Krona air defense missile system against UAVs

The Russian defense industry is developing several promising anti-aircraft systems of various classes. One of them, the Krona air defense missile system, has already reached the testing stage. In the coming months, the developer expects to complete the current work and launch production. The new system is intended to complement the existing Defense and expand its capabilities to combat air targets, primarily drones.

Progress and plans

The Krona is being developed by the Kalashnikov Concern. The company regularly reports on its progress and discloses its immediate plans. In October 2025, management announced that the product would be ready for serial production by the end of 2026.

In mid-April 2026, the start of field trials, conducted jointly with the customer, the Ministry of Defense, was announced. During this stage, Krona is expected to confirm the design characteristics and identify areas requiring refinement.

In May, the concern's CEO, Alan Lushnikov, told the press that the tests were proceeding according to plan: running, climate, and mechanical tests were being carried out, as well as launches. missilesThe concern is optimistic about the project's progress and expects testing to be completed soon. Serial production and delivery to the military will follow.

In mid-June, the "National Security. Belarus 2026" military-technical exhibition was held in Minsk, where the concern revealed new details. According to TASS, citing a representative of the organization, the system is being considered as part of a larger air defense modernization strategy.

The concern describes this strategy as follows: a layered defense is being built, capable of engaging various aerial targets, including UAVs of all classes. In this system, the Krona is designated as a means of detecting and engaging medium-class UAVs, capable of protecting important stationary facilities.

A company representative added that preparations for series production have already begun. He did not provide a specific timeframe, but judging by previous statements, assembly is expected to begin by the end of the year.

The complex and its missiles

The Krona is a short-range air defense missile system for territorial air defense. Its weapons are mounted on fixed bases or self-propelled platforms. In both cases, combat operations involve long-term deployment, data exchange, and missile launches.

The developer asserts that the main current challenge facing military air defense today is medium- and heavy-class attack UAVs, and he has placed particular emphasis on combating them.

The core of the system is a turret-shaped combat module housing electronic equipment and launchers. Additional equipment modules and an operator console are also added.

Kalashnikov demonstrated two self-propelled variants. One is built on the BTR-80 wheeled chassis, while the other is proposed to be built on the BMP-2 tracked platform. In both cases, the combat vehicle operates in conjunction with a command post based on a four-axle KamAZ truck. A stationary variant was also mentioned, but it has not yet been demonstrated.

The combat module carries two independent detection channels—radar and electro-optical stations. These are used by the air defense missile system to monitor the situation, detect targets, and launch missiles. The system can also operate using data from external radars.

The munitions loadout consists of two types of missiles. The 9M340 missiles, borrowed from the Sosna, are used against targets at ranges of up to 10 km and altitudes of up to 5 km; they feature laser-beam guidance and a standard optical-electronic system. The second type is the 9M333 SAM, inherited from the later Strel-10. It has a multispectral (three-channel) passive optical-infrared seeker operating on the "fire-and-forget" principle, and has a range of up to 5 km. There's a caveat regarding altitude: independent reference books list a ceiling of 3,5 km, while the Krona brochures list 5 km. This is likely a rounding error or a provision for future missile upgrades.

The ammunition complement can consist of one or two missile types; promotional materials show a 6×9M340 plus 4×9M333 variant. The bias in favor of the 9M340 is also explained by its dimensions: the containers for the heavier 9M333 are larger, and fewer of them fit on the rails.

Against drones

The Krona's primary target is unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), not cheap "consumables" like the Shahed, but more expensive medium- and heavy-class reconnaissance and strike aircraft. Part of the design, both technical and operational, is tailored to these.

Although the Krona operates from a fixed, prepared position, its self-propelled vehicles are capable of quickly changing locations. This allows the air defense system to be adjusted to the current situation and anticipated threats.

The choice of chassis is crucial. A SAM system based on the BTR-80 or BMP-2 will be relatively simple to manufacture and operate: the army won't have to master an unfamiliar platform with all the associated hassle.

