Military Review

How to create "shell"

42
How to create "shell"



At the beginning of the 70-ies, under the leadership of Arkadiy G. Shipunov, a branch №4 was formed, which was engaged in the development of anti-aircraft systems. The work of this department resulted in the creation of the Tunguska anti-aircraft cannon-missile system for the ground forces, the Kashtan ship complex and the Pantsyr anti-aircraft missile-cannon complex, which today is the hallmark of the enterprise.

In an exclusive interview to rostec.ru, the chief designer on anti-aircraft topics of the Tula Instrument Design Bureau, a disciple of Arkady G. Shipunov, Valery Slugin told about the secret of the success of the KBP, how the country's leading defense enterprise managed to survive the 90s as well as about the advantages of its developments.



WHEN DID YOU COME TO KBP?

I came to the instrument design bureau in 1971 to protect my diploma. I studied at the Tula Polytechnic Institute on a specialty with a beautiful name “electrical equipment of aircraft”.

Before getting into the thematic unit, I had to go through all the steps, and this is very correct. About five years he worked in the branch, where they directly create drawings, draw diagrams, produce electronic components. I was just working on electronic blocks. The first head of the division was the famous designer Rudolf Yanovich Purtsen.

Rudolf Yanovich Purtzen (1920-1997) - designer, one of the creators of the twin anti-aircraft gun ZU-23 and 14,5-mm anti-aircraft mining and pack installation, participated in the development of an easy installation for the Utes machine gun, anti-tank missile systems Konkurs and Fagot ", anti-aircraft missile and cannon complex" Tunguska ".

As a matter of fact, I came to him practically at the state tests of the Konkurs anti-tank missile system. Later he took part in the development and testing of the components and the complex itself. I had to work a lot with Vasily Petrovich Tikhonov, who was the chief designer of the “Competition” projectile, who later suggested that I go to him to work on a new projectile.

The "Competition" complex is adapted for landing on parachute platforms. When the water obstacles are overcome, shooting is provided afloat. The complex consists of a combat vehicle with a raised launcher placed on it for five missiles. In 1974, the "Competition" was adopted. The car took part in the parade on Red Square. “She was the first technician,” noted Slugin proudly.

At that time, within the framework of the 4 division, a thematic section was formed under the “maritime affairs”, in particular under “Chestnut” (export version “Chestnut”). And Arkady G. Shipunov supported the proposal of Rudolf Yanovich Purtsen to leave me in the fourth division and transfer to anti-aircraft topics. So I got on the topic "Dirk" (shipboard anti-aircraft missile and artillery complex). The project started from scratch. As the designers say, on the first axial line, which meant starting work from the moment the first axial line was drawn on paper, from which the creation of the part begins.

There was no experience of working at sea. Then I had to ride the shipbuilders, since the development was tied directly to the ships.

WHAT HAS BEEN SERVED WITH THE INJECTION FOR THE CREATION OF THE CHESTNUT COMPLEX?

Events on the Falkland Islands became the impetus for the creation of the Kashtan ZPRK, when cruise missiles were launched against the ships flying extremely low over water - the Argentines sank the Exeset missile with the British destroyer Sheffield. The task was to create a technique capable of hitting low-flying targets.

Before starting work on Kashtan, KBP, together with the Kharkov Institute, investigated the accuracy of target tracking in the millimeter range.



Here, Shipunov’s foresight played a role, at the initiative of which we independently investigated the question of the shape of the locator. However, all our developments had to be given to a third-party enterprise, since the location was not part of our direct scope.

But, nevertheless, the result of joint efforts was the creation of a radar system operating in the millimeter range. This is one of the features of our complex. Such waves are preferable when tracking a target over the sea. In the "Tunguska" this was not. By the way, from Tunguska only the rocket was borrowed and refined. Unlike "Tunguska", which worked on targets only in clear weather, "Kashtan" was created as an all-weather complex. For the first time, a clean machine was made - the complex can operate without human intervention both in the optical mode and in the radar mode.

All other elements of "Chestnut" - a rocket, a launcher, an optical system, cannon armament - were developed in the KBP.

While working on Kashtan, we received an important experience of interaction with subcontractors, which proved to be extremely valuable in the future. Work in such a complex cooperation required a jewelery approach so that no link was weak, so that all work, including subcontractors, would meet the necessary characteristics and be completed on time.



The chief designer of the complex was Arkady G. Shipunov. He had such a property - he never took on trust what was being asked, even if it was a question of the Ministry of Defense. He himself analyzed what type of weapon is needed in a particular direction, and how it will be developed. Will there be further demand for serial products, will serial products produce these products, will they be profitable.

But I must say what was missing. We did the development and gave it to another factory. This, of course, was completely wrong. The CB did not receive any dividends from this.

IN THE 90-YEARS AFTER THE DECISION OF THE SOVIET SYSTEM DECLINED, MANY KB STOPPED OUT OF EXISTENCE. FOR WHAT HAS THE SURVIVAL OF KBP?

