPV?

        Something that can actively defend itself. That is, resources are wasted on things that are no longer relevant.
    4. 0
      April 15 2026 18: 10
      Actually, it was initially said that this ashcannon was for rear air defense and no one was going to send it to the LBS...
      1. +1
        April 15 2026 23: 47
        Quote: faiver
        Actually, it was initially said that this ashcannon was for rear air defense and no one was going to send it to the LBS...

        And almost no one in the discussion read this...
      2. 0
        April 16 2026 03: 32
        Quote: faiver
        Actually, it was initially said that this ashcannon was for rear air defense and no one was going to send it to the LBS...

        Not for the rear, but for "regional defense"...
        The vulnerability of air defense systems to FPV drones means, first and foremost, the vulnerability of frontline units to air-to-air attacks. The Khikhlys are bombing our immediate rear areas with glide bombs with impunity. And there's nothing to intercept them with... The enemy's limited air force is the only saving grace.
        Moreover, with Starlinks and Retras on the FPV carrier, air defense systems are already being destroyed even deep within our territory. Such a solution on a drone is only a matter of time.
        I'm talking about this ...
    5. 0
      April 17 2026 12: 05
      but this air defense system is still defenseless against FPV drones

      Usually, when everyone's desires are immediately combined into one universal thing, the result is neither one thing nor the other, but a complete misunderstanding.
      1. 0
        April 19 2026 04: 22
        Quote: Lynnot
        Usually, when everyone's desires are immediately combined into one universal thing, the result is neither one thing nor the other, but a complete misunderstanding.

        Usually, yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. The point is that air defense systems already have these systems, but there's still no physical defense against drones from specialized companies. What's the point of creating different types of what's essentially the same thing if they're defenseless?
  4. +5
    April 15 2026 04: 55
    Combat vehicle and command post in export version
    Already for export. am Is our sky clear?
    1. +2
      April 15 2026 05: 04
      A successfully exported unit attracts funds to increase the number of new units. Sell it for export, receive the money, produce two units, one for export and the other for yourself. I'm simplifying, but either give money from the budget or get paid for export.
      1. 0
        April 15 2026 19: 22
        Well, the question is where the money goes. Manufacturers don't usually belong to the Ministry of Defense; there are usually a bunch of shareholders, numerous directors and executives. Rosoboronexport will also take the money, but much less will come from the budget for new weapons.
  5. +6
    April 15 2026 05: 33
    It's terrible, we've already seen this in the Strela 10, only on a motorized vehicle, but we need a system like the Tunguska, only with two Yakb-12,7 and GShG-7.62 machine guns and a choice of 4-8 missiles, an AFAR radar from the Ka-52, and 360-degree optical observation devices. Well, the steps are clear, it's an armored personnel carrier and a new fire control system with network integration.
    And what they did was just another embezzlement...
    Well, as an option, you could install a ZU-23-2 instead of the Yakb and have everything in one hull; you can cram a lot of stuff into an APC.
  6. +4
    April 15 2026 06: 24
    If the vehicle isn't for LBS, why slap it on an armored chassis? A booth with a module on any truck like a Ural or Kamaz will suffice...
    1. 0
      April 15 2026 23: 48
      Quote: faiver
      If the vehicle isn't for LBS, why slap it on an armored chassis? A booth with a module on any truck like a Ural or Kamaz will suffice...

      You can do it this way too. It's done on what's "free."
    2. 0
      April 16 2026 15: 02
      If the car is not for LBS, why the hell slap it on an armored chassis?

      You wouldn't say that. Anything can happen. Near our border (Belgorod), aka the LBS, there was a Pantsir. An anti-radar missile came flying and crippled it. Apparently, no one was killed, only wounded.
  7. 0
    April 15 2026 06: 25
    What we really need is the most affordable air defense system possible to protect cities and towns. Not on armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles, but on any civilian vehicle. So that any city, oil company, or port could purchase this air defense system to protect its population or production facilities and form volunteer crews to operate it. We should also equip any suitable aircraft with its own AWACS, rather than waiting for the mercy of the Ministry of Defense, which has given up on AWACS. A drowning man must save himself. soldier
    1. +4
      April 15 2026 06: 30
      So that any city, oil company, or port could buy this air defense system.
      - Oh, no, sir, there are no purchases - only the state...
      1. +5
        April 15 2026 07: 18
        Quote: faiver
        Oh no, sir, there are no purchases - only the state...