The Krona carries both a radar and an electronic countermeasure system. Two independent channels increase the chances of detecting and tracking even complex targets, including medium and small UAVs. By using optical tracking, the vehicle does not emit any radiation, complicating enemy electronic reconnaissance. This comes at the cost of reduced detection range and reliance on visibility, as optical tracking is inferior to radar in terms of all-weather capability.

The logic is similar with the missiles: both types are off-the-shelf, eliminating the need to develop them from scratch and separately put them into production, which simplifies procurement. The combination of two SAMs provides two interception lines in the short-range zone. The 9M340 laser-guided missiles engage targets at ranges of up to 10 km, with the operator guiding the missile to impact. If a massive attack or stealthy UAVs penetrate, the autonomous 9M333 ("fire and forget") missiles take over at ranges of up to 5 km.

And this is where the main question about the concept arises. If we're talking about mass-produced, low-cost vehicles like the Shahed, then missile interdiction is frankly unprofitable: one SAM often costs more than the missile itself. drone, and when attacked by dozens, the Krona's ammunition supply of ten missiles is exhausted instantly. Therefore, the system is focused on a different class of targets. The system will be most effective not against swarms of cheap drones, but against the less numerous and more expensive reconnaissance and attack UAVs of the medium and heavy class, cruise missiles, and helicopters. It is in this niche that the Krona sits alongside the Pantsir, Tor, and Sosna, occupying the place of a close-in system for covering stationary targets.

Kalashnikov's main trump card is that the system is easy to make and operate. If so, production will proceed faster, meaning key installations can be protected more quickly. At least, that's what the developer believes.

In short, the Krona is intended to both increase the number of fire units in the air defense system and fill the gap in combating medium and heavy UAVs. In other words, it should integrate into the existing layered defense and assume responsibility for protecting populated areas, industrial facilities, and the positions of other anti-aircraft weapons.

The Krona's exact place in the overall system is clear. But when it will actually go into production is a big question. Assembly is promised to begin this year, and with testing nearing completion, the schedule looks realistic. However, for projects of this class, schedule shifts are common, so the announced dates should be taken with a grain of salt.

Comments

[Soldatov V.]

The question is, how many of these Krona missiles are they planning to produce? A few or a couple dozen is a dead weight. Another issue is the cost of the missiles for the purposes mentioned in the article. Expensive or not, human lives are more valuable. Is it true that human deaths are cheaper than missiles? After all, the cost of missiles could be reduced by using plastic and other inexpensive materials. In addition to missiles, free-standing launch containers could be used on the launcher itself, or they could be mounted on Kamaz semi-trailers. By skimping on weapons, we bring shame and war to our cities, and the deaths of our citizens. A shortage of air defense systems has led to the current situation in Crimea. Fiolent and Crimean shipyards could produce Pantsir-type air defense systems for Crimea.

[Civil]

When it comes to low-cost, mass-produced drones like the Shahed, missile engagement is downright unprofitable: a single SAM is often more expensive than the drone itself, and when dozens of missiles are deployed, the Krona's 10-missile ammunition supply is exhausted instantly. Therefore, the focus is on a different class of targets.

So, in the current situation, the system is practically useless. The weapons need to be re-equipped.

[tsvetahaki]

Quote: V.

That the death of people is cheaper than missiles?

The problem is the misunderstanding of the words "cost" and "money." Money is a universal equivalent, but you can't buy things in short supply. This applies to the chemical industry, which is operating at its limits, and to microchips imported from the gray market.
So the question should be correctly posed in terms of production capabilities.
Can we produce the systems and missiles for them in the required quantities?
But this isn't so good—and the worst part is, it's not so good for ANY decisions, any complexities. The question is how much "not so good" is better for some than for others.

[stels_07]

Is Krona a rebuilt Sosna air defense missile system?!