KBP survived due to its versatility. Then we had about 5 directions, in each of which a number of works were carried out, in each direction there were high achievements.
A.G. Shipunov: “In order to create, a person must be free, he should not be impeded from work, he should not think about his daily bread. And the erection of all kinds of barriers, the narrow specialization of enterprises, what was under the Soviet power, led to serious losses not only of new strategic developments, but also of elite personnel potential. ”

In addition, when the state ceased to take care of the designers, A.G. Shipunov before others realized that they needed to make products and sell them independently, including abroad.

A.G. Shipunov: “In 90's, we chose our fate. Of course, it would be possible to do otherwise, determining the path of the one who asks for mercy, which would not lead to success in market conditions. Therefore, a concept was developed in KBP. This is a triad. The first is science, as the generating power of new ideas and technology that will be in demand. The second is the production of this technology, for which Shcheglovsky Val JSC was established and the main production facilities of the KBP were expanded. The third is the implementation. ”

The transition to mass production of products, which was organized by Shipunov, was a very important moment. We started with a rifle weapons for the Interior Ministry, of course, in cooperation.

The second important task at that stage was the need to earn. Then an analysis of competitive markets was made, which showed that our products are quite competitive. In this regard, the state has met us halfway - some enterprises have been given the right of foreign economic activity in the arms market. And this was the next stage in the development of the enterprise. Consistently "fired" all directions - and the ATGM, projectiles from cannons, anti-aircraft guns, and almost all gun and cannon weapons. We entered the markets of India, China, the Middle East, and some western countries. In particular, the West was interested in "Krasnopol", and having failed to create a worthy analogue.

The Chestnut complex, for example, is exported to India and China. The specificity of marine complexes lies in the fact that the need for them is determined by the number of ships on which they are installed. Ships build large countries. In addition, the ships built is not so much, all was done about forty pieces. For example, eight Russian combat modules are installed on our Russian aircraft carrier. If we are talking about a cruiser, then these are 4-6 modules. Compensation is due to the price. The price of offshore complexes is higher than two times ground-based, due to more complex maintenance and maintenance. For example, the marine version of the Pantsir-Pantsir-M, which we are actively working on, will be at least twice as high.

WHEN DID YOU GO TO THE DRY THEME?

I switched to the land subject after the Chestnut state tests, on which I had the opportunity to do an extreme start.

The appointment as head of the department was decided when I completed work on Kashtan. Since January, 1987, we have become engaged in land technology. We had "Tunguska-M2", then there was an air-defense system for paratroopers, but, unfortunately, these topics did not go. When funding fell sharply, these topics were closed. But we wouldn't pull them anyway, because these cars were assigned to us on tracked chassis. And this was the eternal dispute between the "chassist" and those who make weapons, who are more important. The chassis is quite expensive. And we did not begin to finance this work at our own expense.

Then Shipunov did not give priority to the “Tunguske-M2,” because he believed that there would be no global wars and, above all, mobile troops and landing forces would develop. And the new complex was created just as an option, which is parachuted. Troops must be protected from the air, because the same helicopter can hit combat vehicles of landing, infantry, Tanks. Therefore, the presence of anti-aircraft means. Shipunov clearly understood this. However, unfortunately, the development turned out to be unclaimed.

WHEN DOES THE PANCIERE START WORK?

The idea of ​​creating the Pantsir complex came along with an awareness of the need to protect the most important objects on earth. Today, wars are contactless. ... Take the same Libya, Yugoslavia ... According to our information, tomahawks 100-120 was sent to Libya.

Then this idea was only born, and now they came to the conclusion that the order of the 250-300 "tomahawks" released in a minimum time with a large range from somewhere in the Atlantic can go 2,5 thousands of kilometers independently.

Now there is an active development of air attack. Tomahawks are already becoming obsolete. They are replaced by hypersonic aircraft, which rise higher and the air does not interfere. The speeds are ten times higher than those of the same “tomahawks” - a “tomahawk” slug of the order of 250 meters per second, while with hypersound it is already a speed of the order of 1500 meters per second.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF THE PANCIER?

"Shell" is developing ahead of the means of developing air attack. Now we are working on the next generation of “Armor”, which takes into account various means of air attack.

We have connection in three types: radio communication, optical fiber, wires. The complex has protection from radar. The complex is bearing, so you need to work in such modes to significantly complicate the direction finding and to deceive the enemy. The most important thing is that we have a millimeter range, on which the self-guided projectiles have not yet been developed, they are only being developed. This range is very difficult to fight. It is impossible to put a hindrance to him.
"Shell" can be used alone, but it is better when it comes to the division. Each machine can work on four targets simultaneously, respectively, if we are talking about four machines, it means that it is already possible to hit 16 targets. On the basis of the Pantsir, it is possible in general to build the entire air defense system of a small country without attracting large funds.

Another highlight of the "shell" - a rocket.

Since the time of “Tunguska” (80 — s), the concept of developing anti-aircraft weapons in the near zone has changed. Many thought that it would be more logical to create a “smart” rocket, which itself would find the target and shoot it down. We went the other way. We removed all the excess from the rocket, making it as simple and fast as possible. The head of guidance is not on the rocket itself, but on the ground, where you can come up with more complex algorithms. As a result, we got a very inexpensive ammunition. This is a fundamentally important point, given the way in which air attack weapons are developing. Their cost decreases. For example, the same drone can also fly up and drop something or take a picture, remove information. And what about the "tomahawk"? All this must be shot down, and what to shoot down? C-300 or C-400? What is their price?

