Military Review

VIP target military air defense

18
In 2016, the Ground Forces will enter the TOR-M2 and BUK-M3 complexes.


In a series of New Year holidays, the date is very modestly marked, significant not only for the air defense of the Ground Forces, but also for the country as a whole. Meanwhile, one of the founders of modern Aerospace Forces had an anniversary - a hundred years from the date of its formation. What events remember the last century? Lieutenant-General Alexander Leonov, the commander of the air defense forces of the Ground Forces, answered this and other questions to the Military-Industrial Courier.

-History The creation of military air defense began with experimental shots conducted at 1881 – 1890 at fixed air targets (snakes, balloons, balloons) and publications in this regard in the “Artillery Journal” of articles on the theory and practice of combating similar targets. The methods of preparing and firing at the airship and the balloon used by the enemy for raising observers and spotters of artillery fire were set out in the 1911 “Rules of Field Artillery Firing”. At the same time, the basic requirements for a special anti-aircraft gun and proposals for its combat use were developed.

In June, 1914 - February 1915, engineer F. Lender, with the participation of Captain V. Tarnovsky, designed and manufactured the first four 3-inch (76,2-mm) anti-aerostatic guns of the 1914 model of the year (later called anti-aircraft) in the workshops of the Putilov plant.

October 5, 1914 by order (order) formed a car battery for firing at aerial the fleet. And in March 1915 - the first separate car battery for firing at the air fleet, which was sent to the army - to the Northern Front near Warsaw. On June 1, 17, she repelled a raid of nine German aircraft, knocking down two of them.

The management of the creation of a new kind of troops in the Red Army was entrusted to a single body - the Office of the Head of the formation of anti-aircraft batteries (UPRZAZENFOR), created in July of 1918. During the military reform of 1924 – 1925, new measures were taken to strengthen the air defense system. In ten years, the number of anti-aircraft guns in the rifle division increased from 12 to 18 units. All units and parts of anti-aircraft artillery were transferred to the subordination of the artillery commanders of the fronts (districts).

In the 30-ies, new models of armaments come with FOR, with which the military air defense system entered the Great Patriotic War:

-76,2-mm anti-aircraft gun model 1931 / 38's (designer - G. Tagunov);
-85-mm semi-automatic anti-aircraft gun model 1939, the (main designer - G. Dorokhin);
-37-mm automatic anti-aircraft gun model 1939, (designers - M. Loginov and L. Loktev);
-25-mm automatic anti-aircraft gun model 1940, (designers - M. Loginov and L. Lyulyev);
-12,7-mm large-caliber anti-aircraft machine gun model 1938, (designers - V. Degtyarev, G. Shpagin).

In addition, by the beginning of the war were created:

for border military districts - radio trap of aircraft with continuous radiation of energy РУС-1 (“Rehven”, 1939, development manager - D. Stogov);
for the service of VNOS and combined-arms formations - early warning radar with pulsed radiation of energy РУС-2 (Redut, 1940, development manager - Y. Kobzarev).


For the first time, the official division of antiaircraft artillery by purpose into military and positional (later Air Defense Forces of the country) was recorded in the “Manual on Combat Use of Antiaircraft Artillery”, published in 1939 year.

In the initial period of the Great Patriotic War, air defense was organized into anti-aircraft artillery batteries, separate anti-aircraft artillery divisions and army regiments of medium-caliber and small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery (SZA and MZA). The rifle divisions provided for one anti-aircraft artillery division (eight 37-mm AFP and four 76-mm RFP each), which made it possible to create 10 density of 1,2 guns and 3,3 anti-aircraft guns for one kilometer at the front of XNUMX kilometers wide.

During the war years, ground-based military air defense systems shot down 21645 airplanes, of which FOR medium-caliber - 4047, FOR small-caliber - 14657, anti-aircraft machine guns - 2401, rifle and machine-gun fire - 540.

The report of the General Directorate General of the Artillery Commander for submission to the 30 General Staff in May 1945 said: “The ground forces should have their own ground defense systems, which, independently of the Air Force and the Air Defense Forces, would be able to independently and permanently cover military force groups and military rear facilities”. It was emphasized: "Thus, the allocation of troops in the general air defense system in November 1941 of the air defense system is correct."

–In the post-war years, a breakthrough was made in the technical re-equipment of the troops. What does this experience mean?