        It's just that the government, or rather its top brass, isn't showing any signs of bothering about this. But the revival of the air defense system using simplified equipment has been a long time coming for three years now.
        1. +9
          April 15 2026 07: 29
          They are very busy - conferences, exhibitions, forums, negotiations - you won't understand this, just like we won't either...
    2. +5
      April 15 2026 08: 18
      A city or an oil company might purchase it and assemble volunteer crews, but who and where will train these crews? Will they buy the anti-aircraft unit officers and sergeants from the Ministry of Defense? Where will these volunteer crews conduct firing practice? A SAM system isn't a pump-action shotgun.
      1. 0
        April 15 2026 13: 03
        Neither a city (or region) nor a company (no matter which) can purchase a SAM system. There is no legal way to do so.
    3. -1
      April 15 2026 13: 32
      What we really need is the most inexpensive air defense system possible to protect cities and towns.

      Just imagine how many towns and villages there are in Russia right now, from St. Petersburg to Astrakhan!? And in the event of a war with NATO, do we need to cover Belarus and the towns and villages from Murmansk to St. Petersburg, all the way to the Urals?! We need to build a full-fledged line Air defense along the borders and the current LBS. Because even if populated areas are theoretically covered, the industrial transport infrastructure (bridges, roads, power lines, pipelines) remains bare. And retaliatory strikes shouldn't tickle the enemy. feel
      1. 0
        April 15 2026 15: 54
        I completely agree with you about a full-fledged air defense line, and it may already be being created, but unfortunately, it can't destroy 100% of enemy aircraft. Local air defense should finish off the remaining air raid forces. Incidentally, this is also good for the psychological well-being of city residents, knowing that even beyond the outskirts there are defenders of the skies. At least, that's how I feel when I drive past the air defense unit guarding our city of a million and its strategic facilities. No matter how many cities and towns there are, it's possible to design an air defense network, create a linear or square-shaped defense, so that not a single aircraft, UAV, or missile can penetrate deep into the country. And don't even mention the cost or the money—people's lives are more valuable.
        Another question is the response to the attacks on Russia. After, for example, a strike on St. Petersburg and the surrounding cities, or Sevastopol, Donetsk, an entire district of Kyiv or another Ukrainian city must be razed. They won't understand another district. We've already crossed the humanitarian line, and they need to be bombed like the Germans in WWII. How is it that the war is going on for five years, and we haven't even crossed the Dnieper River yet?
        1. -2
          April 15 2026 16: 09
          Soldatov V., you crossed the line, but we did not.
    4. 0
      April 15 2026 16: 25
      Moreover, it's possible to build both a vehicle with missiles and a vehicle with 30-57mm cannons, and configure the facility based on the threats. Somewhere a vehicle with radar and artillery, somewhere an air defense system.
    5. -1
      April 15 2026 19: 24
      The simplest method right now is Chinese lasers. I don't know how much they cost, but they make them in large quantities. A small group of soldiers can defend a large perimeter from a single control station.
  8. 0
    April 15 2026 07: 19
    The main thing is that these tests don't drag on, as is our custom. The more complexes, the fewer gaps in altitude and direction. The main thing is not to drag it out!
  9. +3
    April 15 2026 07: 48
    Now the system must prove its capabilities in practice. Testing will confirm the calculated parameters, identify weaknesses, and make adjustments.