Another advantage of the "shell" - mobility. Need to Kamchatka, flew to Kamchatka.

IN WHAT DIRECTIONS IS THE MODERNIZATION OF THE "PANZIRA" GOING?

The directions are the same: an increase in the speeds of achieving the goals, respectively, you need to respond to the speeds of the rocket, including, you need to see the target further, otherwise you will not have time to shoot. It is necessary to maintain and even increase accuracy. And you need to still manage not to get out of its price niche and mass-dimensional characteristics.



Recently, we began to make control points in the event that the case in point is the Panzer Group.

In KBP never before did points of management. It was my initiative. And the development turned out to be in demand in the market, including the foreign one.

The control point may be located at a distance of 20 km.

In addition, each individual machine can, although limited, perform the functions of a control center.

OVER THAN YOU WORK NOW?

We went in such a way that the element of the chassis did not bind us.

Now "Pantsir" is minimally integrated with the truck. For example, in the Emirates we deliver a complex on the MAN chassis.

We are promoting our chassis to the market. In this regard, we have a dream - we with KAMAZ make the chassis no worse than manovsky, which implies greater integration into this chassis. We place people in the cabin so as not to make a special compartment for them, so as not to create excess mass. We hope that KAMAZ will develop such a chassis, and we will sell the complex on our domestic chassis both domestically and abroad.

Now KBP is working on the creation of the “Armor” of a new generation.

DOES ANALOGUES EXIST "PANZIRA" ABROAD?

There are no similar developments in the world! There are good designs. French "Crotal", for example. But they did not develop it further. The French immediately focused on homing heads - “Aster-15 / 30” and entered a different price category. There is an Israeli tactical missile defense system "Iron Dome", but he, too, with a homing head. Although they show quite reasonable prices, but I do not believe, I think that they are much higher.

WHO DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR COMPETITOR?

I consider my competitor the American Patriot air defense system. Excellent system, but it has a different range. From domestic complexes - "Buk". This is a well-connected system, but the performance is on tracks and there is no grace.

AT WHAT TIME OF THE SERVICE IS THE “PANCIER” CALCULATED?

"Shell" should serve 25 years. Naturally with certain restorative repairs.

HOW DOES THE MAINTENANCE OF THE EXPORTED PANTIARS ARE CARRYING OUT?

This is a very serious question. It's about the whole industry.

We supply a lot of parts. But we deliver them on 4-5 years. During this period, the complex can be in combat readiness using our spare parts. Now, if some unit has failed, it has been changed. And if in the block any one microcircuit failed? Send for repair in Russia is very expensive and impractical. Something like this is being done now. Of course, you need a service center. In Russia, you need to send only what can not be fixed on the spot.

The creation of service centers is planned, but the process is very shy. And it hits hard on military-technical cooperation.

WHAT ROLE IN YOUR DESTINY AGAINED SHGPUNOV PLAYED?

I happened to work with a man of genius, to do something together. We consulted with A.G. Shipunov until very recently. In any circumstances, the connection was not lost, he always helped with advice. I consider Arkady Shipunov my teacher.

WHAT HAPPENED AND MOTIVATED YOU?

The most vivid impressions are connected with professional activity - when you see a flash and a drop in a target.

"PANTSIR-C1" is a universal anti-aircraft complex for all branches of the armed forces, providing protection of defense objects from all types of modern and perspective air attack means - high-precision weapons and aviation at a distance of up to 20 km and in the entire range of heights of their application. “Shell” has a special role in protecting the Olympic facilities and the Arctic borders of the country. "Shell" is on a par with promising examples of highly intelligent weapons of modern times.

TULA Instrument Design Bureau - one of the leading design enterprises of the defense industry. Since 2008, it has been part of the Rostec holding company “High-precision complexes”. Specialists of the design office have developed and serially produce more than 150 copies of military equipment. KBP possesses a powerful scientific and production potential in the field of creating systems of modern precision weapons.
Originator:
http://rostec.ru/news/4513024
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. saag
    saag 28 March 2014 08: 45
    +1
    cannons abandoned with an eye on the future should be assumed?
  3. The comment was deleted.
    1. albai
      albai 28 March 2014 09: 49
      +13
      Mr. Professor, in spite of any propaganda, it is a man, not a weapon, who shoots. "Merkava" is also a mountain of armored piece of iron, if there is no skillful, motivated crew. Like the Kalash AK-74, in skillful hands, it is preferable to Galila.
    2. Zapasnoy
      Zapasnoy 28 March 2014 09: 59
      +6
      Quote: Professor
      ..but in Syria, he proved himself in no way, he did not cope with the task.

      Yes, you are all firing rockets from afar, almost from neutral waters. And you fly closer, closer, do not be afraid, then we'll see.
      But soon we will put the S-300 Assad, your aggressiveness will decrease.
      1. Professor
        Professor 28 March 2014 11: 08
        +2
        Quote: Zapasnoy
        Yes, you are all firing rockets from afar, almost from neutral waters. And you fly closer, closer, do not be afraid, then we'll see

        Judging by the videos posted by the rebels, UFOs were seen over the territory of Syria. By the way, what does "neutral waters" have to do with it?