–Then new automated anti-aircraft artillery systems of small, medium and large caliber were created, as well as multi-barreled anti-aircraft artillery and machine gun installations. In the 1948 – 1957, the C-60 anti-aircraft artillery complex consisting of 57-mm АЗП, СОН-9 (СОН-15), PUAZO-5 (PUZO-6) or РПК-1 “VAZ” was adopted; 57-mm twin anti-aircraft self-propelled installation C-68; 100-mm anti-aircraft guns KS-19 complex consisting of 100-mm anti-aircraft gun, СОН-4 with PUAZO-7; 14,5-mm and 23-mm anti-aircraft installations; reconnaissance and targeting radar stations MOST-2, П-8, П-10. In 1953, KUZA-1, the first domestic automated control system for anti-aircraft artillery, and its mobile military version KUZA-2 appeared.

When summing up the KSHU of the Belarusian Military District held in July 1957 by the USSR Minister of Defense Marshal of the Soviet Union Zhukov for the first time recognized the need to create a new kind of air defense force in the Northwest. By order of the USSR Minister of Defense No. 0069 of 16 of August 1958, the units, units and formations of military anti-aircraft artillery, providing its structures that were organizationally part of the Army, as well as a number of military schools and training centers were removed from the subordination of the commander of artillery and separated into a new independent type of army.

With the advent of reactive aviation In 1957-1959, the process of replacing medium and large caliber anti-aircraft artillery systems with anti-aircraft missile systems began. In the first period, these were S-75 air defense systems. However, being quite formidable weapons, they had an unacceptably low mobility by the standards of the air defense forces of the SV. In 1960 – 1975, the emergence of air-to-surface missiles, anti-radar and ballistic missiles required new approaches to the development of a weapon system. For its creation and formation, a decisive role was played by the decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers on 1967 of the year “On urgent measures for the development and production of air defense systems of the Ground Forces of the Soviet Army”.

VIP target military air defense


The “Krug” SAM system was the firstborn (1965, the general designer of the complex - academician V. Efremov, the general designer of the rocket - L. Lyulev). On the tracked high-range chassis, all combat vehicles were deployed: radar detection and targeting radar, target tracking and missile guidance radar, launchers with two missiles on each. The complex could be deployed in unprepared positions in five minutes. The distant border of the affected area was 50, and the altitude was from 3 to 24,5 kilometers.

To combat aviation at low and medium altitudes, the Kub air defense missile system was created (1967, General Designer - Y. Figurovsky, missiles - A. Lyapin, semi-active radar homing head - I. Akopyan). The complex had two main combat units: a self-propelled reconnaissance and guidance unit and a launcher with three homing solid-propellant anti-aircraft missiles on each. The combination of radar detection, guidance and illumination on one chassis was carried out for the first time in world practice. On the basis of the short-range air defense system "Cub" (17, later - 23-25 ​​km), anti-aircraft missile regiments began to form in 1967 tank divisions.

And to protect the motorized rifle, the Osa short-range air defense missile system (1971, the general designer of the complex, V. Yefremov, missiles, P. Grushin) was created, in which all the combat elements were placed on the basis of a floating high-speed self-propelled wheel. This made it possible to protect the covered troops while they were directly in their combat formations and to fight off air attack weapons at ranges up to 10 kilometers and altitudes from 10 – 15 meters to 6 kilometers.

For the divisional link of the air defense forces of the SV, anti-aircraft self-propelled ZSU-23-4 “Shilka” (chief designer - N. Astrov, radar and SRP - V. Pikkel) and light air defense missile systems with passive means of detecting and hitting the target “Strela-1” were developed. ", Later the whole family of the type" Strela-10 "(general designer - A. Nudelman). And for direct cover - a portable anti-aircraft system (MANPADS) Strela-2M (1970, general designer - S. Invincible).

During the October 1973 of the Arab-Israeli war, the Kvadrat air defense missile system (export name - Kub air defense missile system) destroyed 68 percent of the IDF aviation, mainly Fantom and Mirage aircraft, with an average consumption of 1,2 – 1,6 missiles per target .

–What did military air defense needed over time long-range weapons?

–In 1975 – 1985 with the advent of new types of EAS (cruise, tactical and operational-tactical ballistic, aircraft ballistic missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles of the first generation, upgraded UR type “Maverick”, “Hellfire”, PI “Harm” extended range and accuracy a) the modernization potential of the weapons and military equipment of the air defense forces has exhausted itself.

By the 1983 – 1985 years, the new and third generation air defense systems were put into service and began to enter the troops, including medium- and long-range air defense systems. As well as short-range air defense systems, short-range air defense missile systems, close-cover anti-aircraft missile systems.