[bayard]

This is Kalashnikov Concern's attempt to make more money by offering a worthless/flawed system. Why keep creating new systems when there are already Pantsir modules without guns—they're lightweight enough to be installed both as fixed systems for point-based air defense and on a wide variety of platforms, both wheeled and tracked. Pantsir SAMs, especially the Gvozd, are cheap and relatively easy to produce due to their radio-command guidance system. And considering the Gvozd, they have a fairly large ammo count. So why keep creating new systems when there's already a truly successful SAM system in several variants? Expand, scale up production, deploy it on various platforms depending on its intended purpose, and produce uniform technology en masse. And to create a zoo, and with two types of SAMs, obviously weaker... Well, at least they could have put the "Sosna" on two types of chassis and calmed down...
Well, they could have offered their production facilities for the production of a light version of the Pantsir, because it would have been much more useful... Are there people in the Ministry of Defense who should be monitoring this?
Kalashnikov should work on autonomous machine gun turrets for use against attack UAVs; we need a lot of them these days.

[BAI]

While the Russian drone developer is screaming that they have a window of opportunity until autumn, the domestic drone developer claims that the drone problem will be solved in the autumn, but is not disclosing details due to secrecy.
Could this all be about Krona? Although it doesn't fit with the secrecy.
Moreover, there is still a reliable sign: if an advertising campaign is launched for a new model of military equipment before it is adopted into service, it ends in a fizzle, and the model does not go into production.

[rocket757]

The main trump card that is relied upon

Unfortunately, the main trump card now belongs to the one with the most cheap attack drones...
No one can completely protect their territory from them.

[Broad flag]

In terms of the presentation of this article, I'd call this Krona a pathetic, incomplete solution. Who will provide reliable, timely targeting for this machine? Who will "fry the flies" (small Mavic-like FPV- or AI-controlled drones aimed at the Krona itself? As presented, it's a pure money-grabbing enterprise for a bunch of kalachniks.

[tjeck91]

Such SAMs shouldn't be able to engage small drones at all. But what's really unclear is why they're repeating the mess with three MBTs of the same class, only now with three SAMs (Pantsir, Tor, and that other thing), not to mention the Strela.

[uber]

Because "that leg" is the right leg. Kalashnikov Concern has been dabbling with this Krona missile for several years now, fiercely promoting it wherever possible, but still nothing. It would be interesting to compare the cost of the Sosna missile with its APKWS counterpart, but in any case, the American one will have an advantage due to its much smaller size and versatility. Russia developed guided missiles under the "Threat" program, but they completely screwed it up. These could have been mounted on ground platforms and flying aircraft like helicopters, Su-25s, and Yak-130s, and confidently launched farts, including jet-powered ones. But Kalashnikov is pushing this. Apparently, some military personnel can still fend off this cover.

[Cympak]

Quote: uber

In the Russian Federation, controlled RS were developed under the "Threat" theme, but everything was screwed up.

The "Threat" was not suitable for use against UAVs due to its design features: a warhead with a homing head detachable from the missile, diving from above onto the target and guiding in the final phase using pulsed micro-correction engines.

[uber]

Thanks! It wouldn't hurt to work on an APKWS analogue, but there's been no sign of progress on that front.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: tjeck91

But what's really unclear is why they're repeating the mess with 3 MBTs of the same class, only now with 3 SAM systems (Pantsir, Tor, and that crap), not to mention Strela.

"Shell" and "Thor" are still different classes.
"Thor" is a military air defense system: firing on the move, cross-country ability on par with a main battle tank, light armor, a tightly packed layout, and chassis commonality with the army's.
"Pantsir" is the air defense system of the Aerospace Forces: it has a wheeled chassis, operates in the rear from prepared sites and on terrain with roads, and can be on long-term combat duty.
And "Krona" is neither a candle to God nor a poker to the devilIt has the wrong chassis for the Aerospace Forces' air defense system. And it has the wrong targets for army air defense. And for both variants, the range and engagement ceiling for half of the targets intended by its developer are paltry.

