Military Review

Fighting over the front edge

It's time to send "Tunguska" in the right direction

The theory of contactless wars currently being developed and the concept of a fast global strike do not override the principles of traditional armed conflict. Western specialists have created a typical model of the regular war of the active (aggressive) model, which has been repeatedly implemented and continuously improved. That is why today, more than ever, the study of the forms and methods of conducting traditional combat operations, the development of practical measures to cover the units, units and formations of the leading edge in the conditions of combat contact with the enemy from air attack weapons (EAS) are relevant.

The development of network-centric methods of command and control of troops required the development and introduction of new means of technical intelligence. First of all, UAVs of mini- and microclasses intended for intelligence of the leading edge (PC) and being essentially the main source of information should be attributed to them. Paralyzing the actions of a mini-BLA actually destroys the network-centric control system, this is its Achilles heel. Thus, now not only helicopter fire support (GP), precision-guided weapon (WTO), army and tactical aviation, but also mini-UAVs have become priority objectives for air defense of the PC, and the victory of the confrontation and their defeat are required.

When it is useless to upgrade the old

The problem of air defense of the PK was acutely manifested back in the 50-60s, when army aviation began to develop at an accelerated pace and the saturation of the troops of a potential enemy with combat helicopters significantly increased. To cover subunits and units of the Ground Forces over the PK as part of motorized rifle and tank regiments of the Soviet army formed the corresponding missile and artillery air defense divisions, which began to receive self-propelled anti-aircraft guns ZSU-23-4 "Shilka" and anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) "Strela-1M", as well as portable air defense systems (MANPADS) of the first generation " Strela-2M ". These short-range air defense systems and cover as a whole were able to withstand air attacks that used free-fall bombs and unguided rockets (NURS), as well as short-range anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), which began to be placed on combat helicopters.

But during the Vietnam War, combat helicopters of the new class with sufficiently long-range ATGM appeared in the USA, designed primarily to fight armored objects on the battlefield and were called "fire support helicopters." One of the first - "Hugh Cobra" with ATGM "Tou". GPs acted primarily from ambushes, using topographic features (terrain folds). Having received intelligence information about armored vehicles in the zone of ATGM reach, they carried out a "bounce", launching a missile at a target and went into shelter. The firing cycle took only 40 – 50 seconds. The use of “Shilok” and “Strela-2М” MANPADS in such conditions turned out to be impossible, and the “Strela-1М” air defense missile system was problematic. Assessing the threat level of a SPM of armored vehicles on the battlefield, one of the major military leaders, Hero of the Soviet Union, Army Commander-in-Chief Army General Ivan Pavlovsky, summing up the major exercises, said: “It’s better to have 10 tanks reliably covered from the air than 100 without cover”. The participant of the Great Patriotic War knew what he was saying. His prophetic words were subsequently not once confirmed during the times of not only the Vietnam War, but also the Arab-Israeli conflicts. In Sinai, for example, during a single sortie, a Hugh-Cobra-type SPM destroyed up to 6 – 8 unarmored armored objects (tanks, armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles).

Assessing the role of GPs and seeking to consolidate the success of the military-technical breakthrough, the United States at an accelerated pace created and put into service a specialized (basic) GPA AN-64 Apache. He began to be equipped with the Hellfire ATGM of a new generation and was able to hit targets from long ranges (6 – 8 km), that is, without entering the affected areas of the air defense systems. To combat such a class of SPMs and to improve the air defense of the PC, on the whole, new combat weapons were required, since the modernization of the previously used ones was unpromising for several reasons.

Wanted "long arms"

The development of such weapons was entrusted to the Tula Instrument Design Bureau. At the suggestion of KBP, the task should have been solved with the help of the Tungusk self-propelled anti-aircraft cannon-missile system (ZPRK). According to the plan, he could hit GPA “Apache” at ranges prior to their use of onboard weapons, allowing them to reduce the type of air defense weapons of the regimental level, as well as guarantee the cover of armored objects in mobile forms of combat and on the march.

It was assumed that the combat vehicle (BM) of the Tungusk anti-missile defense missile system would have maximum autonomy, while ensuring controllability from the battery commander’s station (BKP) in an automated mode, having a short reaction time (from the moment the enemy was detected before the launch of the rocket or the opening of ) and fully automated process of combat work. For this purpose, the BM equipped the on-board radar for detecting airborne objects operating in motion, the auto-tracking radar of the target fired at the cannon canal, optical sighting devices for firing a missile channel (RK), a digital computing system, navigation and toporavidka, and radio communications (in "Tunguske-M "- and telecode communication with the BKP), high-speed high-precision complexes of drives of the tower installation in azimuth and elevation, other equipment. All this, including power supply and other auxiliary equipment, was placed on a tracked chassis (GM-352), unified with that used in the Tor system and Buk air defense system, which reduced the type of basic tracked chassis. True, unlike other standardized chassis, the GM-352 has variable ground clearance. This allowed the "Tunguska" to rise almost half a meter when shooting from a trench.

