The Tunguska-M1 anti-aircraft missile system has received new protection and detection equipment.

12 902 43
The Tunguska-M1 anti-aircraft missile system has received new protection and detection equipment.
Tunguska-M1 air defense missile system in the Special Operations area, 2023.


Since its adoption into service, the anti-aircraft gun-missile The 2K22 Tunguska system has undergone numerous upgrades, each one improving various characteristics. A new upgrade was recently announced. It enhances the system's protection against current threats and improves its target detection and tracking capabilities. The armament itself, however, remains unchanged.



Experience and renewal


The Russian Ministry of Defense has repeatedly demonstrated the combat operations of Tunguska systems and their crews in the Northern Military District. The reports included combat alerts and firing cannons and missiles at aerial targets.

In such materials, it was clear how combat systems were being refined based on combat experience: additional protection and devices for combating UAVs appeared on the vehicles (drones).

In early June 2026, photos and videos of the Tunguska-M1, which had undergone more extensive modifications, appeared on specialized websites. Judging by the footage, the previous optical-electronic station had been replaced with a new one.

According to sources, this vehicle is serving with a combat unit and is participating in combat operations. It is unknown whether it is the only one in service. Two possibilities are possible: either an experimental modification of a single vehicle or the first observed example of a future production program. There is no data yet to support a clear choice between the two.

Standard equipment


There were no fundamental redesigns of the system. The 2S6M1 combat vehicle retained its tracked armored chassis and full-size turret housing weapons and electronics. Its dimensions and performance characteristics are apparently similar to the previous model (although the add-on armor inevitably adds weight; more details are available in the limitations section).


The modernized 2S6M1 combat vehicle, 2026. Additional armor elements are visible.

The armament is also the same. These include two 30mm 2A38 twin-barreled assault rifles and two launchers, each holding four 9M311 missiles. Their specifications are well known:
  • rate of fire - up to 4-5 thousand rounds/min. (in total);
  • initial projectile velocity - 960 m/s;
  • effective range of fire against air targets - 4 km;
  • altitude reach - 4 km;
  • effective range of fire against ground targets - 2 km;
  • missile launch range (for the Tunguska-M1 with 9M311-1M) - up to 10 km; for the basic 9M311 - up to 8 km;
  • height of damage - up to 3,5 km;
  • the average flight speed of the rocket is 600 m/s;
  • The warhead is a high-explosive fragmentation warhead weighing 9 kg.


The Tunguska-M1's increased range is due to the missile itself: the 9M311-1M uses a pulsed optical transponder instead of a tracer. This improves its resistance to light decoys and allows the missile to be tracked on a trajectory of up to 10 km. At its maximum range, the system is capable of engaging hovering helicopters. It is also claimed to be capable of engaging small targets such as cruise missiles, but reliable engagement against maneuverable and low-flying cruise missiles is far from guaranteed.

Target detection is provided by a radar (TAR — target acquisition station), and tracking is provided by a separate tracking station (TTS — target tracking station); these are supplemented by an electronic system with day and night channels. According to data for the basic system, the TAR detects a low-flying fighter at a range of 16–19 km (up to 18 km in amplitude mode, up to 16 km in moving target selection mode). The tracking station's range is approximately 10–13 km. Processing is automatic, and the equipment controls the missile's flight via radio.

New Components


The anti-aircraft missile system with its new equipment has only been featured in one short video so far. But even this footage makes the point clear.

First of all, the vehicle received additional protection. Add-on metal plates were added to the sides of the hull and turret. These are spaced apart from the standard armor and form a spaced protection system: this should increase resistance to both kinetic and shaped-charge munitions. The tradeoff is increased weight and possibly some reduction in mobility. The extent of the reduction in mobility cannot be judged from the publicly available images.

Dome-shaped covers are visible on the rear of the chassis. These are presumably antennas for electronic reconnaissance stations and EWIf so, the Tunguska-M1 gains the ability to detect incoming UAVs and jam their communication and navigation channels. Its purpose cannot be accurately determined from its appearance alone.

A new type of optical system is mounted on the roof of the turret. This is a digital thermal television system (DTS) developed by JSC Scientific and Technical Center ELINS (Zelenograd); the company is officially listed as its developer. The system's unique feature is a single optical unit with a switchable (wide and narrow) field of view: it simultaneously performs automatic target tracking and direction finding of the launched missile. Combining these functions in a digital path facilitates operation in conditions of optical interference and poor visibility. The specific model of the system and its configuration have not yet been officially disclosed.