Long-range missiles C-300В (1988, general designer of the system - V. Efremov, anti-aircraft guided missiles - L. Lyulev) were initially developed as a means of anti-missile defense in theaters. But it was additionally entrusted with the functions of dealing with particularly important aerodynamic VIP targets — air command posts, AWACS airplanes such as Avaks, target designators of reconnaissance and attack systems, jammers at extreme ranges, manned by tactical aircraft and cruise missiles.

The Buk medium-range air defense system (1979, general designer - A. Rastov, later - E. Pigin, rockets - L. Lyulyev, semi-active radar homing head - I. Akopyan) was introduced a fundamentally new, unparalleled in the world combat means - self-propelled fire installation. It housed a tracking radar and a target illumination station, computing facilities, telecode communication systems, launch automation, and four solid-propellant missiles, which made it possible, according to target designation data, to control a system or autonomously deal with a wide range of aerial targets. Currently in service is a more modern version - "Buk-М2".

The short-range “Tor” air defense system (1986, general designer - V. Efremov, missiles - P. Grushin) was developed as the main means of fighting the WTO, for which purpose radar was used for its reconnaissance with a directional insensitive approach to the angles of the approach approach, and tracking radar with low-element phased antenna array. The “Thor” air defense system still has no analogues in the world and in fact remains the only means of ensuring the fight against the WTO over the battlefield.

The Tungusk short-range missile defense missile system (1982, general designer — A. Shipunov, chief designers of a cannon-gun and missiles — V. Gryazev, V. Kuznetsov) was developed to combat tactical and army aircraft directly above the front edge, as well as to attack helicopters with fire support type "Apache". The complex also has no analogues except for the domestic ZRPK of the new generation “Pantsir-C1”, created on the basis of the technical solutions of “Tunguska”.

MANPADS "Igla-1", "Needle" (1981, general designer - S. Invincible) was created to directly cover the troops and objects from the attacking means of air attack. To ensure effective destruction in it, for the first time in world practice, a scheme was used to shift the missile guidance point to the most dangerous area of ​​the aircraft’s center section, undermining, together with the warhead, the remnants of mixed fuel of the cruise missile engine, the submerged undermining of the total combat equipment.

- It turns out that almost all military air defense weapons have no analogues. And what distinguishes modern and future IWT systems?

–At present, the air defense units of the military districts are armed with long-range ground-to-air missiles C-300В, ensuring the defeat of aerodynamic air targets at a distance of up to 100 kilometers. She was replaced with the 2014 of the year began to come the system C-300В4, able to deal with all types of existing EAS at increased ranges. The possibility of hitting air targets, reliability and noise immunity are improved by 1,5 – 2,5 times. The areas covered by ballistic missiles are increased by the same amount, and the time to prepare for launch is reduced.

Modern modification of the complex, Buk-М2, continues to be delivered to the troops. By increasing the previous number of combat vehicles fourfold (from 6 to 24), the number of air targets simultaneously fired at the same time increased, the possibility of hitting tactical missiles with a launch range of up to 150 – 200 kilometers was provided. The peculiarity is the placement of means of reconnaissance, guidance and launch of missiles at the SOU. This gives the maximum secrecy of combat use and survivability in the composition of the battalion, the minimum deployment time (coagulation), as well as the ability to perform a single combat mission self-contained combat mission.

In 2016, the ground forces are planning to deliver the first brigade set of medium-range air defense missile systems Buk-M3.

From 2011-th comes a new modification of the complex "Thor" - "Tor-M2U". It allows reconnaissance in movement across any terrain and simultaneous shelling of four air targets, ensuring all-round defeat. The processes of combat work are fully automated. From 2016, the “Tor-М2” complex will also begin to arrive in the army, which, compared to previous modifications, has improved characteristics in 1,5 – 2.

As you correctly noted, the Russian Federation is one of the few countries that have the opportunity to independently develop and produce MANPADS. Maximum secrecy, low response time, high accuracy, ease of training and use create a serious problem for the air enemy. From 2014, the modern Verba anti-aircraft missile systems, which are highly efficient in conditions of powerful, organized optical interference, began to come in to equip air defense units of the Ground Forces and Airborne Forces.

The C-300В4, Buk-М3 and Tor-М2 air defense missiles are included in the list of priority weapons and military equipment that determine the appearance of promising systems. In general, during the 2011 – 2015 years, two newly formed anti-aircraft missile brigades and air defense units of eight combined-arms formations were equipped with modern armament in the air defense forces of the Ground Forces. Staffing them - more than 35 percent.