In general, the creation of "Tunguska" was a breakthrough in the niche of short-range air defense. This ZPRK managed to create a highly efficient cannon canal on the basis of the GSH guns (“Gryazev-Shipunov”). Suffice it to say that in the caliber of 30 millimeters, their rate of fire (two double-barreled guns) is more than 4500 shots per minute, which ensures the probability of a hit at the level of 0,35 – 0,42. This is several times higher than, for example, the battery (6 guns) of the Bofors anti-aircraft artillery complex (mm caliber 40) and the American-Canadian Adats installation. Such characteristics were achieved through the use of a digital calculating device in the RRMS that implements complex motion hypotheses when calculating the lead angle, measuring and taking into account the actual initial velocity of the projectile, automatically setting the queue length depending on the distance to the goal and other innovations.

However, the range of damage to the cannon canal in the "Tunguska" was four kilometers, which did not allow the new generation of SPMs to hit at the maximum launch range of the ATGM. This required such a RK as a “long arm” that could hit SPM at a distance of 10 kilometers.

By that time, the Apache-class SPM already had an armored cockpit, explosion-proof fuel tanks, was equipped with injectors, reducing its thermal visibility, as well as an effective aiming and targeting system for ATGM. In order to reliably defeat GPs at maximum ranges, it was necessary to use special measures in the Tunguska Republic of Kazakhstan.

In order to exclude the dependence of the maximum range of the defeat of GPs from its thermal conspicuity, they recognized the right to abandon the use of the thermal homing device in the missile defense system and to implement the radio command method. To reduce the magnitude of miss when shooting at the maximum range, the KBP implemented an optical method of sighting and tracking the target, since the radar (with the radar operating in the cm-band and used in the gun channel) at such distances resulted in significant errors, and acceptable optical-electronic noise-proof devices then did not exist.

Unsolved bugs

The rocket for the Tungusk missile defense system was offered a two-stage bikaliber (starting stage - active, caliber 152 mm, marching - passive, 76 mm), equipped with warhead frag-rod type of increased power with a contact and non-contact target sensor (laser, in subsequent modifications - with radar ). Such a scheme for constructing missiles had positive and negative sides. First of all, it allowed for a relatively small starting mass (42 kg) to have a nine-kilogram warhead - almost twice as much as with single-stage circuits. In addition, the combat vehicle was able to place the increased ammunition - 8 missiles, and for their preliminary targeting to use the same drives as for the gun channel. Also, the bikaliber scheme provided a relatively high average flight speed at maximum ranges (up to 600 m / s).

Fighting over the front edge

Photo: Alexey Matveyev

However, the two-stage construction of missiles led to a significant increase in the “dead” funnel of the missile defense missile system (the near border of the RK damage zone was 2,5 km), as well as the need to reset the spent “starter” at a distance of 2,5 – 3 km. The presence of such a large “dead” funnel (25% of the maximum range of destruction) practically left the PC and the nearest tactical depth without missile cover of the Tunguska missile defense missile system. But the main drawback was that the Republic of Kazakhstan turned out to be non-daily and not all-weather, when shooting conditions were not created for automatic tracking of the target, which is why the defeat of maneuvering EAS in a given zone was practically not ensured. The defeat of even a frozen helicopter required extremely high professional skills of the operator. This was due to the low capabilities of the airborne radar to detect GPs in the entire range in a timely manner, as well as the low probability of the destruction of the WTO by the fragmentation-rod warhead of the anti-aircraft missile system and the low power supply of the passive missile of the missile when firing at the maneuvering target.

Cons installation appeared immediately. Thus, at the special defense-92 exercises, the combat effectiveness of units armed with Tunguska and Tunguska-M was only 0,42, while units and air defense units armed with other types of complexes were no less than 0,9 – 0,93.

When accepting the weapons system, many of the identified shortcomings were reflected in the relevant documents, a plan was adopted to eliminate them before the start and as the mass production was deployed. However, KBP from these works withdrew itself by focusing on other areas, including the development of the Pantsir-С1 air defense system, which was practically created on the basis of Tunguska technical solutions and inherited many of its shortcomings. The excitement unleashed by stakeholders and organizations around the Pantsir-С1 air defense system, overshadowed the elimination of the shortcomings inherent in both complexes.

By this time, the all-daily and all-weather GP “Apache-Rengbow” with the new version of the ATGM “Hellfire” had already entered service in the USA and NATO. Unfortunately, the "Tunguska" of all modifications without a complete rework of the RK cannot withstand it in due measure, and nobody is engaged in the modernization of the missile armament of this ZPRK.

Vigorous attempts are being made to impose an anti-aircraft defense system instead of the Tunguska Pantsir-С1, even on the tracked chassis. However, for the air defense forces of the Army, it is more important not to “Shell” and conversations around it, but to bring to mind the RK “Tunguska”, and not only in mass-produced means, but, most importantly, in the complexes in service (according to the principle of “platform” approach to modernization). Now it is the primary task for the practical implementation of effective PC air defense.

