Military Review

KBM is working to create systems for the destruction of precision weapons and conducts their active tests

KBM is working to create systems for the destruction of precision weapons and conducts their active tests

Protect military equipment from high-precision hits weapons in the future there will be an active protection system. Such an opinion was expressed by Valery Kashin, General Director and General Designer of the Engineering Design Bureau (KBM, Kolomna) in an interview with the ARMS-TASS correspondent.

"I argue that the means to combat high-precision weapons will develop in the direction of active protection," he said. "The active protection system is a response to the development of high-precision weapons."

Until now, stated Kashin, they fought with high-precision weapons by improving passive protection: increasing armor, increasing the mobility of equipment, equipping it with electronic warfare devices, and creating artificial interferences. However, the improvement of guidance systems and precision weapons in general has led to the fact that passive protection is already easily overcome.

“For this reason, in the future, military equipment and important ground-based military facilities will be equipped with systems for the destruction of precision weapons,” the head of the KBM said. “The Kolomna enterprise is working on creating such systems, and they are undergoing active tests.”

Active means of “aggressive” protection of ICBM launchers against precision weapons

Average line of defense. The principle of the system is as follows: mortars installed in the area of ​​the silo are firing ready-made elements towards the attacking head. This system, according to the plan, was supposed to hit the middle and lower range warheads (at the speed of the warhead at the surface of the Earth about 2 km / s). The tests were considered successful.

Near line of defense provides a system with dispersed lesion blocks placed practically on the upper surface of the protected fortification itself. This system is already the latest line of defense, when the enemy’s ammunition broke through all the long-range and mid-range air defense and missile defense echelons, its homing system was not deceived by the interference, and the warhead (bomb) inevitably swoops directly on the mine. The defense system in this case carries out a fire impact almost “point-blank” and ensures the destruction of the attacking ammunition in a few meters from the target. At the same time, its warhead explodes directly above the lid of the missile shaft, but does not damage it.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 18 February 2014 06: 12
    interesting stuff +
  2. Corsair
    Corsair 18 February 2014 06: 19
    It should be understood that this system is relatively inexpensive and largely universal. The need for such a weapon to destroy high-precision munitions at their final section of the trajectory is obvious.
    This is another significant contribution to the country's security. A stationary ICBM silo or other object "covered" with such a shield becomes a headache for the enemy.
    1. Tersky
      Tersky 18 February 2014 07: 05
      Quote: Corsair
      this system is relatively not expensive and in many ways universal.

      A system from the category of a Russian proverb- "Enough simplicity for every wise man" wink
      1. RUS96
        RUS96 18 February 2014 11: 47
        "There is a twisted ass ... with a thread" laughing
    2. SHILO
      SHILO 18 February 2014 08: 16
      Quote: Corsair
      . The need for such a weapon to destroy high-precision ammunition in their final section of the trajectory is obvious.

      I'd love to hear the opinion of Ascetic. yes
      1. Corsair
        Corsair 18 February 2014 08: 22
        Quote: SHILO
        I'd love to hear the opinion of Ascetic

        Maybe even "pull up" ...
      2. neri73-r
        neri73-r 18 February 2014 10: 08
        Ascetic, then yes, but the main thing "Professor" will again say that all this is nonsense!
      3. Rus2012
        18 February 2014 12: 24
        Quote: SHILO
        I'd love to hear the opinion of Ascetic.

        Dear colleague Ascetic, I have already written on this subject many times ... :)))
      4. Ascetic
        Ascetic 18 February 2014 21: 00
        Quote: SHILO
        I'd love to hear the opinion of Ascetic

        Probably it is necessary to write an article on active and passive protection of silos from nuclear submarines of ICBMs and WTO. What KBM is developing is still Soviet developments that went on the back burner due to the lack of funding as a result of well-known events. Basically, the Mozyr project is an adapted analogue of KAZ Arena. I disagree with Kashin about the passive defense, but it can be understood in terms of lobbying the maximum order for his "firm" by pushing aside projects of 31 GPISS (this is the institute whose building was almost sold by Serdyukov and Vasilyeva). high class protection such as the minuten. We have hundreds, Poplar and Voivode high protection class that is, a step lower. The Americans are counting on two of our silos two charges.
        national security adviser Tom Donilon speaking
        at the Carnegie Endowment International Conference on
        Nuclear Policy March 29, 2011, announced that the Ministry of
        United States will conduct a comprehensive study of potential
        objects to strike.
        Within its framework, a number of fundamental issues will be considered
        US nuclear strategy. for example, should the United States
        there continue to be considered as objects for a strike 151-
        Russian Mine Launcher (silo) intercontinental
        ballistic missiles?
        Given that for every mine probably
        two warheads are aimed, it turns out that against Russian silos
        put more American warheads than against any other
        gih objects.
        Proponents of considering silos as
        objects to strike, usually argue that such a strategy will lead
        to limit the damage the United States could suffer
        in the event of a nuclear war. Opponents say that since Russia
        there are a large number of weapons with much higher survivability
        STU (including mobile ICBMs), destruction of Russian ICBM mine
        th base will not give a tangible result.