        Quote: Zapasnoy
        But soon we will put the S-300 Assad, your aggressiveness will decrease.

        Prepare another excuse that "Arabs are bad vayaks", "it is not technology that is fighting, but people" ... wink
        1. Zapasnoy
          Zapasnoy 28 March 2014 11: 48
          +8
          Quote: Professor
          Judging by the videos posted by the rebels, UFOs were seen over the territory of Syria. By the way, what does "neutral waters" have to do with it?

          I agree, for the sake of objectivity, it should be noted that your Air Force can strike not only from the sea from a safe distance. For example, a strike on CERS in Jamray (2013) was inflicted while flying directly over the attacked object. You have well trained, smart specialists. I just think that there is no need to maliciously ridicule Russian equipment ahead of time, it will still show itself. Also, for objectivity, it should be noted that the distances you have for flights are very miserable, from the Lebanese border (from where Israeli fighters arrived at low altitude) to Jamray only 30 km. F-16 instantly flies in, strikes and also instantly goes to the side. Besides, didn’t you get the idea that Assad is not a stupid person and doesn’t want to reveal all his cards before a massive attack?
          If there are flaws in the operation of the radars of our air defense systems, then now we will certainly take them into account. Anyway, thank you for testing hi
          1. Professor
            Professor 28 March 2014 12: 22
            -4
            Quote: Zapasnoy
            I just think that there is no need to maliciously ridicule Russian equipment ahead of time, it will still show itself.

            I never ridiculed Russian technology, but only attempts to present any technology as having no analogues and a better world, as well as when technology is given properties that it does not possess.

            Quote: Zapasnoy
            Besides, didn’t you get the idea that Assad is not a stupid person and doesn’t want to reveal all his cards before a massive attack?

            Trumps are destroying him, but he does not want to reveal them?
            1. STALGRAD76
              STALGRAD76 28 March 2014 12: 57
              +4
              Well, let's go to the studio, a complex similar to the "shell", let's speculate
              1. Professor
                Professor 28 March 2014 21: 03
                0
                Quote: STALGRAD76
                Well, let's go to the studio, a complex similar to the "shell", let's speculate

                "Similar" in the sense of no where, never, did not knock down anything? wink Are you Chinese or German?
            2. 77bob1973
              77bob1973 28 March 2014 13: 07
              +1
              And what, at least one complex is destroyed !?
            3. Nazrug
              Nazrug 30 March 2014 10: 52
              0
              It is necessary to argue on the facts that the shell could not detect something and bring down, are there such facts? And the fact that someone has something does not mean that they used it and whether they used it in the place where the blow was struck.
        2. Argon
          Argon 28 March 2014 12: 21
          +3
          The appearance of the S-300 in the Syrian army will significantly reduce the factor of US activity (diplomatic / financial), and as practice shows, Israel is becoming an extremely patsephistic state without such a "coalition". laughing
    3. neri73-r
      neri73-r 28 March 2014 13: 14
      +2
      Professor, what are you and your brothers on Ukrainian subjects keeping silent ??? Ay banned executives?
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. The comment was deleted.
  4. Nayhas
    Nayhas 28 March 2014 09: 36
    -3
    "There is nothing like leather". Maybe Valery Slugin would tell how the KBP repeatedly disrupting all the deadlines and failed the creation of the Kashtan air defense missile system without fulfilling the main requirement from the TTZ to be interchangeable with the AK-630? How did they set up the shipbuilders who were forced to use the new ships instead of the Kashtan and AK-630 air defense missile systems?
    With regards to the crafts called "Shell"
    It seemed to many that it would be more logical to create a “smart” rocket, which itself would find the target and shoot it down. We went the other way.

    And they did not achieve any outstanding results, unlike those who followed the logic.
    Another advantage of the Shell is mobility.

    This is not an advantage, it is a STANDARD requirement for all air defense systems.
    The most important thing is that we have a millimeter range, on which homing shells have not yet been developed, development over them is only being conducted. This range is very difficult to fight. It is impossible to interfere with him.

    But you can spot the position and strike at the received coordinates.
    There are no similar developments in the world!

    Because the KBP path chosen is a dead end.
    I consider the American Patriot air defense system to be my competitor. Great system, but it has a different range.

    The Patriot air defense system can only compete with the S-300/400-Pantsir air defense missile system, in the future it will be the MEADS air defense system.
    ZRPK "Pantsir" is a waste of money that could be spent on improving the air defense system "Tor", which should complement the S-300/400 in terms of protection from high-precision ammunition.
    1. Weniamin
      Weniamin 28 March 2014 10: 07
      +1
      SAM "Thor" is of course a good machine. But who will cover the soldiers on the march? "Tunguska" is too many years old to remain relevant.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 28 March 2014 10: 14
        +3
        Quote: Weniamin
        SAM "Thor" is certainly a good machine. But who will cover the soldiers on the march?