[sergeyketonov]

Alexey, good afternoon. On the contrary, the Krona is the ideal weapon against drones, the kind used by idiots. They're made of foam, plywood, and plastic, and powered by motorcycle engines. Such targets are difficult for conventional air defense systems to detect due to their microscopic radar cross-section; only the engine is actually made of metal. Even proximity fuses don't trigger when the SAM passes close to such a target. The Tor and Pantsir missiles weren't designed for such purposes. The infrared seekers of the Verba and Igla missiles also have poor detection range—a kilometer, a kilometer and a half, no more. But here, everything is perfect: here on the forum, the guys are confusing two completely different types of guidance, perhaps they just don't know. First, the 340th missile uses laser beam guidance, a feature previously popular on the American first-generation Talos and Terrier air defense systems—radio beam guidance. This time, it uses laser beam guidance ("laser trail"). It's not like the reflected beam of a semi-active laser seeker, which is a truly expensive toy. A laser trail, on the other hand, is quite simple and very inexpensive. Now, regarding the second missile, the 333rd, I'm very glad someone so smart and caring kept this missile in production. I'd give them the Hero of Socialist Labor award. In the 1970s and 80s, it was a completely useless missile. There simply weren't any targets for it back then. But now, it's the best missile for engaging such targets. Its photocontrast seeker can spot a plywood airplane from 10 kilometers away and wipe it out like a sore thumb. They've made a very good complex—there's nothing better now. There's just one catch. If there had been a planned economy before, firstly, it would have appeared earlier, and secondly, they were already producing hundreds of them per month. Under the current capitalist system, how many will they produce—six per month? Or maybe eight? Can you answer that question?

[rosomaha]

In general, new short-range air defense systems need to be specifically adapted for countering UAVs with inexpensive missiles. This means we need an S-8-based version of the APKWS missile, with the ability to convert the unguided rocket into a guided missile in the field. Such a missile would be used as a SAM, an air-to-air missile, and an air-to-air missile defense system. Furthermore, such a SAM system could use Pantsir or Strela-10 missiles for anti-aircraft combat. As a low-cost option, the Strela-10 uses a pair of 7-round B8V7 launchers with S8 guided missiles and a new fire control system. The option of using up to four SAMs and eight Verba/Igla missiles remains. This option allows for a combined armament of two S8 launchers and two SAMs.

[rytik32]

Quote: rosomaha

i.e., we need an analogue of the APKWS missile based on the S-8

IMHO, the radio command guidance system implemented on the Pantsir missiles is simpler and, therefore, should be cheaper.

[alexoff]

Is laser illumination more expensive than radio command guidance? That seems dubious.

[rytik32]

Quote from alexoff

Is laser illumination more expensive than radio command guidance? That seems dubious.

Point by point:
1. APKWS has an inertial control system for laser beam output. This is not necessary for the radio command system. Commands are transmitted via radio.
2. The APKWS has a laser seeker. This is not required for radio command control.
3. The APKWS has an anti-rotation coupling that compensates for body rotation and ensures stable seeker operation. This is not required for radio command control.
4. The APKWS has four optical laser receivers on the leading edges of the tail. These are not required for radio command control.

Another disadvantage is that the laser is sensitive to weather conditions, unlike the radio channel.

[alexoff]

So, is radio command guidance supposedly free? And there's nothing inertial about it, no frequency tuning? And they added a coupling and everything immediately went up in price. A bearing probably costs a thousand bucks.

[rytik32]

Quote from alexoff

So, is radio command guidance supposedly free?

No, it's not free. There is a radio command receiver, but it's still cheaper than the units I mentioned above.

Quote from alexoff

The bearing probably costs a thousand bucks.

Of course not a thousand, but the radio receiver is not worth a thousand either.

[alexoff]

There is a radio command receiver, but it is in any case cheaper than the units I wrote about above.

Why would it? A laser seeker is an extremely primitive thing, not taking into account the appetites of industrialists. Unlike the type of receiver and command processing system

[rytik32]

Quote from alexoff

The laser seeker is an extremely primitive thing.

More primitive than a radio?
How much does the cheapest laser seeker cost?
I can buy a radio for up to 1000 rubles.

[alexoff]

I can buy a radio for up to 1000 rubles.

Can such a receiver be installed in a SAM system? My cat uses a laser beam to aim at a target.
How much can you buy a radio or optical transponder for?

