Military Review

The project of the missile complex "Hermes-K"

44
Current trends in the appearance of armed conflicts place special demands on advanced weapons. In particular, the naval forces now need not only anti-ship missiles, but also other strike weapons. For example, there is a need to create promising tactical-level missile systems, originally designed to engage coastal targets. At the end of the last decade, the Russian defense industry presented a potential solution to this issue: the Hermes-K multipurpose ship-based missile system.


One of the main prerequisites for the emergence of a new project was the growing importance of operations fleet to support ground units. The fleet needs high-precision weapons with a range of at least several tens of kilometers, with which you can destroy fortifications, armored vehicles, manpower and various enemy targets located on the coast. Modern and promising anti-ship missiles, originally designed to destroy surface targets, have limited ability to attack coastal. Thus, there is a need to develop a new missile system to solve the tasks.

The Hermes-K multipurpose missile system project dates back to earlier developments. Back in the mid-nineties, the Tula Instrument Engineering Design Bureau (KBP) began work on a promising anti-tank missile for helicopters, designated as Hermes-A. At the beginning of the two thousandth, this system was tested as part of the Ka-52 helicopter armament complex. It was argued that the new complex and its rocket are ready for mass production. Later it became known that similar systems were developed for the ground forces (Hermes-S) and for the fleet (Hermes-K) on the basis of the Hermes-A aviation complex.

The project of the missile complex "Hermes-K"
Boat with missile launcher "Hermes-K"


When creating a ship missile system, it was proposed to significantly improve the characteristics of the base missile. Due to various innovations, it was planned to bring the maximum firing range from the original 15-20 to 100 km. Such a refinement would significantly increase the impact potential of the complex, as well as greatly simplify the effectiveness of its application due to the possibility of starting from relatively safe distances. At the same time, a missile was developed, which in terms of range did not differ from the base aviation.

In accordance with the project, the Hermes-K multipurpose missile system includes several main components. In this case, the specific composition of the equipment should be determined in accordance with the class and type of carrier ship. So, for relatively light boats, a simplified set of equipment is offered with its own means of detection and control, and large surface ships can receive separate launchers and must use the available radio-electronic equipment.

According to reports, the lightest version of the Hermes-K complex is intended for installation on boats with a displacement of no more than 200-300 t. The complex includes a fire control system, an optical-electronic module for detection and laser illumination of targets at short distances, and also launcher of one of several types. Installations based on the AK-630 artillery system are proposed for mounting transport-launch containers and launching missiles, and the missiles can either replace or supplement an existing machine gun. The possibility of attaching a Hermes-K missile defense complex on launch systems of volley fire was also considered.

The ships under construction and modernized with a displacement of up to several thousand tons may receive new launchers for the Hermes-K complex. In addition, it is planned to refine the existing anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems developed by the PCU. Search and detection of targets, target designation and other operations should be performed using the ship’s standard equipment and using the missile system’s fire control system. When installing the Hermes-K missiles on the existing SCRA, their integration into the existing control systems is possible.

The most complete set of equipment designed for use with new missiles is proposed for installation on large ships with a displacement of at least 8-10 thousand tons. In this configuration, the Hermes-K complex can be equipped with its own launchers. The search for targets and target designation are assigned to the electronic equipment of the ship, and the direct control of the shooting is carried out by the standard means of the complex.

Regardless of the class and type of carrier and configuration of the missile system, the main element of the latter is the Hermes-K guided missile, built on the basis of previous developments of the family. It is a two-stage product with solid fuel engines and its own control systems. According to the available data, a special high-explosive fragmentation warhead was developed specifically for the Hermes family of missiles, which makes it possible to effectively hit various targets, including fortifications and armored vehicles.


Rocket complexes "Hermes"


The rocket of a new type is built on a two-stage bicalyber scheme. Marching stage is a unit of cylindrical shape with a conical head fairing and a tapered tail. Steering wheels and stabilizers are located on the head and tail parts of the step. Accelerating, also having a cylindrical shape with a streamlined head, is docked with the marching stage. In its tail provides X-shaped plumage. The exit from the TPC and the initial acceleration of the rocket must be carried out with the help of the starting stage, after which it is reset and further flight is carried out using the engine of the marching stage.

The transport and launch container with the Hermes-K missile has a length of 3,5 m. The length of the marching stage is 1,5 m, the starting stage is slightly shorter than the 2 m. The starting level has a diameter of 170 mm, the marching one - 130 mm. After leaving the TPK, the rocket must open several sets of planes in a span of up to 240 mm. The mass of the rocket with the container depends on the modification. So, a rocket with a range of 20 km in TPK weighs 110 kg, a product with a range of 100 km is heavier on 20 kg.