    I've stopped understanding these "successes"... For two years, they've been crossing a grass snake with a hedgehog, harnessing a trotter and a timid doe into the same team... Ahead lies the acquisition of evidence and confirmation of the calculated parameters, making adjustments, and, perhaps, launching a small series, but the second article is already ready...
  10. +3
    April 15 2026 07: 58
    Quote: yuriy55
    For two years, they have been crossing a grass snake with a hedgehog.
    Rather, sit with your bare ass on the hedgehog! laughing
  11. +1
    April 15 2026 08: 43
    The Crown is cheaper than the Pantsir, which means it can be mass-produced.
  12. VlK
    +1
    April 15 2026 10: 27
    I wonder if this is a CC initiative they'll now try to sell and sell somewhere, or if it's the Ministry of Defense's customer with specific requirements in the specifications? The article smoothly avoids this point.
    And how do we develop new technology today? Who sets the tasks for weapons manufacturers and determines the design of future products, and who pays for the R&D work?
  13. +1
    April 15 2026 11: 02
    I don't get it. The carrier is armored, but the external module is bare? The reloading issue is unclear. Manual reloading again?
    They took existing ideas and re-arranged them. But didn't achieve any new quality? Like Krylov's "Orchestra."
    1. +1
      April 16 2026 12: 16
      So people are under armor, why armor the complex?
  14. +2
    April 15 2026 11: 08
    Quote: Yuras_Belarus
    A successfully exported unit attracts funds to increase the number of new units. Sell it for export, receive the money, produce two units, one for export and the other for yourself. I'm simplifying, but either give money from the budget or get paid for export.

    Unfortunately, money is converted into products not directly, but through intermediaries - people, machines, technology... And there are some small problems with them.
  15. 0
    April 15 2026 11: 09
    Quote: yuriy55
    Now the system must prove its capabilities in practice. Testing will confirm the calculated parameters, identify weaknesses, and make adjustments.

    I've stopped understanding these "successes"... For two years, they've been crossing a grass snake with a hedgehog, harnessing a trotter and a timid doe into the same team... Ahead lies the acquisition of evidence and confirmation of the calculated parameters, making adjustments, and, perhaps, launching a small series, but the second article is already ready...

    That's the whole point. Some people do research, others write articles. Everyone's happy.
  16. +2
    April 15 2026 11: 17
    A very strange concept.
    There are cheap air defense systems with an expensive missile with a homing head (Strela) and expensive air defense systems with a radar and a cheap remote-controlled missile (Pantsir, Sosna).
    There are military air defense systems based on expensive armored fighting vehicles and special chassis (Strela, Tunguska, Tor...), there are "rear" air defense systems based on trucks (Pantsir) and trailers (not ours and the first Sosny).
    In Krona they took the most expensive of all the options, but what they got and for whom, I don’t understand.
  17. +4
    April 15 2026 11: 55
    Why I don't like this complex
    1.
    there is a C1 shell
    , as well as a whole host of other completely similar systems. It's not entirely clear why yet another system is needed. Unification rules.
    2.
    The APC chassis isn't a very good solution. The IFV is slightly better, but why bother with armor in the rear, where it's supposed to be used? The chassis is excessive and poorly thought out. Frankly, I'd prefer a trailer module with a fire system made of composites, to reduce radar visibility, and towed by a command center. The trailer is deployed, and the command module is hidden. In my opinion, this concept is much better for a mass defense system for rear-area targets.
    3. The system's cost. The author claims the system can target small UAVs. I suspect the cost is several times cheaper than a surface-to-air missile. This doesn't seem like an effective solution. And at least two more missiles would probably be needed.
    4. The missiles have enough ammunition for 3-4 interceptions, while UAVs are weapons of mass production. Why didn't they consider the need to shoot down multiple targets in a few minutes? For example, 35 UAV hits were counted in just one raid on the Novorossiysk Cement Plant. And there were even more. This is to understand the scale of the threat. How many aircraft are the authors proposing to deploy for defense? 5-10 for each target? This seems inadequate. The comparable Pantsir at least has a cannon, which gives it a chance of shooting down many.
    5. For a system that relies on optics, the target acquisition system is poorly designed. How is an operator inside the armor supposed to acquire targets? They say they'll fire based on received input. Well, then, honestly, show us everything required for the system to function. It turns out it can't function properly alone.