How to technically implement this and what needs to be done today is known and feasible in a reasonable time frame using the existing macroplants and with minimal financial costs, including the introduction of the same “pancyrevsky” technologies, if necessary. Only appropriate solutions and mutual understanding are needed. But even here a problem arises: the developer of Tunguska - KBP became part of the “High-precision complexes” belonging to the state corporation Rostec, and the manufacturer of this ZPRK is UMP (Ulyanovsk) located at JSC Concern PVO Almaz-Antey. So who and how will deal with the issue of upgrading the missile channel ZPRK? The answer to this question, in our opinion, should be the leaders of Rostec, the Almaz-Antey Air Defense Concern and, first of all, the Ministry of Defense as the most interested party.

The use of the optical homing in the missile defense system had its pros and cons. First of all, this made it possible to implement a “shot-and-forget” combat mode of operation, which is extremely important for front-line air defense systems. At the same time, the target acquisition range of the GOS in the infrared channel depended on the thermal radiation of the target, which reduced the possibilities when firing at modern low-emitting (“cold”) objects, including mini-UAVs. FC could be used only during the day in clear weather.

The warhead was initially high-explosive, and then - frag-rod, providing a reliable defeat even armored air targets. The rocket was equipped with an optical, later - a laser non-contact target sensor (NDC), triggered in the latest versions and on small-sized objects (8-beam NDC).

Conscript can not cope

However, the most significant disadvantage of the Arrow-10 remained the requirement of visual detection and targeting of the launch device with missiles in the mode of visual contact with the aim of capturing the homing device on the launch device before the start. The introduction of the telecode equipment for reception and implementation of target designation (AOC and ARC) into the composition of the combat vehicle of the air defense system automated the process of detecting an object for destruction, but did not make it automatic, did not exclude the need for visual contact with it and manual tracking before launching the SAM. In addition, the target acquisition range of the GOS in the main IR channel depends on the thermal radiation of the object, that is, dictated by the enemy. All attempts to increase the range of defeat "Arrow-10" more than five kilometers were not crowned with success, in connection with which she could not fully confront GPs "Apache", and even more so "Apache-Rengbou" before they use onboard weapons. Nevertheless, this air defense system was considered a reasonable addition to the “Tunguska” and underwent more than four upgrades during serial production. A significant amount of the Strela-10 air defense system remains in service in the Russian Armed Forces and abroad, although at present its release, like the missiles for it, has ceased.

Together with the short-range complexes, the tactical constructions of the front-line air defense also include portable Igr-type air defense systems, which are a logical continuation of the first-generation Strela-2M MANPADS. Today, “Igla”, “Igla-S” with the means of receiving target designation and ensuring shooting at night and MANPADS of the new generation “Verba”, first demonstrated at the Army-2015 forum, generally meet modern requirements.

But the availability of new air defense weapons and the ability to use them effectively are different things. It is almost impossible to teach a soldier to skillfully use MANPADS with a service life in the army of one year, even if there are excellent simulators. After all, in fact, the anti-aircraft gunner performs the functions of both executive reconnaissance and a calculating device, which determines the moment of launch, as well as the actual function of the launcher. To acquire these skills, it takes time, which the conscript soldier does not have today. In addition, the shooter with the help of MANPADS can practically guarantee only a cover of subunits and units in the near zone, since it also requires visual contact with the target before launching the rocket.

Highly automated and daily

To some extent, the Kolomenskoye KBM attempted to rectify the existing situation with the equipping of the air defense forces of the SV with fire weapons of short-range action and to improve their effectiveness, having developed on their own initiative a modern, synthesized “Luchnik” air defense system. When it was created, they sought to solve at least two problems. Firstly, it was necessary to find an alternative to the outdated and discontinued Strele-10, the maintenance of which in combat readiness in the troops became problematic, and its further direct modernization turned out to be costly. Secondly, it was necessary to raise the effectiveness of the combat use of MANPADS over the front edge and in the nearest tactical depth, compensating for the lack of training and combat skills of the anti-aircraft gunners.

The authors of the “Archer” placed it on the chassis of the Strela-10-type anti-aircraft system (after reconditioning the chassis, replacing the turret and launching device), and used Igla-S anti-aircraft missiles located in the standardized “Strelets” launch modules ( 8 - on the launcher and 8 - in the combat vehicle combat pack). The combined use of the elements "Arrows-10" and "Needles-C" allows you to classify the short-range "Archer" air defense missile systems as synthesized. It is also envisaged, if necessary, to arm two anti-aircraft gunners with MANPADS from a combat vehicle’s ammunition and equip them with the AOC, which expands the options for combat use of the complex.

But the main distinguishing feature of the Archer is the presence in it of an optical-electronic detection system and automatic tracking of airborne objects with video processing equipment. It provides an opportunity, independently or according to target designation, to detect and automatically accompany modern air targets at any time of the day and in adverse weather conditions.