All modifications are equipped with a high-explosive fragmentation warhead weighing 28 kg. For the new warhead developed the original fuse that can take into account the type of target. Depending on the type of the target, the required type of detonation is determined. It is possible that the charge is triggered both by contact with the target and with some delay, which can also change.

To improve the combat effectiveness of the missiles of the Hermes family, control systems have been proposed, including several types of homing heads. Thus, the specific method of targeting a missile at a target depends on a number of different factors. At the initial part of the flight, the control of the rocket should be carried out by the automatic carrier with the help of a radio command system. If it is impossible to use such equipment, the rocket must reach the target area using an inertial navigation system with correction using signals from GLONASS satellites.

At the final segment, the control should be carried out by a homing head of one of several types. The creation of thermal, radar or combined (thermal and semi-active laser) seeker is known. The existence of several homing heads, as it is supposed, will allow to choose the most suitable for the execution of an existing task.

An important feature of the Hermes-K missiles is the ability to perform a vertical maneuver directly in front of the target. Thanks to this rocket gets the opportunity to attack the target from above, almost vertically. Thus, the rocket is able to pass through the dead zone of the target's air defense systems. In addition, due to the small QUO (about 0,01 square meters), the probability of detecting and successfully destroying a missile on approach is reduced.

The solid propellant engines of the starting and sustaining stages provide acceleration of the rocket up to a maximum speed at the level of 1000-1300 m / s. The exact speed parameters depend on the distance to the target and the flight program. Thus, when shooting at a maximum range of 100 km, it is proposed to accelerate to 1300 m / s.


Ways to use missiles


Interestingly, the range to 100 km was achieved not only by new power plants, but using the original method of using the rocket. For firing at a long range, a rocket, using an enhanced launch stage, must fly along a ballistic trajectory. At the same time, it rises to a relatively high altitude and enters rarefied layers of the atmosphere. The specific trajectory, high thrust-to-weight ratio and other features of the product made it possible to increase the flight range several times in comparison with the base aircraft rocket.

The proposed appearance of the promising Hermes-K missile system allows attacks of various surface and ground targets, both stationary and mobile. Similar weapons can be equipped with boats and ships of various types, and the composition of the complex should be determined in accordance with the capabilities and characteristics of the carrier. As planned by the authors of the project, such features of the missile complex should have interested potential customers and give the project a great future.

Unfortunately, at the moment it is only known about the testing of the Hermes-A complex, designed for attack helicopters. At the beginning of the two thousand years, this system, installed on the Ka-52 helicopter, was tested and could be put into service. However, the decision on the adoption of this complex into service has not yet been made. The prospects for the complex remain uncertain.

The aviation variant of the complex was tested, while the other two of its versions, intended for the ground forces and the fleet, as far as is known, still remain in the form of design documentation. Due to the lack of interest on the part of potential customers, the Hermes-S self-propelled complex and the Hermes-K shipyard have not yet reached the stage of assembling and testing prototypes. Thus, the real prospects of this system still remain the subject of controversy.

The Hermes-K multipurpose ship-based missile system is one of the most interesting and promising Russian developments of recent times. Nevertheless, he still has not received due attention from potential customers, which is why he remains at the design stage and has no real prospects. In this case, the basic version of the missile system, proposed for aviation, has successfully passed all the necessary tests and can be adopted. What the future of several interesting missile complexes will be - time will tell. The adoption of the Hermes family of systems can significantly increase the strike power of different types of armed forces.


On the materials of the sites:
http://kbptula.ru/
http://otvaga2004.ru/
http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-49.html
Author:
Photos used:
Otvaga2004.ru. Wikimedia commons
44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. HERMES
    HERMES April 21 2016 06: 35
    -1
    Oh ... they named me repeat drinks

    "Hermes-K is one of the most interesting and promising domestic developments of recent times. However, until now it has not received due attention from potential customers, which is why it remains at the stage of design work and has no real prospects. . "

    Well, as usual ... how many more wonderful ideas will we ditch? All the same, it’s time for us to adopt the system of interaction between the State and the Design Bureau and companies, as is done in the PRC (PMC).
    Example: Norinco, CSSC, CSIC, CASIC, AVIC
    1. Bramb
      Bramb April 21 2016 07: 03
      +2
      And what is it better than existing?
      Great idea, but one of many great. Who is better?
      The missile overview is incomplete. Maybe there control is done on windows? Or the price is too high. Or are components 90% American? And that’s it.
      1. AUL
        AUL April 21 2016 09: 52
        +7
        In addition, due to the small KVO (of the order of 0,01 sq. M), the probability of detection and successful destruction of a missile on approach decreases.