[rytik32]

Quote from alexoff

My cat is aiming at the laser spot.

Well, you can't put cats in rockets, can you? )))

Quote from alexoff

How much can you buy it for?

Avito says tens of thousands. Still cheaper than a laser seeker!

[alexoff]

Avito says tens of thousands. Still cheaper than a laser seeker!

And the cameras on Avito cost next to nothing!

[Cympak]

The 9M340 missile from Sosna uses a laser guidance system rather than a semi-active laser homing system, but unlike radio command guidance, laser guidance is more weather-sensitive.

[rosomaha]

The Pantsir has a specialized SAM, but I'm talking about taking an S8 unguided rocket from the warehouse and bolting a laser guidance unit and a non-contact VC to it right there. Then launch them at UAVs from helicopters, fighters, ground-based mobile and static launchers on various chassis... with a BEC. It's cheaper and faster. You don't need to make a whole missile, just a guidance unit. And there are plenty of S8 unguided rockets in warehouses.

[alexoff]

The S-8Kor was made back in the 90s, and then Kalashnikov showed off the S-8L. But apparently no one wants it.

[rytik32]

Guided rockets have their niche. For example, they provide inexpensive means of destroying UAVs from aircraft and helicopters. I don't argue with that; it's absolutely necessary. Air-to-air missiles are very expensive.

[alexoff]

There's a niche, but no procurement. In fact, I've read that unguided rockets aren't exactly cheap either; a single rocket launcher from the factory, fired into the open air by a helicopter, costs a pretty penny.

[rytik32]

Quote from alexoff

In general, I read that unguided rockets are not very cheap either,

Yes, several times more expensive than a projectile of a similar caliber.

[rytik32]

Quote: rosomaha

Take a NAR S8 from the warehouse and attach a laser correction unit and a non-contact VU to it right there.

If we take the "classic" 57E6E Pantsir missile, yes, it will be more expensive than an unguided rocket due to its two stages and the ability to accelerate to higher speeds. But if we take the small single-stage "nail," it should cost almost as much as an unguided rocket, and given the lack of a guidance unit, even less.

[alexoff]

The nail is unlikely to be much cheaper, it has the same thing inside, only in a slightly smaller case and the accelerator is a couple of times smaller

[rosomaha]

The nail will be used only for air defense systems; it requires a fire control system. And so it will be tied to a specific carrier. And look at how many and what types of carriers APKWS has. Whether it's ground-based, air-to-air, or sea-based. We change the warhead and the explosive charge, and we get a guided missile tailored to a specific mission... adding new components (for example, an IR seeker), we get a munition with new capabilities. And no one uses an RK system in this class of missiles—the Sirit, Akuleus, and FZ275 all have laser seekers.

[rytik32]

Quote: rosomaha

The nail will only be used for the air defense missile system; it requires a fire control system.

Yes, we need a fire control system and a tracking radar...

Quote: rosomaha

everyone has a laser seeker

It's a compromise. It's not too expensive and doesn't require what I mentioned above.
Laser guidance is sensitive to weather, but in bad weather, drones with cameras won't be able to detect anything either.

[Cympak]

Quote: rosomaha

Look at how many and what kind of carriers APKWS has. Land-based, airborne, or naval. We swap out the warhead and payload, and we get a mission-specific guided missile...we add new components (like an IR seeker), and we get a munition with new capabilities.

To replicate APKWS you need to be very complex, you need modular rockets (the engine is separate, the warhead is separate).
Many countries already have unguided rockets with homing heads (Israel, Turkey, China, France), but no one has replicated the American modular approach embodied in the APKWS. Everyone is making a completely new product rather than using engines and warheads from existing unguided rockets. It's simpler...
The S-8L model presented by Kalashnikov is also a completely new product. Incidentally, when placing the laser seeker in the nose of a missile, care must be taken to ensure that the launching missiles do not contaminate the optical receivers of adjacent missiles with their engine exhaust. The Americans solved this problem in the APKWS by placing the laser receivers on fins that deploy in flight, located in the central part of the missile after the warhead.