        Doesn’t he like Thor now?
      2. Russkiy53
        Russkiy53 28 March 2014 12: 33
        +3
        Tunguska, can’t do anything at all! Rocket control with a joystick is full of hemorrhoids! Even an over-the-air operator cannot guarantee to hit a maneuverable target; the battle range is such that it’s not clear at all what this trash can really fight with!
        In general, it is not clear why ground-based air defense of support of troops is inferior in combat range to air-to-ground aviation systems ... it feels like sabotage;)!
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 28 March 2014 18: 51
          0
          Quote: Russkiy53
          In general, it is not clear why ground-based air defense of support of troops is inferior in combat range to air-to-ground aviation systems ... it feels like sabotage;)!

          No, gravity. It needs to be overcome by anti-aircraft missiles, and on the contrary, it helps aviation missiles.
      3. tchoni
        tchoni 28 March 2014 16: 57
        +1
        On the march, it is necessary to cover the zone - and to do this in combination with the Air Force and Other air defense means ..... Now not 41 or 45. And the shell, in view of its performance characteristics, provides full cover only from aircrafts and attack aircraft. But there are also other attack aircraft. And you can fight from heights of more than 6000 m and effectively. Especially for areal targets, which are the columns on the march. And nobody canceled the link "Gistars - F-18."
        1. Russkiy53
          Russkiy53 28 March 2014 17: 07
          0
          So at the tops the battle distance is 7 ... 10km ...
        2. tchoni
          tchoni 28 March 2014 22: 13
          +2
          Damn, I apologize, got tired, brought the wrong data. The height of the defeat for the Armor C1 of the UR is about 15 kilometers. and range in the region of 20. Confused with the Tunguska .....
    2. PANZER
      PANZER 28 March 2014 10: 51
      0
      Quote: Nayhas
      But you can spot the position and strike at the received coordinates.

      Yeah, so they will wait for you there.
      Quote: Nayhas
      This is not an advantage, it is a STANDARD requirement for all air defense systems.

      Apparently there was in view of the possibility of firing missiles on the go
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 28 March 2014 11: 30
        0
        Quote: PANZER
        Apparently there was in view of the possibility of firing missiles on the go

        Yes of course. The term mobility means the ability to fire on the go, thanks, I will know ...
        No need to ascribe to something that did not even stutter.
        1. STALGRAD76
          STALGRAD76 28 March 2014 13: 25
          +3
          The term "mobility" presupposes a very short deployment time (readiness for firing) -constitution (retreat-march), the time to change position and the possibility of firing from a short stop (on some complexes, with a significant deterioration in the indicator of destruction of the VC).
          You need to understand that there is an air defense system for direct support of troops on the march as part of a combined-arms column and a medium-range system.
        2. Argon
          Argon 28 March 2014 13: 32
          +3
          My dear Nayhas-erudition and awareness is of course good, while it would be nice to comprehend what you read, making conclusions for yourself, and not just appraising. How do you contrast two different classes of SAM "Tor" and "Pantsir"? Each of them has its own range of tasks ... Which system is preferable for the active / semi-active / passive air defense system is a big question and significantly depends on its purpose. Each method has both advantages and disadvantages. By the way, missiles with AGSN are much more demanding on storage / transport conditions, are more critical to EMP, require an order of magnitude more complex diagnostic equipment, which ultimately reduces both mobility and reliability. where all the elements are located on one platform, and the ability to fire on the move is a significant argument.
          1. Russkiy53
            Russkiy53 28 March 2014 16: 06
            +1
            Once again: an operator-controlled missile hits the target depending on the operator’s training;) !!! in your case, how many ZKBM-NO from the BMP-2 weapon system hit the target ??? в-FIXED GOAL ???! !!
          2. Russkiy53
            Russkiy53 28 March 2014 16: 08
            0
            Or, about the "part" - a territorial question ??? :))) except for the buttons on the keyboard, in your "part" no one gets anywhere :))) ??? !!!
          3. Nayhas
            Nayhas 28 March 2014 18: 50
            0
            Quote: Argon
            Amiable Nayhas

            When you begin to expect a blow under your breath ...
            Quote: Argon
            SAM "Tor" and "Pantsir"? Each of them has its own range of tasks.

            They have the same "circle of tasks", the destruction of all sorts of flying nasty things within the radius of their capabilities, the place of work is different. But the issue is solved simply, two variants of basing are created, so as not to waste resources on two different systems.
            Quote: Argon
            Which system is preferable for an active / semi-active / passive air defense system is a big question and significantly depends on its purpose. Each method has both pros and cons.

            Modern means of attack of a "potential enemy" allow strikes outside the range of the Tor and Pantsir air defense systems, in connection with which the main target will be airborne and UAB missiles that are not equipped with jamming systems. Further, the level of technology makes it possible to equip missiles with a two-channel guidance system, semi-active radar and TGSN, thereby increasing the noise immunity significantly. In the world, there are practically no means of countering modern TGSN.
            Quote: Argon
            By the way, missiles with AGSN are much more demanding on storage / transportation conditions,

            A sealed container solves all problems. And all the rockets are tested.
            Quote: Argon
            more critical to EMR

            EMP ammunition is available only in the imagination of science fiction writers. In reality, they are not in service with any army in the world. This is because their radius of action is not so large that their application loses its meaning.
            Quote: Argon
            On the issue of mobility for the air defense system, this factor is directly related to its combat capability, give an example of another air defense system (not Russian / Soviet made) comparable in performance characteristics with the "Pantsir" where all elements are located on one platform.