Tower with a modern power grid

This stabilized unit combines a video camera, a thermal imager, and a laser rangefinder. Their exact parameters are confidential. Based on indirect indicators, targets are detected and recognized at ranges of at least 8–10 km, depending on weather and other factors.

Extended capabilities


The firepower itself hasn't increased: the machine guns and missiles remain the same. The improvements are in target detection, tracking, and vehicle protection.

The primary focus is on defense. The system has been equipped with its own electronic warfare systems and additional armor to withstand drone attacks. It's worth remembering that an anti-aircraft unit may also have other means to counter such threats.

The new OES and its associated equipment offer several advantages. Its modern component base improves performance and extends its service life. The updated fire control system allows for more precise aiming. weapon, primarily due to automatic target tracking and simultaneous missile direction finding.

It's also important that the optical system and radar are interchangeable: the optics don't reveal the vehicle with their radiation (except when the rangefinder is in use), and the radar detects targets where weather obscures the optics. Radiation stealth reduces the risk of detection, but it's only one factor. The actual probability of attack depends on the enemy's visual reconnaissance, UAV reconnaissance, and targeting data.


Electronic warfare systems are located at the stern

At the same time, the basic advantages of the Tunguska are preserved: the high cross-country ability of the tracked chassis, the ability to move in combat formations of columns, standard armor and mixed gun-missile armament, which expands the range of targets that can be hit.

Limitations and open questions


The modernization has its downside. The main point of contention is the economics of countering mass-produced, low-cost drones. The 9M311 missile is incomparable in price to a small FPV drone, so using it on such targets is irrational; the main burden falls on the 30mm automatic guns, and their effectiveness against stealthy and maneuverable targets is limited. Against this backdrop, relying on electronic warfare is logical: jamming communications and navigation is cheaper, and sometimes more reliable, than shooting down a target.

Add to this the increased weight from add-on armor and the fact that the actual increase in drone capabilities has not yet been confirmed: all estimates are based on a single video and general considerations.

Park Prospects


According to various sources, the Russian army has approximately 240–250 Tunguska-family vehicles in service, with the Tunguska-M1 making up the bulk of them. In theory, all of these vehicles could receive add-on armor, electronic warfare systems, and an updated fire control system during a major overhaul: when a vehicle is already being dismantled, retrofitting is less expensive.

If such a program is implemented on a large scale, the military Defense It will significantly improve its capabilities against aerial targets, including drones of various classes, while retaining the 2S6M1's previous functionality.

But so far, the published footage shows a single vehicle. There's no confirmed information about serial orders publicly available. So, there's no mass modernization yet: the technical capability exists. Whether this will be a series production or a one-off initiative remains an open question.
43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    10 June 2026 06: 00
    Systems like the Tunguska and Pantsir-S could be complemented with missile launchers deployed and camouflaged in strategic locations, such as along the front line or at a protected facility within the detection zone. The missiles are launched on command from the combat vehicle. This would increase the air defense density within the protected area. hi soldier
    1. +5
      10 June 2026 06: 54
      The missile's radio command guidance system doesn't allow for this. A guidance antenna is needed, as are horizontal and vertical guidance drives. So, if savings are possible, it should only be on the detection radar.
      1. 0
        10 June 2026 11: 25
        There's a maximum detection range and a maximum kill range. The container allows for a faster response to a target's destruction, especially if it's a group of targets. I don't know the design of the Tunguska and Pantsir missiles. If they have homing, that's excellent. hi
        1. +1
          11 June 2026 01: 45
          Quote: V.
          I don’t know the design of the Tunguska and Pantsir rockets.

          There is no doubt about it Yes
          Quote: V.
          If there is homing, that's great.


          Quote: Cympak
          Radio command guidance system missiles do not allow this to be done.
      2. -3
        11 June 2026 06: 42
        Is it too difficult to install a homing head on a missile or install another missile with such a homing head?
        1. +3
          11 June 2026 08: 07
          Why not read a little about how air defense systems work, or at least avoid writing about things you don't understand?
          1. +1
            11 June 2026 11: 03
            Quote: Cympak
            Why not read a little about how air defense systems work, or at least avoid writing about things you don't understand?