The 24-hour optical-electronic station (SOEK) includes television and thermal imaging information channels and a solid-state laser range finder. They provide detection and recognition of objects displayed on a video monitor by the BM operator, their manual or automatic capture and automatic tracking of up to four targets simultaneously, as well as the calculation of their coordinates and the determination of the launch range. The SOEK information channels have a field of view of 20х15 degrees in azimuth and elevation, respectively, the detection range is at least 10 kilometers, and the measuring distance to the accompanying targets with a laser range finder is from 400 meters to 10 kilometers. The complex is really capable, day and night, in complex noise and weather conditions, to hit modern tactical aircraft, helicopters of fire support and cruise missiles, as well as some types of UAVs.

"The Archer" was demonstrated at MAKS-2015 and at the international military-technical forum "Army-2015", its performance characteristics and combat capabilities are known, it does not make sense to repeat them. I would like to dwell only on some points. In this air defense missile system with more than four times less rocket mass in comparison with the “Arrow-10M”, the probability of hitting the target was almost doubled (from 0,3 – 0,6 to 0,6 – 0,73) in both cases). At the same time, noise immunity has significantly increased due to the implementation of spectral selection in place of the rocket in the GOS instead of the kinematic one. The near border of the affected area has also been reduced from 4 – 8 meters (RC “Tunguski”, “Arrows-2500М”, respectively) to 1200, which is extremely important when organizing the front-line air defense.

Truncated Archer and Outdated Arrows

But the "Archer" is not without certain disadvantages. Thus, in connection with the use (as in the Strela-10M) of infrared seers, it was not possible to increase the distant border of the affected area, it remained at the level of 5000 – 6000 meters. Therefore, for effective combat with modern GPs before they use airborne weapons, as well as for increasing the capabilities of air defense weapons over the front edge and in the near tactical zone, the “Archer” air defense missile system should be considered and used only in conjunction with the Tungusk missile defense system.

In addition, in the current configuration “Archer” does not guarantee the destruction of low-emitting heat (“cold”) mini-UAVs and because of this cannot fully replace the “Arrow-10М”, which implements the photocontrast channel of missile defense. However, out of this situation can be seen. As already mentioned, MANPADS of the new generation “Verba” is equipped with a rocket with a three-channel GOS. One of the channels, ultraviolet (UFK), is insensitive to the thermal radiation of the target and, in principle, provides guidance and affection for mini-UAVs, which is currently extremely important. Thus, when placing a certain number of “Verba” MANPADS (say, 4 “Verba” MANPADS instead of “Igla-S” MANPADS), it’s economically unprofitable to replace the whole ammunition and to fully replace “ Arrow-10M.

In fact, this is a modern, highly automated, all-day short-range air defense system, which has rather high combat characteristics and also allows reducing the range of missiles at the most mass tactical (brigade-regimental) link. The necessary technical documentation has been created, an export passport has been agreed and delivery abroad is allowed. Foreign military experts at MAKS-2015 and the Army-2015 forum showed some interest in this air defense system.

But the command of the air defense forces of the Ground Forces and the leadership of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation are not in a hurry to discuss the issue of its adoption. Nor do they have an acceptable concept regarding the refusal of the morally and physically obsolete SAMs of the Strela-10 type of all modifications. Moreover, it became known that, instead of “Archer” and “Arrow-10”, the command of the air defense forces of the Soviet Army plans to order the Kolomna KBM to develop a “truncated” version of “Archer” with four MANPADS on PU, located on the wheeled chassis (Tiger). Of course, no data on the development is not given. And who will conduct it, if the modern accidentally surviving military science, still dealing with the air defense system of the Ground Forces, has become basically living according to the principle “what do you wish?” And not “what is needed?”. Is memory really so short? After all, quite recently in this link, as already mentioned, the Strela-1М DB on the wheeled chassis (with a floating basis), but due to its flaws, especially manifesting on the front edge, of the Strela-10 type placed on a crawler.

Exit - in advance

The front-line air defense (PC defense) has its own specific features. The main one is that it is the prerogative of the air defense forces of the SV. The anti-aircraft missile systems of the VKS and the fighter aircraft allocated by them in the interests of covering the units and formations of the Ground Forces cannot ensure a noticeable increase in the effectiveness of the air defense system.

At the same time, the flaws in the construction and organization of the air defense system of a PC significantly affect the survival rate of parts and subunits of the leading edge from air attacks. For miscalculations and errors in the organization of air defense, the PC ultimately has to be paid not only with disabled armaments, military equipment, destroyed infrastructure elements, but to a large extent with blood and human lives. That is why the PC air defense system should be maximally worked out and balanced in peacetime, in the process of its construction and creation. It should also be taken into account that it is the most massive and each percentage of increasing its effectiveness brings significant quantitative results, significantly affecting the reduction of prevented damage to its advanced troops.