    To sum it up, I'll say this: they made it like in the song "from what was available" - some kind of Frankenstein, which was completely ill-conceived and which will now be pushed through lobbyists to be sold somewhere.
    In my opinion, this is a completely unnecessary project that wastes money.
    I remember the Ansat project. They released a very crude and flawed helicopter with a ton of defects and unfinished business, and then spent a mountain of money not on refining the aircraft, but on advertising, lobbying, and attempts to sell this... this... I don't even know what to call it without breaking the site rules.
    I see the same story with this system. They decided to quickly cobble something together before the cooling system ran out and sell it, but the product turned out to be frankly ridiculous.
    What I expected to see from the rear air defense system
    1. taking into account the scale of the threat
    Look how the Israelis made the launcher for the dome. It can really repel a large-scale attack.
    And not built into the chassis, but a relatively inexpensive module that can be installed by the hundreds. It also allows for flexible design of a stationary defense system and is easier to camouflage. If an oil storage facility needs to be protected, it won't run away. Why do you need an armored personnel carrier chassis?
    2. The missile's price should be at least not significantly higher than the target's, and preferably 2-3 times cheaper. In fact, the system doesn't have this. And it doesn't have a cannon.
    3. Combined guidance system
    4. Extensive use of composites, protection from radar and IR detection, as well as satellite optics. APCs and IFVs—that's not the case at all. The concept of their use is extremely poorly thought out. But they've already managed to bring them to an exhibition in Dubai.
    And it would be fine if no one knew anything, it’s forgivable to screw up in the search, but...
    This is what our soldiers and air defense training institutions advise (2nd photo)
    The diagram here shows that most of the facility's defense system is stationary, and even its mobile elements are mostly deployed on the spot, meaning they're not fully mobile. High mobility is NOT necessary. So why is Kalashnikov reinventing the wheel?
    1. 0
      April 15 2026 23: 51
      Quote: multicaat
      This is what our soldiers and air defense training institutions advise (2nd photo)

      Aren't the S-125, S-200 and Kvadrat in this 2nd photo confusing in terms of "advice"?
      1. 0
        April 16 2026 08: 44
        They are supposed to cover the troops, not the rear, and are present only as part of the strike capabilities.
        Besides, the S-125 and S-200 are not highly mobile options.
        1. 0
          April 19 2026 14: 59
          Quote: multicaat
          They are supposed to cover the troops, not the rear, and are present only as part of the strike capabilities.
          Besides, the S-125 and S-200 are not highly mobile options.

          There's also Kvadrat. What year does all this relate to? Is everything still the same now as it was then?
  18. +1
    April 15 2026 12: 05
    It is absolutely unclear why it is necessary to develop and implement a weapon that is already inferior in all its main performance characteristics to the one that has already been developed, improved, and is in serial production (the Pantsir-S/SM air defense missile and gun system)???
    Another money grab???
    After all, according to common sense, if something new is to be released, it should be more effective and incapable than weapons already in mass production and in service.
    1. +1
      April 15 2026 12: 23
      Quote: sgrabik
      It is absolutely unclear why it is necessary to develop and implement weapons that are already inferior in all their main performance characteristics to those that have already been developed, improved, and are in serial production.