[rosomaha]

We also need to actively develop a wide range of interceptor drones, both manually launched and from launchers, based on pickup trucks, armored vehicles, and UAVs. We need to increase their range to several dozen kilometers (the Ukrainian ones operate at 40 km) or their loitering time in the zone (at least 20-30 minutes) with the ability to land and re-use.

[Zaurbek]

They contradict themselves somehow:
1. Not against swarms of cheap drones, but against fewer and more expensive medium- and heavy-class reconnaissance and attack UAVs, cruise missiles, and helicopters. It is in this niche that the Krona sits alongside the Pantsir, Tor, and Sosna, occupying the position of a close-in system for covering stationary targets.
2. The choice of chassis is crucial. A SAM system based on the BTR-80 or BMP-2 will be relatively simple to manufacture and operate: the army won't have to master an unfamiliar platform with all the associated hassle. Is the Kamaz an unfamiliar chassis?



If this is to protect rear facilities from the KR and Lyutykh...why such a chassis?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Zaurbek

If this is to protect rear facilities from the KR and Lyutykh...why such a chassis?

You might also ask how the Krona, with a SAM ceiling of 3,5-5 km and a range of 10 km, will work. for more expensive medium and heavy class reconnaissance aircraft? Scare them with underflights?

[alexoff]

So for that wheel! It'll accelerate, fly onto the ramp, and fire off a salvo at maximum altitude!
https://youtu.be/UjASERYanDI?is=qTjZtLxpQwsf7mpx
It's like they shot down a helicopter with a torpedo boat.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from alexoff

It's like they shot down a helicopter with a torpedo boat.

You don't have a balalaika...

[Zaurbek]

Well, it's definitely not heavy, but the Orions and Bayraktars fly just like that.

But a very strange choice of chassis.

[dragon772]

Essentially, it's a Pantsir on an armored personnel carrier, nothing new. If mass production is achieved, great. We'll protect every oil refinery in the country. But if not, that's too bad.

[Zaurbek]

This is not a shell, but an arrow

[alexoff]

Where, exactly, is the pine tree whose missiles were borrowed? Or its version for the Airborne Forces—the bird-catcher? Disappeared into oblivion, along with all the other projects until 2022, along with the funding?

[Alexey RA]

"Krona" is a short-range anti-aircraft missile system for territorial air defenseIts assets are mounted on fixed bases or self-propelled platforms. In both cases, combat operations involve long-term duty at a position, data exchange and missile launches.

The developer asserts that the main current challenge facing military air defense today is medium- and heavy-class attack UAVs, and he has placed particular emphasis on combating them.

So, for what air defense system is this SAM system being proposed? For the national air defense (VKS), which requires long-term deployment and the ability to be permanently installed? Or for army air defense, which requires mobility and cross-country ability and prefers chassis standardization with army ones?
These are two different air defense systems, with two different approaches and different goals. The army's air defense targets are currently limited to small-scale FPV missions. Meanwhile, the Aerospace Forces' air defense systems employ long-range reconnaissance and attack UAVs (like the Lyuty) plus massive air strikes.

In this system, the Krona is assigned the role of a means of detecting and destroying medium-class drones, capable of covering important stationary objects.

Why does the Aerospace Forces' air defense need an armored personnel carrier (APC) chassis, or even more so an infantry fighting vehicle (IFV)?

The main target of the Krona is said to be drones, but not cheap “consumables” like the Shahed, but more expensive reconnaissance and strike aircraft of the medium and heavy class.

And is it supposed to be able to destroy medium- and heavy-class reconnaissance UAVs with a SAM with a ceiling of 3,5-5 km and a range of 10 km? Optimists...

The choice of chassis is crucial. A SAM system based on the BTR-80 or BMP-2 will be relatively simple to manufacture and operate: the army won't have to master an unfamiliar platform with all the associated hassle.