Unfortunately, it is necessary to state that, in general, the current state of the air defense weapons of the SV, designed to provide air defense of the PK, is a matter of deep concern. With all-day-old VON, especially the new generation of the Apache-Rengbow type, there is nothing to fight at the ranges of their use of onboard weapons today. As is known, the armored vehicles of a new generation are being developed at an accelerated pace on the basis of the unified Armata platform (T-14, heavy BMP T-15, etc.). To protect it on the battlefield, a BMPT-72 tank support vehicle “Terminator-2” is being created, to which the Russian Defense Ministry and foreign specialists are showing increasing interest. And how will this new generation armored technology be protected from modern EHVs? The lack of an integrated approach to solving these problems is unacceptable, in fact, it is a waste of manpower and resources.

There is no proper assessment in the construction of modern PC air defense systems. Previously, only the status and existing problems with active (fire) air defense capacities of the PC were considered. But they include the means of automated control, intelligence of airborne communication, communication, and data exchange, which should create a single highly efficient and interconnected system. The newest air defense system of the PC in essence should be a mobile automated reconnaissance-fire group. However, its constituent components are developed, as a rule, independently, without proper integrated coordination, and they are delivered to the troops all over the place, without prior docking. Often, the funds created by industry are unclaimed.

Most likely, this state of affairs is connected with the lack of responsibility of officials for the final result. Wishes and suggestions about what and how to do, have been expressed several times, but who would have listened and the main thing - heard. It seems that we live according to the proverb "The dog barks and the caravan moves on." It is unpleasant to feel like a barking dog, but it is even worse to remain a deaf caravan and its "leaders."

The air defense forces of the NE are costly for the country, as is the entire PC air defense system. But the tasks that it solves are worth it, because we are talking about the most expensive - the lives of soldiers, the preservation of the combat capability of subunits, units and formations of the Ground Forces. In this regard, it is necessary to concentrate efforts as much as possible to find a way out of this situation. There is no time to catch up with the advanced armies of the world; it is necessary to find ways of inadequate advance of them.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. igorka357
    igorka357 28 November 2015 07: 12
    Apache Rengbow ...))) I'm damn shocked ...
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 28 November 2015 07: 19
      Quote: igorka357
      Apache Rengbow ...))) I'm damn shocked ...

      Similarly. At first, the author thought it was just sealed up, but he repeated ...
      SAXA.SHURA 28 November 2015 12: 35
      Why don't they write about "Shell C1", but write about old weapons?
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 28 November 2015 15: 46
        Quote: SAXA.SHURA
        Why don't they write about "Shell C1", but write about old weapons?

        because the shell on the caterpillar chassis is more expensive than the tunguska, and people will have to be retrained ...
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Captain nemo
        Captain nemo 29 November 2015 17: 10
        Quote: SAXA.SHURA
        Why don't they write about "Shell C1", but write about old weapons?

        Probably because of the accuracy of artillery fire, it turned out to be a very weak machine. There is little to brag about, that’s why they don’t write.
        What is the point of a super-duper radar with HEADLIGHTS if it shakes all when firing from cannons.
  2. svp67
    svp67 28 November 2015 07: 25
    Yes. The issues raised in the article are more than relevant and will become more and more of them, since over the battlefield, more and more drone and other UAVs will appear, which are unknown to human fear, and it will be harder to mean and fight them ...
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 28 November 2015 07: 34
      Quote: svp67
      shock and other UAVs, which are unknown to human fear, and it will be harder to mean and fight them ...

      Well here you can argue. Fear forces a person to make non-trivial decisions, while his absence causes some indifference to a possible defeat.
      1. svp67
        svp67 28 November 2015 08: 37
        Quote: Mera Joota
        Fear forces a person to make non-trivial decisions, while his absence causes some indifference to a possible defeat.

        the question is of course controversial, but you must admit that one out of twenty pilots will go to the last line, and the UAV will be a piece of iron, which in the near future will not be controlled by the operator at all, but will only fulfill the program laid down in it ...
  3. Mera joota
    Mera joota 28 November 2015 07: 31
    If you get around the strange Apache Rengbow, then the author is right. Modern means of air attack escaped very far from the ground-based military air defense systems that we have.
    If we consider the confrontation between NATO and the Russian Federation, then they have clear advantages. It’s extremely frivolous to use air defense systems with radar detectors at the leading edge, which is why only optical detection means involve the use of SAM with infrared seeker.
    Well and most importantly, the UAV must be included in the SAM system, the only way to increase the detection range of low-flying airborne vehicles.
    1. Kasym
      Kasym 28 November 2015 20: 14
      I did not understand, why is the TOR not taken into account? Even the first models with a range of 12 km .. Each battery can work separately. The latest TOP models can already work (albeit at a low speed). This does not say that it is not necessary to work on improving the Tunguska and the Shell. But TOR is a near-range complex. And why not think that a Thor rocket is shoved into the Shell (of course I'm not special, but nonetheless; than two missiles for 2 complexes are better than one universal !?)?
      1. xan
        xan 28 November 2015 20: 48
        Quote: Kasym
        I did not understand, why is the TOR not taken into account?