            The sense of the mobility of the Shell if its ability to accompany military units is not? And it's not the wheelbase, but the high center of gravity, which accordingly affects the tendency to capsize.
            The carapace is an object-based air defense, a stripped-down version of the Tunguska, which, thanks to Arab contracts in the 90s, developed and accordingly attracted the interest of some of the people involved in its sale. If Thor were in his place, now he would have covered the S-300.
    3. NEMO
      NEMO 28 March 2014 14: 34
      +2
      Quote: Nayhas
      ZRPK "Pantsir" is a waste of money that could be spent on improving the air defense system "Tor", which should complement the S-300/400 in terms of protection from high-precision ammunition.

      You very correctly noted that instead of improving the advanced and universal complexes of the Tunguska-M1 and Tor-M2U air defense systems in service, you created the Pantsir air defense missile system, which is mainly intended to perform narrow tasks in the interests of Country air defense, in particular, to cover the S-300/400 and stationary or sedentary objects in the depth of the defense and in the rear. The development of the Pantsir air defense missile system from scratch "ate" all the funds allocated for the improvement of the complexes military air defense, as a result ZRPK "Pantsir" (especially its wheelbase version)proved completely incapable of acting as a means military air defense. Firstly, due to poor wheelbase (compared to tank and infantry fighting vehicles)secondly because of the large dimensions of the air defense system (almost 6 meters high)You can’t put such a complex on the leading edge, therefore, the required removal of the affected area is not provided, will someone else decide to cover the companies and first-line battalions leading the battle?
      Quote from the article:
      The most important thing is that we have a millimeter range, on which homing shells have not yet been developed, development over them is only being conducted. This range is very difficult to fight. It is impossible to interfere with him.

      But at the same time, nothing is said that, when using the millimeter wave range, it significantly reduces the ability to track targets and missiles in difficult weather conditions (fog, drizzle, snow, rain, dust, sand, etc.).
      Radio electronic equipment ZRPK made on imported element base. Even a layman can suggest what will happen with the outbreak of hostilities. In the best case, this element base will simply refuse to work.
      Unfortunately, this is not a complete list of criticisms of the ZRPK. soldier
      1. Russkiy53
        Russkiy53 28 March 2014 17: 10
        +1
        "Tunguska" -promising :))) !!! yeah-ha:))) !!! she-drone-not able to shoot down !!! and he-four "hellfire" carries !!!
  5. Sonik
    Sonik 28 March 2014 10: 20
    0
    as I understand it, in the conditions of electronic warfare, the connection between the rocket and the complex is broken and the rocket flies wherever it wants?
    1. STALGRAD76
      STALGRAD76 28 March 2014 13: 28
      +1
      there are several types of guidance of the GOS missile launcher at the CC, some GOS do not care for interference, they will not have time to tune in
    2. Russkiy53
      Russkiy53 28 March 2014 16: 39
      0
      Communications in the conditions of electronic warfare; after an atomic explosion; in a thunderstorm-in general, NO !!! and a rocket-flies like she's high, and the infantry with the tanks goes-the same way :))) !!!
  6. Sonik
    Sonik 28 March 2014 10: 28
    +6
    Quote: Zapasnoy
    Quote: Professor
    ..but in Syria, he proved himself in no way, he did not cope with the task.

    Yes, you are all firing rockets from afar, almost from neutral waters. And you fly closer, closer, do not be afraid, then we'll see.
    But soon we will put the S-300 Assad, your aggressiveness will decrease.


    from the point of view of military art, the enemy must be destroyed with minimal losses, so if there is an opportunity to destroy from a distance why ignore it ... it's like a saber, a knife or a sapper blade compared to a machine gun, you can also say about a machine gun "fly closer, closer, do not be afraid, then we will see ", but what for closer ??
  7. oblako
    oblako 28 March 2014 11: 57
    +8
    As an air defense Schnik, although a former one, I do not like the propaganda hype around air defense systems. Unless, of course, the complex is not made for sale in certain regions, in order to "recoup" the money spent on production. This hype is too expensive. You can talk about something only when it shows itself in real counteraction to air attacks in various air and jamming environments. You cannot go to war, create this situation at the training grounds, just not under the control of the interested parties, of course. There must be political will for this. And given the role of the Air Force in recent conflicts, it is not worth joking with air defense, however ... Moreover, air defense should have unexpected "surprises" for the attacking side, both in technology and in the tactics of its use. Otherwise, air defense is not air defense, but self-hypnosis is simple ... The war will quickly return to reality, and it, this reality, might not like it ...
    1. Russkiy53
      Russkiy53 28 March 2014 12: 23
      -1
      The best air defense is a good fighter :)))!
      1. Argon
        Argon 28 March 2014 13: 43
        +1
        Far from a fact !!! because you still need a pilot for this fighter, an airfield and an air tanker.
        1. Russkiy53
          Russkiy53 28 March 2014 16: 24
          +1
          Air defense fighter, a tanker is unnecessary:))) !!! this is firstly :)))! And secondly: you don’t want to build an airfield and air force schools, build HOSPITALS AND EXTEND CEMETERY !!! here-without smiles !!!
      2. smile
        smile 28 March 2014 19: 04
        +2
        Russkiy53
        :))) The best air defense is our tanks at the enemy airfield. :)))
        1. Professor
          Professor 28 March 2014 21: 06
          0
          Quote: smile
          The best air defense is our tanks at the enemy airfield.