            For this character - weak. request
            1. 0
              11 June 2026 11: 23
              I'm not offended, I'm not an air defense specialist, you're right here, and I'm not offended by the culture of your communication, this is normal for a parking lot guard. hi
              1. +2
                11 June 2026 11: 26
                Quote: V.
                I'm not offended, I'm not an air defense specialist, you're right here.
                Please write about things you understand at least a little bit about and don't litter the thread with utter nonsense! am
          2. -1
            11 June 2026 14: 43
            I understand you're some damn air defense experts. Tell me why a handheld MANPADS has an autonomous guidance system with various methods, while a Tunguska missile doesn't? It has a radio channel, inherited from its ancestors, but modern systems don't have a "fire and forget" system? hi
            1. +3
              11 June 2026 16: 24
              Tunguska was created as a complement to the Igla/Strela MANPADS and the Strela-10 SAM system.
              The IR seeker has limitations:
              - methodependency, for example, fog or heavy cloudiness
              - respond to IR traps and IR jamming stations
              - the range depends on the target angle.
              Radio command systems have their own limitations, but they do not overlap with the limitations of IR guidance.
              The cost of a missile with radio command guidance is significantly less than the cost of a missile with a seeker.
              1. 0
                12 June 2026 02: 49
                Quote: Cympak
                The cost of a missile with radio command guidance is significantly less than the cost of a missile with a seeker.

                Certainly! Yes
                However, the guidance accuracy of radio-command SAMs decreases proportionally to range. Therefore, this guidance method is currently used only on short-range SAM systems. A compromise option is "radio command guidance of the second kind" (with missile tracking), which combines the advantages of radio command and semi-active radar.
              2. 0
                15 June 2026 15: 56
                Quote: Cympak
                The cost of a missile with radio command guidance is significantly less than the cost of a missile with a seeker.

                Recently, a NATO country developed what they claim is a cheap anti-drone missile with a Ka-band AR seeker! The developers are swearing this SAM will be significantly cheaper than a conventional anti-aircraft SAM! Maybe it's time to stop thinking in old dogmas?
                1. 0
                  15 June 2026 17: 00
                  Quote: Nikolaevich I
                  Recently, a NATO country developed what they claim is a cheap anti-drone missile with a Ka-band AR seeker! The developers are swearing this SAM will be significantly cheaper than a conventional anti-aircraft SAM! Maybe it's time to stop thinking in old dogmas?

                  Before jumping to conclusions, it's important to understand the performance characteristics of a "cheap" SAM with an homing radar head. The key word here is "anti-drone," which allows for significant cost savings compared to an anti-aircraft missile, due to its weaker characteristics: speed, range, required G-force, lock-on distance, countermeasures, etc.
            2. 0
              12 June 2026 02: 43
              Quote: V.
              As I understand it, you are fucking experts in air defense. Tell me why a hand-held MANPADS has an autonomous guidance system with various methods, but a missile like the Tunguska does not?

              Do not hurt the crap, it hurts! fool
              All domestic MANPADS are equipped with IR-UV seekers with trajectory-selective guidance, i.e., homing only.
    2. +3
      10 June 2026 07: 47
      I wonder if there are anti-helicopter mines like the PVM or Boomerang. The PVM seems to have a 150-meter radius. How much do they cost, and how effective are they against UAVs? They seem to have infrared and sound detection. Perhaps fields like these are one way to counter the drone threat?
    3. +4
      10 June 2026 13: 04
      height of damage - up to 3,5 km;

      The Igla and Verba MANPADS missiles have a higher altitude. For such a powerful mobile vehicle as the Tunguska, this is certainly very low. Even its cannons operate at such an altitude. It's precisely these high-rate-of-fire cannons that make Tunguskas, like the Shilkas, very useful today for countering enemy UAVs. Especially since the USSR manufactured a huge number of them. Around 6000 Shilkas alone. But for some reason, they're nowhere to be seen in the SVO. Did a reindeer herder write them off as scrap metal to increase the percentage of new equipment in the army? For some reason, such suspicions arise.
      1. +5
        10 June 2026 13: 46
        No Shilok, they cut it up and gave it away.
      2. +4
        10 June 2026 22: 40
        30mm cannons need projectiles with a programmable fuse (they said they've developed one), then they'll be effective against UAVs. As it is, hitting a UAV with a cannon seems pretty difficult to me; the target is very small, and it probably takes more than one burst to hit.
        It's probably not a pity to use the old missiles, they'll have to be replaced anyway, but the question is how effective are they against UAVs?
        1. 0
          22 June 2026 23: 22
          Quote: Eroma
          30mm cannons need projectiles with a programmable fuse (they said they've developed one), then they'll be effective against UAVs. As it is, hitting a UAV with a cannon seems pretty difficult to me; the target is very small, and it probably takes more than one burst to hit.