        A helicopter can be detected much earlier than it can launch its missiles. And certainly the Thor missiles do not mind the helicopter, you can even print the S-300. In my amateurish opinion, a helicopter as a modern weapon can only be used against the Papuans. But drones are a serious factor, but while they are not shock and reconnaissance, they must be removed with electronic warfare systems and cheap MANPADS, they also need to hang over the PC.
        1. Gost171
          Gost171 29 November 2015 01: 59
          Sorry, but the helicopter and the "maize" are the worst for air defense, the locator is clogged with "local men". The only means is visual detection. In other words, the commander of the car turns his head 720 degrees. in sec. and when / if it detects, it simply shoots in that direction, without aiming. The pilot is also a man, he jerked a little and did not complete the task, and then, as the gods say.
        2. Gost171
          Gost171 29 November 2015 01: 59
          Sorry, but the helicopter and the "maize" are the worst for air defense, the locator is clogged with "local men". The only means is visual detection. In other words, the commander of the car turns his head 720 degrees. in sec. and when / if it detects, it simply shoots in that direction, without aiming. The pilot is also a man, he jerked a little and did not complete the task, and then, as the gods say.
          1. Locksmith
            Locksmith 29 November 2015 16: 19
            Quote: Guest171
            Sorry, but the helicopter and the "maize" are the worst for air defense, the locator is clogged

            Bullshit, there is SDS, for such purposes it easily copes.
  4. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 28 November 2015 07: 52
    Article on the case. No matter how much we rejoice in the successes of our defense industry, we should not forget about working on shortcomings and eliminating deficiencies. Only the recognition that everything is not in order with us can positively affect the improvement of what we have and give impetus to development. Attack systems are being improved - the development of defense systems should not sleep, regardless of the various laudatory odes to our weapons. War (hypothetically) resting on laurels does not forgive ...
    1. Homos
      Homos 28 November 2015 22: 56
      Alas, confession alone is indispensable. I would even say, without recognition, if only we would really deal with the issue, the more personnel and resources are available.
    2. Locksmith
      Locksmith 29 November 2015 16: 20
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Case Article

      Not the case, the author is off topic and his weak attempts to troll the knowledgeable ones look like you know what wink
  5. lotar
    lotar 28 November 2015 09: 02
    It’s impossible to eliminate all the problems in our defense industry complex in five years, especially since for twenty years this direction was started on its own. In the nineties, many of our achievements were stolen or bought for mere pennies by the same Europeans and Yankees. So they have a breakthrough in the military This happened, among other things, at the expense of our developments. We have to hell with bottlenecks, which today do not fill up with cash flows just like that, the same personnel problem did not appear today. Domestic machine and tool areas we have practically disappeared as an industry class with a few exceptions, the same applies to the element base. And these areas are key to replacing foreign technology. So the work ahead is long and extremely interesting, the main thing is that we have enough time to implement all the ideas.
  6. Jozhkin Cat
    Jozhkin Cat 28 November 2015 09: 11
    Does the modern microelectronic base have reliable protection against electromagnetic damage?
    1. Afotin
      Afotin 28 November 2015 10: 38
      Ours is unconditional. In the West, this is traditionally a problem. At one time, we relied on the security of on-board electronics from various adverse factors, and the NATO countries on the miniaturization of components at the expense of reliability.
      1. psiho117
        psiho117 28 November 2015 15: 18
        Quote: Afotin
        Ours is unconditional. In the West, this is traditionally a problem. At one time, we relied on the security of on-board electronics from various adverse factors, and the NATO countries on the miniaturization of components at the expense of reliability.

        You're talking shit. the fact that we used (and are using) outdated bulky tube electronics is not because we are cunning, and have foreseen everything, but because "Soviet microcircuits are the largest in the world, hurray!" - the lag is as it was and is. Thanks to the modern "market" economy - now this is being actively leveled out thanks to cooperation \ procurement of patents \ work of hackers. But here too, podlyanu did, sanctions, so that ...
        In general, you need to understand that not everything can be protected, there is a certain limit to protection. Tube electronics - it is, of course, stronger against EMR, but everything has its own limit - it is simply higher for it, and you can fully defend yourself only by sitting with a buried bunker, inside the Faraday cage.
        1. Afotin
          Afotin 28 November 2015 16: 08
          In Soviet times, the lag in serial microelectronics was primarily due to very long test cycle. In the Soviet Union, in general, years often passed between the prototype and the launch of large-scale production.
        2. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 28 November 2015 21: 25
          Quote: psiho117
          (and use) obsolete bulky tube electronics