        Maybe not KVO, but EPR?
      2. alexmach
        alexmach April 22 2016 09: 04
        +1
        In general, it is a rocket based on old ideas used in Tunguska and Shell. There, one of their advantages is the cheapness of the rocket, well ... as for air defense. The second advantage is the small size at a long range. That's just all the same, it is proposed to be put on ships with a displacement of up to 2 thousand tons. on such can be placed and X-35.
        1. adept666
          adept666 April 22 2016 12: 51
          0
          offer ships with a displacement of up to 2 thousand tons. on such can be placed and X-35.
          Different types of targets: small-sized high-speed vessels and firing fat and problematic with such anti-ship missiles such as Uranus, Mosquito, Onyx, etc. therefore, in the Navy, Osami (i.e., SAM) is most often shot at such targets, which, as you know, is also not entirely correct.
          1. alexmach
            alexmach April 22 2016 18: 48
            +1
            to boldly and problematically bring down such anti-ship missiles as Uranus, Mosquito, Onyx, etc.


            Nice row. Uranus is just for those for whom Onyx is sorry.

            the Navy most often shoot Osami (


            There, as far as I understand, such a moment as the minimum range at which they are capable of hitting a target. In a rocket that the booster block displays in the stratosphere, the minimum range of target destruction will also be significant.
            1. adept666
              adept666 April 22 2016 19: 35
              0
              Nice row. Uranus is just for those for whom Onyx is sorry.
              Well, how to say yes and no smile Uranium is still larger for mining from RTOs to Frigate (conditionally of course). But high-speed missile boats, which by the way can carry quite heavy weapons (like the same Uranus or torpedoes), on the one hand, are too cheap a target (but nevertheless dangerous), and on the other hand, for an anti-ship missile like Uranus, it is difficult to capture (large speed / low EPR, etc.).
              There, as far as I understand, such a moment as the minimum range at which they are capable of hitting a target.
              The minimum shooting with Uranus is 6-8 miles (plus the limitation in pitching and in direction), and since the boats are small and fast, it’s easy for them to enter this zone and this is the problem, they’ll be unable to use their head gauge, artillery rapid-fire is effective at a distance of up to 2 km (i.e., it doesn’t reach), the main caliber artillery does not have sufficient accuracy (it’s not so easy to hit a moving target), it remains a missile launcher, well, either a Hermes type weapon or one of the Hellfair modifications.
              1. alexmach
                alexmach April 22 2016 21: 05
                +1
                Absolutely true the minimum shooting of Uranus is 6-8 miles (plus another limitation in pitching and in direction)


                Well, what makes you think that hermes will have a different way? the dead zone of the shell rocket is 2 km, but it flies as much as possible up to 20 km. What will be the dead zone of a rocket with a range of 100 km?

                on the other hand, for a Uranus-type RCC complex in terms of capture (high speed / low EPR, etc.)


                Hermes, which is smaller and lighter and should be cheaper, should be easier?
                1. adept666
                  adept666 April 22 2016 21: 22
                  0
                  Well, what makes you think that hermes will have a different way? carapace rocket dead zone - 2 km
                  That's just the section closes from 2 to 8 km. From 0 to 2 km there are multi-barrel automatic machines, from 2 to 8 km (up to 40 km) Hermes type ATGMs (now Osa launchers and analogues), from 8-12km and further Uran type missiles, etc.
                  What will be the dead zone of a rocket with a range of 100 km?
                  In general, while there is no such missile (range 100), now it has a modest range of about three times more. Well, and the dead zone, depending on the launcher, will be in the region of 2-2,5 km approximately if the possibility of attack with the first stage is realized, of course.
                  1. alexmach
                    alexmach April 22 2016 22: 45
                    +1
                    That's just the section closes from 2 to 8 km


                    From 2 to 8 km artillery closes. Well, if she is, of course. It's not about a boat.

                    if the possibility of attack with the first stage is realized of course.


                    Here ... The key word here is if. Actually, at the shell and the tunguska, this first stage is an accelerating unit that has nothing at all except an engine and fuel; its work can give acceleration towards the target, only the second, combat stage can maneuver while aiming at the target. hence the legs grow at the dead zone of defeat. IMHO and hephaestus will have the same thing, otherwise the guidance system will become too complex and the bicaliber missile layout itself will lose its meaning. Actually, therefore, there will be no opportunity to attack with the first stage, well, unless it accidentally gets ...