          See my message from 06/22/2026 here:
          https://topwar.ru/284891-sistema-pvo-saudovskoj-aravii-zenitnaja-artillerija-i-boevye-lazery.html
          1. 0
            25 June 2026 22: 16
            If you're talking about cost, then, in my opinion, you're misjudging it. A projectile with a programmable fuse is guaranteed to shoot down a UAV, while a conventional one might miss completely! Besides cost, there's also effectiveness; conventional projectiles can be simply useless against some targets. So, if you want guaranteed protection, you'll have to shell out. And the cost will eventually drop to acceptable levels as production ramps up. That's progress, you have to invest upfront!
            1. 0
              28 June 2026 17: 04
              Quote: Eroma
              If you're talking about cost, then you're misjudging it. A projectile with a programmable fuse is guaranteed to shoot down a UAV, while a regular one might miss altogether!

              We're talking about an equal probability of failure. Effectiveness is determined by cost only when the outcome is equal.
              Look at here:
              https://topwar.ru/284891-sistema-pvo-saudovskoj-aravii-zenitnaja-artillerija-i-boevye-lazery.html#comment-id-16111926
              my message from June 28, 2026 4:54 PM (on June 28, 2026 it was marked as "today", and on June 29, 2026 it will be marked as "yesterday")
      3. 0
        15 June 2026 15: 47
        Quote: wladimirjankov
        The Igla and Verba MANPADS missiles are taller. For a powerful mobile vehicle like the Tunguska, this is certainly very small.

        A modified SAM with a range of up to 10 km and an altitude of up to 6 km has been developed for the naval version of the Tunguska! There were rumors that the laser-guided Sosna-R SAM was originally intended for the modernized Tunguska SAM system!
        1. 0
          15 June 2026 17: 09
          The naval version of the Tunguska was called the Kortik anti-aircraft gun.
          The developers of the Pantsir and Sosna-R air defense systems are different. The guidance systems are different. It's not typical for our weapons manufacturers to let competitors into their own domain and install foreign missiles on their air defense systems.
          Sosna-R missiles with LLKU are being installed on the Palma naval air defense missile system. Our defunct navies don't need this. So, they ordered a similar Palash system, but without the missiles, for Project 22350 frigates.
          1. 0
            15 June 2026 22: 17
            I told you the Sosna-R on the Tunguska was just a rumor! But it was true! Some "military experts" made serious claims! The fact remains that a radio-controlled SAM with a range of up to 10 km and an altitude of up to 6 km was developed for the ship's system!
    4. 0
      10 June 2026 13: 53
      Also, it seems to me that it would be a good idea to unify Tunguska with Pantsir.
    5. +2
      10 June 2026 14: 04
      In addition to systems like Tunguska and Pantsir-S, it would be a good idea to add missile launchers that could be deployed and camouflaged in specific locations, such as along the front line or at a protected facility within the detection zone. The missiles are launched on command from the combat vehicle. This would increase the air defense density in the protected area. Hi soldier

      It all comes down to cost/effectiveness. Tunguska and Pantsir are under attack themselves; if 10 or 29 drones are detected, they'll be dispatched. That's the problem. We know about the strikes on the oil refineries, but how many Pantsirs were destroyed is a big mystery. wink
  2. +1
    10 June 2026 07: 22
    The 9M311 missile is not comparable in price to a small-sized FPV drone, therefore spending it on such purposes is irrational

    But where would it be deployed, given its striking altitude (3,5 km) and acceleration characteristics? Cruise missiles and UAVs.
  3. 0
    10 June 2026 07: 26
    It seems like they haven't produced it for a long time, and you haven't seen it at all, but it's a good car.
    1. +8
      10 June 2026 07: 44
      Quote: Vadim S
      It seems like they haven't produced it for a long time, and you haven't seen it at all, but it's a good car.

      Combat characteristics for of his time They were good, but Tunguskas of all modifications were always very complex and not particularly reliable in operation. Their maintenance required highly skilled specialists, and the troops often had trouble with this. This explains why there are very few of these vehicles at the front.
      1. -1
        10 June 2026 09: 14
        Quote: Bongo
        The combat characteristics were quite good for its time.