Which army? The army isn't responsible for protecting important stationary facilities—that's the job of the Aerospace Forces' air defense. For which, the chassis of an armored personnel carrier, and especially an infantry fighting vehicle, is an unfamiliar platform with all the associated hassleThe VKS air defense forces are equipped with MZKT, BAZ, KAMAZ, and Ural trucks. And the MAZ and KrAZ trucks that still exist today.

It is clear where exactly Krona will stand in the general system.

That's what's unclear. It can't hit half of its assigned targets. Its chassis isn't designed to protect important installations. And the army doesn't need it—they already have the Strela-10 with the same SAMs.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Alexey RA

So, for what air defense system is this air defense system proposed?

This is a truly strange device. It looks like a mobilization ersatz, cobbled together from spare parts so it could at least have something to shoot at drones with.

[highlight]

The 9M340 missiles borrowed from Sosna should be installed on a light interceptor aircraft, not a ground-based missile system. They should also be further reduced in cost by producing a domestically produced APVC with a NURSA-based homing system and a laser guidance head. The aircraft is more mobile than a ground-based air defense system, and they can be quickly assembled near areas where the shit-drones are invading.

[VTOL Helicopter]

Why aren't there artillery shells that destroy electronics similar to electromagnetic bombs?

[Wind]

What can I say, our military-industrial complex is capable of responding to the challenges of the times. They write:

The main target of Krona is said to be drones, but not cheap “consumables” like the “Shaheds”.

What's it good for now? Shooting down helicopters the enemy doesn't have? Or will it shoot down Storm Shadow missiles? Honestly, it's hard to believe. It's unclear what the military-industrial complex is doing. It's clear that the threat to us is specifically UAVs like the Shahed. No, they're still developing anti-helicopter air defense systems. Sure, they're just not stingy with the government spending money on these developments.
Kalashnikov is part of the Rostec concern, where the Instrument Design Bureau is also located. The TKB-1055 "Gvozd" surface-to-air missile (SAM) has been developed. The weight of four TKB-1055 "Gvozd" missiles in a transport and launch container (TLC) is 115 kilograms. Two TLCs should be mounted on pickup trucks with an OLS. And thousands of such systems need to be manufactured. No, we need to recreate them based on infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, whose production is meager.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Vent

Install two TPKs on pickup trucks with OLS. And thousands of such systems would need to be made.

No. It's better to give the men RPDs, or even DPs, so they can fire them somewhere in the direction of the drones. I still can't get over watching videos like that. Fifty flew past, one was shot down, it crashed into a gas station, and everything burned. They reported it to higher-ups. "The MTF is organized, the drones are being shot down."

[Wind]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

It would be better to hand out RPDs to the men, or even DPs.

I have no time for luxury; I just need to survive. What can I do? I'll have to give it away if I have nowhere else to go. And what can I do if our industry can't really create anything mass-produced? It seems like all the solutions are there, just go and build it so production matches the threats. All the solutions are there, everything's been invented; we just need to scale it up and simplify it. No, they're slapping it together on an armored personnel carrier chassis, of which only a few hundred are produced for the entire army. And for what purpose? To increase the price, to generate bonuses, premiums, dividends.

[alexoff]

The TKB-1055 "Gvozd" (Nail) surface-to-air missile (SAM) has now been developed. The weight of four TKB-1055 "Gvozd" missiles in a transport and launch container (TLC) is 115 kilograms. Two TLCs can be mounted on pickup trucks with an OLS.

It's a radio-command missile, you need a brain from the armor to point the nail where it needs to go, monitor its position, and issue the command to detonate. We'd rather have some kind of mobilization-grade MANPADS; our Verbs are too smart for fighters firing decoys for head-on attacks against the sun. And you don't need that to shoot down plastic hulks at the speed of a crop duster in the far rear; some simple thermal imager from AliExpress will do, and in daylight, even a regular video camera and the brains from a Chinese phone will do.

[Wind]

Quote from alexoff

This is a radio-command missile, you need to install brains from the armor to direct the nail where it needs to go.