                    Although of course the idea of ​​a rocket is interesting. It would be good to analyze in more detail the possible guidance systems and, in principle, the potential of this missile.
                    1. adept666
                      adept666 April 23 2016 16: 18
                      0
                      From 2 to 8 km artillery closes. Well, if she is, of course.
                      Well, I don’t know, I don’t know ... on a moving target, especially a fast one, at a distance of 3-8 km, as a rule, they already shoot with SAMs because getting there is another task. I am not saying that this is impossible in principle, but very problematic.
                      It's not about a boat.
                      What about? For other classes of goals ATGM Hermes will be small IMHO.
                      Actually, at the shell and the tunguska, this first stage is an accelerating unit that has nothing at all except an engine and fuel; its work can give acceleration towards the target, only the second, combat stage can maneuver while aiming at the target.
                      Hermes is not a missile launcher, but an ATGM, therefore, different operating modes should be provided there initially (for example, depending on the range of the target, earlier shooting of the first stage in order for the rocket to maneuver, etc.)
                      Although of course the idea of ​​a rocket is interesting. It would be good to analyze in more detail the possible guidance systems and, in principle, the potential of this missile.
                      Yes, it’s possible to guess for a long time what and how, for so far there is little insider information from KBP. hi
                      1. alexmach
                        alexmach April 23 2016 18: 50
                        +1
                        For other classes of goals ATGM Hermes will be small IMHO.


                        I'm talking about the carrier and not about the goal. for example, an automatic fast-firing gun, which is not a solution for the near zone + correction for radar and optical channel.

                        Hermes is not a missile launcher, but an anti-tank missile therefore should initially be there ..


                        I don’t see the logical connection why there should initially be for ATGMs. ATGMs also have a dead zone.

                        different operating modes are provided (for example, depending on the range of the target, earlier shooting of the first stage so that the rocket could maneuver, etc.)


                        Honestly, I don’t know how realistic this is. To shoot earlier, then burn out earlier? or to shoot off a partially completed unit? And where to shoot it and with what charge? + In addition, in this mode, the rocket should maneuver at a lower speed. It sounds complicated to me.
                      2. adept666
                        adept666 April 25 2016 09: 34
                        0
                        I'm talking about the carrier and not about the goal. for example, an automatic fast-firing gun, which is not a solution for the near zone + correction for radar and optical channel.
                        I already wrote, there is a lack of accuracy and speed at distances of more than 2 km. (the projectile and the wide spread fly too long). As a rule, automatic artillery covers the last frontier of the air defense zone; it is too oily for several minutes to process the target with shells until it is completely destroyed at a long distance.
                        I don’t see the logical connection why there should initially be for ATGMs. ATGMs also have a dead zone.
                        The connection here is simple: the requirements of the Ministry of Defense for this type of weapon. smile The minimum firing range should not exceed 400-500m. Otherwise, it is useless for attack aircraft and anti-tank systems (the target may enter the dead zone too quickly).
                        Honestly, I don’t know how realistic this is. To shoot earlier, then burn out earlier? or to shoot off a partially completed unit? And where to shoot it and with what charge? + In addition, in this mode, the rocket should maneuver at a lower speed. It sounds complicated to me.
                        It is difficult, but quite feasible. It’s unlikely to burn out earlier, but earlier it’s completely difficult to shoot at what is the difficulty? The first stage is shot back by the earlier inclusion of the mid-flight engine as an option.
                      3. alexmach
                        alexmach April 25 2016 10: 33
                        +1
                        Automatic artillery usually covers the last frontier of the air defense zone,


                        We kind of talked about ships.

                        but before shooting quite yourself what is the difficulty? The first stage is shot back by the earlier inclusion of the mid-flight engine as an option.


                        Well, in the case of a rocket shell-tunguzka is not an option since there is no marching stage engine there.

                        There is probably something in Hermes 100 km long, although it’s also possible to plan 100 kilometers from a great height and at an initial speed of a couple of swoops.

                        Even if there is this engine there, then in terms of power it is inferior to the engine of the accelerating stage, which, mind you, still works .. As for me, the "cotton rose" does not look convincing.
  • Wiruz
    Wiruz April 21 2016 07: 15
    0
    That's what it was necessary to put on small artillery pr.21630 instead of Grad. In general, a very interesting complex! It’s a pity that the diameter of the missiles does not allow the launch of a conventional artillery mount from the barrel.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I April 21 2016 08: 34
      +1
      Quote: Wiruz
      It’s a pity that the diameter of the missiles does not allow launching a conventional artillery mount from the barrel.