        Modernization is needed:
        - modern element base
        - modern optics with IR channel
        - projectiles with programmable detonation
        - unification of missiles with Pantsir, especially mini-missiles to increase the BC
        - ELINT for detecting drone control channels and electronic warfare
        - KAZ self-defense
        If you add a laser turret to combat FPV, it will be imba.
        The only question is how many Tunguskas are left, and whether it is worth modernizing them, taking into account the costs, or immediately switching to Pantsir-SM-SV
        1. 0
          10 June 2026 11: 19
          Quote: Cympak
          - unification of missiles with Pantsir, especially mini-missiles to increase the BC

          This will require the installation of radar and electronics from the armored vehicle, which is very expensive.
        2. +2
          11 June 2026 09: 33
          What's the point of such a modernization? It's easier to make the Pantsirs tracked.
        3. +1
          11 June 2026 11: 01
          Quote: Cympak
          Is it worth upgrading them considering the costs?

          Not worth it ...
  4. 0
    10 June 2026 08: 49
    It looks good, but there are few such ZRAKs on the BLS,
  5. +3
    10 June 2026 11: 02
    Here, Murakhovsky (a great guy, of course) published an interesting post on organizing anti-drone air defense:
    "...Artificial intelligence plays a key role—it allows us to move from “hundreds of NVGs and MTFs” to a network where each element is smarter and the coverage is wider and deeper.
    Instead of a linear increase in the number of machine gun/MANPADS posts, it is proposed to build a three-tier AI-controlled architecture:
    1. Distributed passive sensor layer (replacement of classic night vision devices)
    2. A layer of inexpensive high-precision interceptors (replacing expensive SAMs)
    3. Unified Tactical AI and Connectivity Center..."
    Full text - https://t.me/Viktor_Murakhovskiy/896
    Interesting, promising (though there is something to think about). Of course, nothing will be done.
    1. +3
      10 June 2026 13: 23
      Quote: Ryazanets87
      Interesting, promising (though there is something to think about). Of course, nothing will be done.

      Communications? An operating system? A layer of cheap interceptors requires management/charging/maintenance... at VO, LONG BEFORE SVO, all this was discussed and proposed...
      1. +3
        10 June 2026 16: 53
        In the VO, LONG BEFORE the SVO, all this was discussed and proposed...

        Who needed it... At that time, the Ratnik was "stored" in the Ministry of Defense.
    2. +2
      11 June 2026 06: 24
      Quote: Ryazanets87
      "...Artificial intelligence plays a key role

      Here, experts foamed at the mouth to prove that technology better than 350 nm was completely unnecessary for military applications.
      Apparently the same experts were at the top 20-30 years ago when they fell in love with electronics.
    3. 0
      11 June 2026 08: 54
      It's a clever idea, but note that air strikes are now complex. Drones attack en masse, clearing the way for heavier drones and missiles (cruise and ballistic). This unit needs to be integrated into a unified air defense system, providing mutual coverage and control of each unit's targets. Because now SAMs themselves have become frequent targets for UAVs, first the hunters themselves (Pantsir and others), and then their proxies (S400, Buk), creating a window for breakthrough. And then there's the issue of completely isolating the air defense zone, creating a continuous line of detection and control systems along the entire border, as well as in the Baltics and from the Caspian Sea and Kazakhstan. This means being able to simultaneously see and shoot down everything flying from 0 to 40-50 km in altitude (UAVs, laser-guided missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles). And in the border area, the deployment of these weapons is also a question, because in a zone of up to 80-150 km from the base, there is a high probability of knocking out air defense weapons with artillery, MLRS, and Hornets. Aircraft can't be on duty there constantly either—their air defenses are working. They have an advantage in reconnaissance and control, the comprehensive interaction of reconnaissance and engagement weapons, and Starlink for control.
  6. +1
    11 June 2026 10: 56
    Quote: Cympak
    The missile's radio command guidance system doesn't allow for this. A guidance antenna is needed, as are horizontal and vertical guidance drives. So, if savings are possible, it should only be on the detection radar.


    Again about antennas, about sizes, about turning motors...
    Phased, fractal, based on new physical principles...
    So many new inventions have been made... But the Ministry of Defense still lacks intuitive analysts who can pinpoint a rocket's launch site 2-3 hours before takeoff. And there are no shielding devices (which create an obstacle to radio wave propagation).
  7. 0
    11 June 2026 11: 37
    With Groza, we need to consider the number of Buk and Tor missiles (24-25gg) destroyed by Ronin at 1,8-2,2. I hope the enemy's ranges have been factored into the new versions of the electronic warfare systems.
  8. 0
    14 June 2026 14: 52
    Modernization is great, but how much has the effectiveness in combating UAVs increased?