- Alexander Petrovich, what are the prospects for the development of air defense forces of the SV?

–Name the main directions:

the improvement of the organizational and staff structures of the military administration bodies, formations, military units and subunits in order to maximize the combat capabilities of the incoming and developed anti-aircraft missiles;
the development of a new generation of weapons and military equipment capable of effectively fighting all types of EAS, including those created on the basis of hypersonic technologies;
improving the system of training highly qualified personnel, including junior specialists, trained in specialized training centers of the air defense forces of the Armed Forces.


As for priorities, this is the improvement of the development management system and the training of troops, the formation of a unified military-technical policy, the completion of the ongoing development work in the planned timeframes, the creation of a design and production reserve. Let me remind you of the words of Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov, which have not lost their relevance even now: “Reliable air defense, capable of repelling enemy strikes, especially in the initial period of the war, creates favorable conditions for the entry of the Armed Forces into the war. A grave grief awaits a country that will not be able to repel an air strike. ”
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/29212
18 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. cap
    cap 22 February 2016 07: 14
    12
    "Let me remind you the words of Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov, which have not lost their relevance now:" Reliable air defense, capable of repelling enemy strikes, especially in the initial period of the war, creates favorable conditions for the entry into the war of the Armed Forces. Serious grief awaits the country that will be unable to reflect from the air. "
    Author Alexander Leonov, Oleg Falichev

    Thank you to the authors. The information is useful, you can not argue with G.K. Zhukov. +
    1. Nevsky_ZU
      Nevsky_ZU 22 February 2016 11: 18
      +3
      Does it make sense to supply the Buk-M2 to the troops when the Buk-M3 and even the S-350 Vityaz are ready for serial delivery !? I think you can safely jump over a generation right away, because the Buk-M2 was thought to replace the Buk-M1 in the late 90s and throughout the early XNUMXs. Taking into account the development trend of air attack weapons, we supply the troops almost "semi-yesterday" air defense weapon. As for me, the Buk-M2 should be boldly promoted for export, and the proceeds should be used to massively purchase the Buk-M3 or its almost analogue of the S-350 Vityaz medium-range air defense system. hi
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 22 February 2016 11: 56
        +2
        Quote: Nevsky_ZU
        Does it make sense to supply the Buk-M2 to the troops when the Buk-M3 and even the S-350 Vityaz are ready for serial delivery !? I think you can safely jump over a generation right away, because the Buk-M2 was thought to replace the Buk-M1 in the late 90s and throughout the early 2s. Taking into account the tendency in the development of air attack weapons, we are supplying the troops with almost "yesterday's" air defense weapons. As for me, the Buk-M3 should be boldly promoted for export, and the proceeds should be used to massively purchase the Buk-M350 or its almost analogue of the S-XNUMX Vityaz medium-range air defense system.

        Who knows what range missiles C-400 uses to modify 16 missiles on a single launcher?
        1. Vita vko
          Vita vko 22 February 2016 16: 26
          +3
          Covering troops on the march and in deployment areas is certainly an important task. The greatest relevance in the means of air defense was in the 44th year, when the troops went ahead of the main air defense forces covering the industrial facilities of the USSR. Since then, the main standard for air defense was the march and deployment. At the same time, the experience of modern military operations is not taken into account, namely, actions in the unified information field of the country's aerospace forces.
          But it’s enough to analyze the results of the work of the fraudulent air defense group during the Arab-Israeli conflict, when Egypt not only did not repel Israeli air strikes, but also destroyed 70% of its own aircraft by its own means. A similar situation arose during the 08.08 war, where Russian aviation suffered most from its own air defense systems, which, in a short-lived battle, simply did not have time to figure out where their plane was or where the enemy was. Therefore, words about the prospects for development
          improvement of organizational and staff structures .....
          development of a new generation of weapons and military equipment ....
          improving the system of training highly qualified personnel

          sound like a mockery of common sense.
          Now there is a successful operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria. We can conclude that it is impossible to carry out such an operation without the presence of clear algorithms for the ACS of the aerospace forces controlling the coordinated work of aviation, ground-based air defense and electronic warfare systems in a single reconnaissance and information field.
        2. Falcon
          Falcon 24 February 2016 14: 54
          0
          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          Who knows what range missiles C-400 uses to modify 16 missiles on a single launcher?