          However, this is a statement by the Israeli general. hi
          1. smile
            smile 28 March 2014 23: 00
            +1
            Professor
            :))) Yes. But the wisdom of the phrase, I think, does not depend on the nationality of the author. :))) Moreover, the Israeli generals are difficult to blame for incompetence. :)))
            To be honest, for me the nationality of the "speaker" does not mean anything - even a Jew, even a Tungus, even a hobbit. :)))
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. Sledgehammer
    Sledgehammer 28 March 2014 12: 17
    +2
    Target detection station "S" -band ZRPK "Pantsir-1S"




    Equipment of the 10ES1-E optoelectronic complex for the "Pantsir-S1" air defense missile system.
  10. Sledgehammer
    Sledgehammer 28 March 2014 12: 24
    +3
    All deficiencies are identified and work is underway to address them.

    At the same time, the report notes the following shortcomings of the complex, identified as a result of real firing at the range http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-558.html

    2012 June 22 - A Turkish reconnaissance aircraft RF-4E was shot down near Latakia by Syrian air defense forces. According to foreign media reports (http://www.debka.com), the plane was shot down by the Pantsir-C1 air defense missile system.

    Turkish Air Force RF-4E reconnaissance aircraft

    Map of the region where the Turkish RF-4E reconnaissance aircraft was shot down. Shown are the operating ranges of the Pantsir-S1 air defense missile systems from possible locations of positions in the Latakia region. Used illustration by RIA Novosti
    http://militaryrussia.ru/i/284/558/oCYll.jpg
  11. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 28 March 2014 14: 13
    +2
    Here again the "Shell" "appeared"! Quite recently I tried to ask some questions about this system, but the article "on the topic" quickly disappeared somewhere (into the archive or what?). And the questions were: 1. Why is there so much criticism on complex "Pantsir-C1"? Why are there many statements that "Pantsir-C1" is "garbage" in comparison with "TOP", and highly effective results are actually rigging? I really wanted to "hear" the opinion of the servicemen who worked on these systems- laconic, but weighty: good or not good it's an antiaircraft gun? (I'm not a spy, but I want to live calmly and confidently for myself, for my family and homeland) I don't understand how a kinetic (or "inertial" projectile is actually more understandable) (mode, after engine separation) can effectively hit vigorously maneuvering targets? For example, the target is above the rocket and vigorously gains altitude - how can a rocket without a "engine" "jump" to "reach" the target? there would be a block of impulse rocket micromotors (impulse correction; super-maneuverability mode), but without it?
    1. NEMO
      NEMO 28 March 2014 14: 42
      0
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Why are there many statements that "Pantsir-C1" is "garbage" compared to "TOP", and high-performance results are in fact rigging? I really wanted to "hear" the opinion of the servicemen who worked on these systems - a laconic, but weighty

      See my comment above... The developers of the Pantsir air defense missile system categorically shy away from conducting field tests with live firing in conjunction with the Tor-M2U air defense system, obviously inferior in many respects. The immunity and survivability of the Pantsir air defense system is lower than in the Tor-M2U complex. Specific methods of aiming missiles for effective firing at low-flying targets are not provided for in the air defense missile system.
      1. Russkiy53
        Russkiy53 28 March 2014 16: 32
        +1
        Yes, because: ROLLERS:))) !!!
    2. NEMO
      NEMO 28 March 2014 14: 52
      0
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      I do not understand how actually kinetic (or "inertial" -to whom it is clearer) projectile (mode, after engine separation) can effectively hit energetically maneuvering targets?

      This is not a kinetic or inertial projectile belay it's anti-aircraft Managed (throughout the flight) Rocket (SAM).
      1. NEMO
        NEMO 28 March 2014 15: 04
        0
        Quote: NEMO
        This is not a kinetic or inertial projectile, it is an Anti-Aircraft Guided (throughout the flight) Rocket (SAM).
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 28 March 2014 17: 05
          +2
          To everyone who reminded me of the Anti-Aircraft Guided Missile: I know that "this is a missile guided on the entire flight path". The essence of the doubt is different: 1. If the target has dramatically maneuvered down, the missile also changes its flight path down (at a certain angular position target-missile) .2. If, after that, the target sharply "makes a slide" (ie, changes the trajectory of flight upward), then the "true" missile (ie, with a working "engine") can also change the trajectory flight, taking into account the angular position. (The degree of maneuverability is limited by the design of the rocket, including steering, and the ability to maneuver by the "engine".) The "carapace" rocket is a "true" rocket while the "engine" is working, and when the "engine" separated, then how is this "rocket" very different from a controlled (corrected) projectile? That is, how the "shell" can change the flight trajectory "up" (make a "slide") if it no longer has a "engine"?
          1. NEMO
            NEMO 28 March 2014 17: 56
            0
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            That is,how the "shell" can change the flight path "up" (to make a "slide"), if it already has no "engine"?