Not quite. It can be controlled either by radio or by optoelectronic channels. But all MANPADS come with a seeker. And a seeker is expensive, unlike missiles with radio or optoelectronic channels. Therefore, in my opinion, the solution is a cheap chassis (pickup truck, Gazelle), an optical seeker station, and the missiles themselves. And you need a lot of them (thousands) to cover all directions. Moreover, without radars, the enemy will not be able to detect them using space reconnaissance or an aircraft, and therefore will not be able to quickly change or adjust the drone's flight. And our industry makes these air defense systems. The factories clearly produce dozens of them per year, not even hundreds. That's why mobile groups with machine guns are deployed. What else can you do?

[alexoff]

And the GSN is an expensive product.

I doubt that. The military-industrial complex is certainly piling on the price tag, but cell phones have been able to recognize and track faces with their cameras for ages, and all for a few thousand rubles. The low-resolution thermal camera they use for infrared seekers also costs thousands of rubles. The Iranians were making cheap missiles from AliExpress, while here we have everything according to protocol; a MANPADS missile somehow costs as much as a decent car.

[Hiller]

There are many questions. Where are they planning to deploy this system? In the anti-aircraft missile batteries of motorized rifle (tank) regiments? Currently, they have Strela-10s based on the MT-LB, and Tunguskas, somewhere, with Pantsirs.
How effective the Strela-10 is, especially in terms of cost-performance, is a question for command. How to distinguish a Mavic (Geranium) from a larger drone with only visual contact is a question for the crew. There are fewer questions about the Tunguska and Pantsir, but not about the cost of use.
While the anti-aircraft missile regiments of motorized rifle (tank) divisions have Tor and Buka systems, these are quite expensive. But the new system is a short-range system and doesn't meet the altitude and range requirements.
Protecting industrial facilities? Crews will be needed, and they'll need to undergo appropriate training, which takes time (and money). Where can we get them quickly? Yes, the base is known, and we'll find the necessary mechanics and watercraft, but what about operators and commanders?
While they're still producing mobile task forces, they lack independent detection capabilities, and anti-aircraft guns without programmable detonation shells aren't the most effective counter-drone weapon. Still, they're better than nothing. They could be supplemented with Igla and Verba missiles, or even Strela (MANPADS), but... cost and effectiveness are factors, as are the qualifications of the anti-aircraft gunners and, again, the need for their training.
Can like be destroyed with like? By drone crews? This is a developing topic. While they're ineffective during marches, they'll be effective at protecting stationary targets. In my opinion, they'll soon be reorganized as air forces, focusing on specialization: fighters, bombers, attack aircraft, transport aircraft, and reconnaissance. Or at least, they'll combine their capabilities in some way.

[Wlads]

The duel between our air defense and Lyuty is a double of PO-2 - 2 cm FlaK 30/38.
It's possible to solve the problem without sophisticated devices like radio-controlled fuses. ZPU-2, ZPU-4, ZU-23-2
they should definitely take it.
Make mini flakturms.

[senima56]

Where's "Sosna"? Where's "Air Defense Derivation"?

[Eranlake]

What about passive systems? Even poles/towers with cables stretched between them can provide protection for stationary objects against aircraft-type drones.

[TOR2]

The system's name speaks for itself. If it's called "Krona," it should rise above the treetops. Only in this configuration will it be suitable as a target air defense system. In a stationary configuration, it won't be particularly effective. But in a mobile configuration, it's perfectly suitable. Moreover, in transport mode, it should resemble construction equipment, to please the satellite constellation.

[Gunther]

...In both cases, the combat vehicle operates in conjunction with a command post based on a four-axle KamAZ truck...The system can also operate using data from external radars.

Suitable for the protection of Moscow for the lord of benches from Kogalym.

[Wlads]

It would be reasonable to make missile launchers for junior point-based air defense systems the size of a standard pallet, or even a double pallet—unloaded from a truck, connected to the air defense network, and operational. Tethered copters with radars (powered by ground power) would be similarly designed. The issue of wireless communications and electronic warfare remains open, but is being addressed.

[Dzungar]

This air defense system has been in development for 15 years under various names, but they still can't get it right. In reality, it's simply a waste of public funds.