          Such an installation was only at the exhibition, but was not mass-produced.
          But in theory there should be 9m96 rockets from the redoubt / hero, i.e. 120km range or 40km range
      2. Anton56
        Anton56 22 February 2016 19: 44
        +1
        Even the "second" in service is not enough. Just look for which specific air defense brigades are armed with them.
        If you find at least one, except for the Bashkir, I will read it with interest. I did not find other information on this subject in open sources.

        On the other hand, I agree with you - since there is an opportunity to build a qualitatively new weapon - it is necessary to produce it, and not what was on the element base of the 90s.

        Scharnhorst, each JMA does slightly worse and without SOTS (if you take in the division and do not take into account various more complex modes of work for the goals)
      3. Falcon
        Falcon 24 February 2016 14: 51
        +1
        Quote: Nevsky_ZU
        Does it make sense to supply the Buk-M2 to the troops when the Buk-M3 and even the S-350 Vityaz are ready for serial delivery !?


        Not Vityaz not Buk-m3 are not ready and do not arrive in series. They didn’t even pass until the ICG
  2. Leprekon
    Leprekon 22 February 2016 07: 28
    +4
    The S-300V4, Buk-M3, and Tor-M2 air defense systems were included in the Presidential Decree into the list of priority air defense systems that determine the appearance of promising systems.
    If there is such a list, then it makes no sense to be zealous in the fact that they suddenly forgot something without “us,” in the field of rearmament in connection with the crisis of “free funds”.
  3. Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 22 February 2016 11: 51
    +1
    Thor M2 is a military version of the Shell NXX (Shell NXX refers to the air defense forces)? Or does it occupy a separate niche?
    1. Falcon
      Falcon 24 February 2016 15: 04
      0
      Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
      Thor M2 is a military version of the Shell NXX (Shell NXX refers to the air defense forces)? Or does it occupy a separate niche?


      Separate. Type competitors. Only the torus has more channel and a more maneuverable rocket. Plus, many argue that the characteristics of the Shell are very high (for advertising purposes) and it is far from ideal.
  4. egsp
    egsp 22 February 2016 13: 17
    +3
    Tor M2 is Tor M2. This is not an option or an analogue of Shell. The carapace is a "pukalka" compared to Thor, a publicized garbage for export contracts.
    I wanted to ask, can anyone know what these 2 brigades are newly formed and where? It seems to me that one of them is a new brigade in the Southern Military District with the S-300V4 air defense system, and the second?
    1. Drёma
      Drёma 22 February 2016 16: 16
      +3
      Can you tell me why exactly "Pukalki" and not the Torahs cover up such global and expensive systems as the S-400?
      1. vova1973
        vova1973 23 February 2016 13: 17
        +2
        fart armor compared to torus
    2. Nord2015
      Nord2015 22 February 2016 21: 03
      0
      Quote: egsp
      Tor M2 is Tor M2. This is not an option or an analogue of Shell. The carapace is a "pukalka" compared to Thor, a publicized garbage for export contracts.

      Justify, please, this is your opinion. The exaltation of the TOR over the Shell is, in my opinion, unfair competition of the manufacturer. What is the channel of the TOP and in which sector?
  5. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 22 February 2016 14: 47
    +1
    Buki has only one drawback: the only TsU locator per division. In the pursuit of fire performance and the likelihood of defeat, we forget about the early radar warning. Exploration of airspace is clearly underestimated, and we will repeat the 41th when the fighters destroyed on the ground (in the modern analogy - OFF SAM).
    1. PVOSV
      PVOSV 23 February 2016 00: 08
      +2
      "Buk" M1 in the division besides Sotska 9S18M1 there are 6 more 9A310M1 missiles, they are able to conduct reconnaissance using their own 9S35 radar. The division can also receive radar images from other sources.
  6. mayhem
    mayhem 22 February 2016 15: 21
    +2
    glory of air defense)))
  7. Chtononibrator
    Chtononibrator 22 February 2016 15: 58
    +5
    I read the memories of the creators of the zrk circle. They write that if only they knew how difficult it would be, they would not have taken up development. But youth and enthusiasm all frayed. Oh, there were people innovators ...
  8. Gost171
    Gost171 23 February 2016 02: 42
    +1
    Hello everyone, happy holiday, air defense, everything underground, and you are on top
    1. kotvov
      kotvov 23 February 2016 20: 40
      0
      Hello everyone, happy holiday, air defense, everything is underground, and you are on top,
      Well, it's like watching, I served in air defense, but underground, and quite deeply.