      It's all quite clear. Capitalism. The manufacturer never produces what's needed. Because he has established production lines.
      1. Something that is not needed at all to solve this problem
      2. Something that can somehow perform the task, but it is monstrously expensive.
      3. Old, like mammoth shit, junk that is unusable in modern conditions, which the capitalist can produce in great quantities and very cheaply, because he has established the production of junk, and the production lines have long since recovered their value.
      This dross is a composite of all three positions. So, it will all receive ample funding...
      1. +1
        April 15 2026 13: 51
        The customer is to blame here. The Ministry of Defense was slow with the Pantsir too... If it weren't for exports, there wouldn't be a Pantsir.
      2. +3
        April 15 2026 19: 32
        4. Deputy Defense Minister Krivoruchko, previously the main shareholder of Kalashnikov, has no evidence that he has completely sold his stake, and he did not indicate any such income in the documents. This means anything can be sold, even something that doesn't exist.
  19. 0
    April 15 2026 12: 19
    Missile system. Missiles are very expensive. Slag.
  20. +2
    April 15 2026 13: 08
    A persistent desire to create technology that will single-handedly solve all problems. Expensive and useless.
    Let's at least get rid of this complex in the heads of the higher-ups. For starters, let's recognize that each UAV speed range and target size requires its own set of weapons.

    The author doesn't describe this system. But if it contains missiles like ATGMs, then we can welcome a move in the right direction. Slow-moving missiles against slow-moving UAVs within line-of-sight range.

    A more detailed analysis is available for a fee.
  21. 0
    April 15 2026 13: 47
    I just don't understand why they're putting it on a special chassis. It would be perfectly appropriate on a KAMAZ/Ural chassis.
    1. -1
      April 15 2026 15: 45
      An air defense system on a truck chassis looks cheap, but on an armored personnel carrier/infantry fighting vehicle (APC/IFV) or even a personal vehicle, it looks expensive and luxurious...
      1. -2
        April 15 2026 16: 21
        What about habitability? Interior volume, chassis life?
        1. -1
          April 15 2026 16: 44
          Well, the habitability of a body is clearly better than that of an armored personnel carrier, and the truck's service life is clearly greater than that of an armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle...
  22. -1
    April 15 2026 14: 21
    And how much does each missile cost?
  23. -1
    April 15 2026 15: 40
    6 launchers.
    What if there are 7 drones? What if there are 27? What if the drone is the size of a Mavic?
    Is the Strela really such a cheap munition? Is a BMP-type chassis really a budget option? Especially given its modest combat capabilities.
    In my humble opinion, this complex is at least 5 years too late to be born.
    Should I put it into production? Well, I wouldn't.
    There are two things to say about it. It's cheaper than the Pantsir. And that's better than nothing.
    And to object to this is nothing, given the low efficiency of the bureaucratic production machine.
    And I'll add my own. I read this with bewilderment. This is yesterday's war. Almost useless today. Especially considering that they're starting to seriously talk about drone swarms.
  24. Owl
    -1
    April 15 2026 18: 54
    The system will be suitable for use in "peaceful" regions such as the Baltic Sea coast. If the missile is guided by a reflected laser beam, it can also be used against unmanned aerial vehicles (BAKs), provided the sea conditions allow for target acquisition.
  25. 0
    April 15 2026 19: 55
    As I understand it, this system can be installed on any equipment. Plus, the production of interception systems will increase.
  26. -1
    April 15 2026 20: 21
    Or maybe we should add a shotgun like the 40mm MKE TOLGA (a Turkish short-range air defense system developed by MKE to combat UAVs, mini-drones, and guided munitions) to the top tier, otherwise it’s not clear where those safe rear areas are.
  27. 0
    April 16 2026 16: 26
    Where's the Bagulnik air defense system? Where's the Sosna air defense system? And they're identical in appearance to the Krona air defense system. In short, this is just another rip-off of government funds.
  28. 0
    April 17 2026 19: 43
    Complete nonsense, not a SAM system. What can it defend with its 10 missiles??? The Pantsirs were caught reloading and burned, and those also have 12 missiles...
    Is it really impossible to install a launcher like the one on the "Iron Dome" to cover important objects???
    Add a couple of these launchers to the Pantsir's radar, and the missile supply will become substantial. Or add another Kamaz truck to it, which would only carry the missiles and nothing else, the maximum possible number. As far as I know, the Buk's TZV can also fire, although it doesn't have its own radar.
    But no, we need to shove a bunch of these 10 rocket launchers into the Ministry of Defense, I’m so angry...