          You confuse a little. Not a lamp, but built on a different architecture
          I’ve been working in the military-industrial complex and haven’t seen lamp devices since the 90s. Now they have begun to do this on Chinese microcircuits
  7. samara-58
    samara-58 28 November 2015 09: 48
    I liked everything, except for the pass to the "conscripts", Probably the author of the "urgent" did not serve? !! Where does such disbelief come from ??? Wake up - teach, will - master! request
    1. KBR109
      KBR109 28 November 2015 10: 08
      Yeah - he will master and safely retire in a year later. And what for goat button accordion? No.
      1. KBR109
        KBR109 28 November 2015 10: 50
        Wrong I wrote. Master - and in six months at best - home. tongue
  8. anakost
    anakost 28 November 2015 11: 34
    For the third time I come across on this site the phrase "increased power" in the description of the equipment - "equipped with a fragmentation-rod type warhead of increased power."
    There is no such category in the Russian language - "power". There is power.
    It seems to be an attempt to tell about a technique that was not bad at the time, but after such illiterate mistakes, there is no desire to read what the author produced later ...
    1. Jozhkin Cat
      Jozhkin Cat 28 November 2015 12: 14
      strange, ass is_ but no words belay laughing
      Power, according to Ozhegov, great power, power, influence, power.
      If we talk about ammunition, then power means brisance, explosiveness. power in ICE, and in shells - power hi
    2. psiho117
      psiho117 28 November 2015 15: 28
      Quote: anakost

      There is no such category in the Russian language - "power"

      Even as it is - and the term "power" in military affairs for many hundreds of years. And personally, I ran into him as a child, while reading "Foreign Military Review", and he did not cause any rejection, either then or now.
      A completely understandable term - yes, it is synonymous with power, but that does not mean that you need to throw it away and use only one term officially approved by you personally?
      In the end, the Russian language is famous precisely for the variety and colorfulness of images, so we will not be likened to other languages ​​(for example, one with only 22 letters).
    3. The comment was deleted.
  9. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 28 November 2015 12: 13
    the article touched upon current issues - thanks.
  10. alicante11
    alicante11 28 November 2015 14: 51
    Perhaps I don't understand something. But if Tunguska has both artillery and missile weapons, then what kind of "dead zone" can we talk about? The dead zone of the air defense missile system is shot through by an artillery installation.
    It is also not entirely clear why Tunguska cannot fight the terrible Apache r. That he can fire all-weather? But does the presence of radar guidance not allow Tunguska to also be all-weather? Or has a longer range for the use of anti-tank systems? Or too low visibility in the infrared?
    It would also be good for the author to compare the characteristics of NATO counterparts in our helicopters.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 28 November 2015 15: 53
      Quote: alicante11
      ... if Tunguska has both artillery and missile weapons, then what kind of "dead zone" can we talk about? The dead zone of the air defense missile system is shot through by an artillery installation.

      Yes, she doesn’t shoot. There is no projectile in the arsenal of HE with remote detonation. And you can hit shells with a contact fuse until you turn blue - it is impossible to create the desired density.
      Naval artillery guns have 10 times more ammunition and 2 times higher rate of fire. And at the same time they are effective at ranges of up to half a kilometer, and even that - the probability is an average of 0,6 - and this is the most modern, among the elderly - 0,3-0,4.
      You yourself will calculate what will be the effectiveness at a range of 2-2,5 km? I will explain - ZERO.
      It is also not entirely clear why Tunguska cannot fight the terrible Apache. That he can fire all-weather? But does the presence of radar guidance not allow Tunguska to also be all-weather? Or has a longer range for the use of anti-tank systems? Or too low visibility in the infrared?

      All of the above - the all-weather mode, the long range, the low IR contrast, and the over-the-body radar - all this makes him a very scary opponent. Objectively - Apache is now the world's best attack helicopter.
      In addition, do not forget about the modern tactics of using turntables - they do not fly during the day, they go hunting at night, fly in radio silence at an ultra-low altitude, then raise a radar station above a hill or a forest, aim, then jump, launch missiles at the "fire-forget" mode and dumps. The target has few chances ...
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 28 November 2015 19: 24
        There is a small difference - the AK-630 and other ZAKs are sharpened for firing on anti-ship missiles, and Tunguska, as stated in the article on Apache (which, moreover, is practically motionless) .And then, at the time of the creation of Tunguska, Apache was also not weatherproof. Rengbow (what would it mean?) Appeared much later.
        1. aksakal
          aksakal 28 November 2015 22: 04
          Quote: sivuch
          There is a small difference - the AK-630 and other ZAKs are sharpened for firing on anti-ship missiles, and Tunguska, as stated in the article on Apache (which, moreover, is practically motionless) .And then, at the time of the creation of Tunguska, Apache was also not weatherproof. Rengbow (what would it mean?) Appeared much later.
          - someone posted above - without a constantly patrolling UAV with detection equipment, it is impossible to create an air defense system that is successful against the Apache. Yes, and "fired and forgot missiles" will have to be created, and preferably a universal type. How Shipunov and Gryazev tried to do this on the basis of the Kornet, but did not have time ... Yes, and Kornet can hardly be attributed to missiles "fired and forgot", and the range of the Kornet is less than 10 km. But the idea for a universal rocket is worthy, you need to work, create it, worthy of a seeker with a bunch of modes ...
      2. Yon_Silent
        Yon_Silent 29 November 2015 00: 23
        Quote: psiho117
        Objectively - Apache is now the world's best attack helicopter.