        In the next 20–30 years, the Americans will have 420 Minuteman-3 ICBMs deployed in silos, fortified to the level of 2000–2200 PSI (140–154 kg / cm2). Confidently hit such a fortified target can only R-36M2 "Voivode" (SS-18 Mod 5 Satan). No wonder the Americans so insisted on the destruction of precisely these missiles at the conclusion of the START-1 treaty. If the Russian military-industrial complex manages to create ICBMs at least at the same level as Voevoda and deploy 50 missiles in existing silos, while strengthening their security class, there will be no problems with hitting targets of this kind.
    3. Rus2012
      18 February 2014 12: 22
      Quote: Corsair
      You need to understand that this system is relatively not expensive and in many ways universal.

      ... and moreover, it draws on enormous accumulated experience! This is the main thing ...
      It’s just the time for implementation, especially in terms of protecting the strategic missile forces
  3. mirag2
    mirag2 18 February 2014 06: 22
    Very, very necessary direction!
    But not only the mines need to be covered, but tanks, armored personnel carriers and more, but the nuclear weapons mine should be changed to mobile.
    1. Associate Professor
      Associate Professor 18 February 2014 11: 54
      Quote: mirag2
      and change nuclear mine to mobile.

      Why, let me curiosity?
  4. denssss
    denssss 18 February 2014 06: 23
    for every tricky nut there is a threaded bolt!
  5. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 18 February 2014 06: 47
    Very interesting. Thank. The author is a plus sign.

    Reminds me of what I saw in the videos. on tank active defense. Curtain in my opinion, I do not remember.
    1. kind
      kind 18 February 2014 07: 50
      No, not "Shtora" - "Arena"
  6. Bort radist
    Bort radist 18 February 2014 06: 49
    It has already been said more than once that the aircraft, self-firing, high-precision is effective against the "Zulus". Countries that have technical potential, and most importantly, experience in solving problems with non-standard methods, at the stages of mass use, reduce their destructive effectiveness to the parameters of conventional weapons.
  7. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 18 February 2014 07: 50
    It’s quite reasonable. However, without excessive complementarity, it is worth noting that the Russian Federation, as one of the leaders in tank building, could not pass by new trends.
    1. Gregazov
      Gregazov 18 February 2014 08: 11
      I would like to hear a professor with a comparison with the dome, in terms of price and efficiency.
  8. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 18 February 2014 08: 59
    Yadren-loaf! Of course, the concept of active countering the means of destruction has long been relevant. This is understandable, as two fingers ... spread out. But when will the Kremlin believe in it? (... and will allocate money). The system of active protection of mine installations was developed in Soviet times (it seems, Mozyr,), but now, bourgeois times, are in full swing, and where is this, Mozyr-trump ,,?
  9. makarov
    makarov 18 February 2014 09: 06
    Kazi needs to be introduced not only in hospitals, ships, and armored vehicles, but also in the combat aviation system, such as airplanes and helicopters. Yes (!), The rise in price of the product is coming, but it will be justified.
  10. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 18 February 2014 09: 48
    IT IS HIGH TIME ! If it is really necessary for defense, then there should be no talk about the price.
  11. propolsky
    propolsky 18 February 2014 09: 55
    Human thought works ...
  12. anarky
    anarky 18 February 2014 10: 06
    And if vrazhiny from reilgan planted? smile
    1. andrey682006
      andrey682006 18 February 2014 13: 59
      We will respond with the Death Star. laughing
      1. anarky
        anarky 18 February 2014 22: 56
        So they already sawed 2 pieces soldier
    2. The comment was deleted.
  13. AlexxxNik
    AlexxxNik 18 February 2014 10: 24
    it is not clear a little bit, at the beginning of the article about the protection of equipment, and sketches in general about the protection of missile silos, but here completely different approaches are needed. It is one thing to shoot down an aluminum cumulative on approach, another to a vigorous warhead or a concrete-piercing bomb. If with the first it is quite clear, there are already prototypes, although they still need to be taught to shoot down ammunition with a shock core flying up vertically, then in the second case, it seems like it is necessary to go along the amersky way and hit it with a "bullet in a bullet", otherwise the shell cannot be pierced. in general, there is room for creativity, if only they did not saw the money
    1. Rus2012
      18 February 2014 12: 34
      Quote: AlexxxNik
      it’s not clear a little bit, at the beginning of the article about the protection of technology, and sketches in general about the protection of missile mines,

      Firstly, everything is based on the general principles of counteraction. Just in each case, the difference in reaction time and required power. Well, in the placement ...
      Secondly, and most importantly, Kolomna is mainly concerned with all these topics!
      The key is
      "For this reason, in the future military equipment и important ground-based military installations will be equipped with systems for the destruction of high-precision weapons, - said the head of the KBM. "The Kolomna enterprise is working on the creation of such systems, and they are already being actively tested."