            After separation of the starting engine, the flight path changes according to the commands of the guidance station of the complex with an air-dynamic steering gear (blades on the hull) and a radio direction finder of the target at the end of the flight, without much maneuverability, since the rocket speed is about 1200m / s and potential targets cannot radically change the flight path.
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 29 March 2014 02: 37
              +2
              At what distance from the launch site does the "engine" separate (a speed of 1200 m / s is reached)? The declared characteristics: the height of the defeat is 15 (10) km; the slant range of the defeat is 20 km. Are these characteristics of effective destruction of the target or the maximum altitude, flight range? the "engine" at the "shell" is separated at a distance much less than 20 km, then further the speed begins to "fall"; the ability to hit an air target remains, but the "requests" for the characteristics of the target become more modest, ie. a high-speed, highly maneuverable target has an increased chance of avoiding defeat.
      2. Argon
        Argon 28 March 2014 15: 13
        0
        You can joke as much as you like about the quality of someone else's leg, they say, rusty-karyvenky, but in the background it will be the best for whoever has it. Of course, the "Shell" is still raw BUT What other complex is able to cover a column on the march, from all real types of threats?
        1. NEMO
          NEMO 28 March 2014 15: 26
          0
          Quote: Argon
          What other complex is capable of covering the column on the march, from all real types of threats?

          If the covered column will be tank, and the terrain for example marshy, then on a wheeled track "Pantsir" simply will not work and the column will remain without air defense.
          1. Russkiy53
            Russkiy53 28 March 2014 16: 35
            0
            In addition to a good fighter, a convoy on the march, RELIABLE - NO ONE WILL COVER:))) !!!!!
        2. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 29 March 2014 02: 03
          +4
          Well, straight, like in a joke: “suddenly tomorrow there’s a war, and I’m tired.” In your opinion, it is normal that “raw” (ie, not modified, surrogate complexes) are bought for a lot of money and advertised as a “miracle-yudo- super-duper weapon? SAM, which can not bring down anything and cannot protect anyone, is this normal? You can eat a "raw" product, and then "diarrhea" - where to fight! I really want to be "in error" in this situation. the "Pantsir" is purchased by the UAE, Syria (it seems, someone else bought it). Are they really stupid: they did not check anything, were not convinced of the "capabilities" of the air defense missile system - they believed the "advertising" and purchased for decent bucks? After a while, it will become clear: either everything is OK with the Pantsir air defense system, or a new way of stealing public money has appeared.
      3. Russkiy53
        Russkiy53 28 March 2014 16: 33
        -1
        Captain :), WHICH ARE MANAGED:))) ??? !!!
  12. My doctor
    My doctor 28 March 2014 20: 26
    +2
    I don’t know why, but I don’t like the shell. Perhaps this was due to a lack of confidence in post-Soviet developments or improvements, or maybe thanks to television broadcasting an unsuccessful demonstration of the cannon system. There, after several unsuccessful artillery salvos, they hit a target with a rocket.
  13. uestlend
    uestlend 29 March 2014 00: 33
    0
    "Carapace" everywhere "Carapace" is all advertising, but there is nothing to knock out of it, if only with the tenth attempt or ten cars, they made a simple rocket 50% 50 don't know it will hit don't know no, just couldn't do anything when it doesn't work , they always say they went in a different way, they wanted to make an active head on the BUK, it does not work, too, while they go the other way, they created in Pantsir in the late 80s, but it didn’t work as it should, they forgot about it, and now it got out in 5-10 years maybe and will bring to mind with the TOP and did not stand nearby, it's a shame to talk about hyper sonic missiles.
    1. Argon
      Argon 29 March 2014 01: 40
      0
      Guys, why are you against the "Thor", here is the "Orsis" rifle, it is more accurate than the SVD, but this does not mean that the SVD must be removed from the troops. Here is the "Armor" this is a simple accessible SVD, in this regard, talk about a missile with AGSN is not relevant in principle, for a tactical complex it is too expensive and capricious, because as Nayhas correctly noted, its main enemy will be ASP and reconnaissance UAVs. Yes, there are still problems, but Shilka did not start to hit right away. At the same time, the formed defense industry complex of the state solved the problem. what has now got into the troops is still a "raw" machine (including because of the issues of import substitution), but such a step is necessary to increase the export potential of the complex. And the subsequent revision of the production base and the exploited samples. the chassis provides air transportability, there is an option for the "goose", but the Ministry of Defense chose the "wheel" for the mon brigades (and not without taking into account the cost).
  14. Red Army of the USSR
    Red Army of the USSR 29 March 2014 01: 25
    0
    No need to argue with the Jews, and they are the best. Here is an example of the Jewish crowd.
    when the people reminded Pilate of the custom of Easter to release one of the convicts (Matthew 27:15) “And the people began to scream and ask Pilate what he always did for them” (Mark 15: 8)) “whom do you want me to let go to you: Barabbas, or Jesus called Christ? ” (Mark 27:17);