        Indisputably. This car can mess up very much, after which it will safely go home. And the main problem in terms of dealing with this scourge is the need for visual contact, as the author of the article rightly pointed out. And the tactic of using this turntable is that if you (as a "victim") saw it, then, most likely, there is no longer to live longer than the flight time of the "hellfire" .. a little, in general.
        This is what it would be worth taking care of for customers from the Moscow Region - how, with a probability not lower than the given one, to determine the fact of the secret approximation of GPs? and ideally also get its exact coordinates .. If you could solve this problem, then the air defense of the leading edge of the automated system has every chance of becoming completely automatic.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  11. 31rus
    31rus 28 November 2015 16: 05
    Dear, the topic is serious and interesting, here the problem cannot be solved by "Pantsir" or "Tunguska", only a set of measures, ranging from detection, classification to destruction. I want to ask about "Pine-r", what is with this system, why calmed down?
  12. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 28 November 2015 17: 37
    Any weapon such as Strela-Igla-Verba can be mastered in three months, if you do not peel potatoes in the kitchen. So the author is categorically wrong. The son served in air defense exactly with these Needles. Nothing easier to learn - not seen. From a machine gun, he said, it was harder to learn. So the author here - he did it.
    1. Barakuda
      Barakuda 28 November 2015 18: 38
      For three days ! depending on which commander. If it is more complicated - "Wasp", "Buk", "Thor" in a week, depending on where they sit! Unless, of course, you just shoot ... and not go into how a stable heterodyne works ... and what a wave reflector is for, and how to maintain all this great crap.
      Provided that the fighter is normal.
  13. sivuch
    sivuch 28 November 2015 19: 31
    The article does not say anything about automation tools. The same arrow-10 was supposed to receive the control unit from the regimental PU-12 or control room-1. The same with shilka - one thing is Shilka without the primary control unit, the other with him
    It is unclear what kind of optical seeker the Tunguska had in mind. He himself wrote -p / com. Maybe there is an optical accompaniment?
  14. Radikal
    Radikal 28 November 2015 22: 47
    Quote: PSih2097
    Quote: SAXA.SHURA
    Why don't they write about "Shell C1", but write about old weapons?

    because the shell on the caterpillar chassis is more expensive than the tunguska, and people will have to be retrained ...

    "Carapace" is not a battlefield rig (read the title of this article carefully). Simply put, it does not refer to the air defense of the Ground Forces, but to the object air defense. To be more precise, it is intended, among other things, to cover the positions of more powerful and long-range air defense systems.
  15. Gost171
    Gost171 29 November 2015 02: 25
    They say that Shilka was adopted in 69. Tunguska appeared in the army 10 years later, Arrow-10 already had \ KDVO 79-81 \ good cars, but something needed to be farther away. And by the way, we caught a locator and put in the gates of SU-17 at a distance of 19 km. The question always tormented him, but did he see us from this distance?
  16. Xsanchez
    Xsanchez 29 November 2015 02: 27
    Of course, I’m not a specialist, but the idea was not bad: to increase survivability, you must first detect the target with a helicopter or a drone. Why not use a mini drone yourself so that the renbow does not suddenly jump out of an ambush. It's possible to raise a mini UAV higher and the chances are preempt increase.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 30 November 2015 13: 53
      Quote: Xsanchez
      ... to renbow didn’t suddenly jump out of an ambush
      people, stop repeating the wrong name over and over again - the author has a clear mistake, or the proofreaders have done something wrong - the Apache's supra-sleeve radar is called "Longbow" - "long bow" in translation.
  17. zav
    zav 29 November 2015 06: 12
    In the case of a hypothetical war with Turkey, which came out from under the NATO umbrella, but possessing American Apaches, the places where the Apaches are accumulated are burned out with tactical nuclear or other suitable weapons. And that’s all.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 29 November 2015 21: 43
      Turkey does not have Apaches, only Cobras and A-129
    2. The comment was deleted.
  18. Denis Skiff
    Denis Skiff 29 November 2015 14: 39
    And who would tell about this miracle.

    This is what she can do with ground targets 30 mm not a joke

  19. Denis Skiff
    Denis Skiff 29 November 2015 15: 02
    Here is another good car
    but this is generally a fairy tale, not a technique!

    And about DAD ALL BOMBS tell.
  20. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 29 November 2015 21: 48
    To effectively deal with helicopters, the TOP launch plan is better, less reaction time. A prospect in the automation of the firing process, a rotating screw is well detected by the radar. The question, unlike its own, is that of a quick launch at the time of exposure and then the rocket itself flies from above to the helicopter.
  21. egsp
    egsp 30 November 2015 00: 26
    Judging by the rearmament of the entire army, no one needs air defense troops. Very much in vain ...