      What? From the cannon "Hermes? (Sorry you can't ...) What about the fig? Behold the" folk wisdom "(!):" If grandma had a penis .... she would be a grandfather "!
      1. Wiruz
        Wiruz April 21 2016 15: 57
        0
        Well, tanks do not interfere with ATGMs from a cannon. True, not Hermes there, but still
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I April 22 2016 02: 04
          +1
          Exactly! ... Not "Hermes"!
  • DM51
    DM51 April 21 2016 07: 56
    +1
    Quote: Wiruz
    That's what it was necessary to put on small artillery pr.21630 instead of Grad. In general, a very interesting complex! It’s a pity that the diameter of the missiles does not allow the launch of a conventional artillery mount from the barrel.

    If desired, everything can be adapted, if not to Grad, then to Tornado, and even better to Hurricane-1M or just to Hurricane, since Grad has a small caliber for such a missile, and Smerch has a large caliber, but it looks like the military has no desire that's sad
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I April 21 2016 09: 03
      +1
      In order for Hermes to be of serious interest to the military, an attempt can be made to expand the "scope" of missiles ... that is, to propose modifications to single-stage missiles created on the basis of the "initial" (two-stage) project .... ie. missiles like Longboy Hellfire and Brimstone are absent from the armament of Russian helicopters; but such a missile is being developed ... Question: how soon will it "appear"? Maybe the use of the Hermes developments will speed up the fulfillment of the dream helicopter pilot? "Wide universalization" will reduce the cost of production, simplify the "expansion of the range", reduce the cost, simplify the operation of "products". When choosing the types of homing heads, "confine" to the combined HS: 1. semi-active laser + thermal imaging; 2. semi-active laser + active radar. Well, maybe more-tele-thermal imaging, or "focus" on the development of an active laser HS. When improving "products" according to the Hermes project, provide for modifications with satellite correction, with the possibility of network-centric control
      1. alexmach
        alexmach April 22 2016 09: 35
        +1
        to propose modifications of single-stage missiles, created on the basis of the "initial" (two-stage) project .... ie. On the basis of the sustainer stage. The Russian helicopters do not have missiles like the Longboy Hellfire and Brimstone, but such a missile is being developed ... The question is: how soon will it "appear"?


        Based on what? based on the booster stage? in which neither guidance systems nor maneuvering systems?

        When choosing the types of homing heads, "confine" to the combined HS: 1. semi-active laser + thermal imaging; 2. semi-active laser + active radar. Well, maybe more-tele-thermal imaging or "focus" on the development


        Will it fit? in 130 mm and the indicated kilograms?
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 21 2016 09: 31
      +1
      Quote: DM51
      but it looks like the military has no desire, that's sad

      There is no desire because it makes no sense.
      Yes, there is a need for guided munitions for MLRS, and a high one. But the control systems like those of "Hermes" are clearly redundant for them.
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov April 21 2016 09: 26
    +4
    Some clearly disregard for high-precision munitions prevails in our country.

    Apparently, the pilgrims living in the past are sure that "the usual ones are cheaper." But this is not the case. And every year, with a decrease in the Soviet stock of ammunition, the thesis "conventional are cheaper" less and less corresponds to reality
  • tchoni
    tchoni April 21 2016 09: 32
    0
    A displacement of 200-300 tons seems too big for such a missile. If it was intended for ships with a displacement of up to 100 tons, then it would be a breakthrough ... And so .. somehow pale.
    1. alexmach
      alexmach April 22 2016 09: 38
      +1
      The rocket itself is nothing more than 120 kilograms maximum. Only she, like any high-precision weapon, needs targeting systems. A boat with a small displacement than target designation will provide?
  • DM51
    DM51 April 21 2016 10: 44
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: DM51
    but it looks like the military has no desire, that's sad

    There is no desire because it makes no sense.
    Yes, there is a need for guided munitions for MLRS, and a high one. But the control systems like those of "Hermes" are clearly redundant for them.

    So I wrote that adaptation is possible, no one in their right mind will drag the maritime control system onto land "rails." C and Hermes-A, I don't think that the entire range of equipment from the naval complex was completely transferred to the Ka-52 helicopter, and perhaps the rocket is simpler, so everything can be solved
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 21 2016 11: 42
      0
      Even with the adaptation of such is not necessary.

      MLRS must remain MLRS. Systems for volley fire. By group goals. And control systems for PCs should be extremely simple and extremely cheap. Providing lower ammunition consumption due to reduced dispersion of missiles in a salvo.
      We are not Americans who need universal facilities due to the fact that they plan to fight exclusively on overseas theater, and they are faced with the issue of military transportation.
  • Verdun
    Verdun April 21 2016 10: 59
    0
    Nevertheless, until now he has not received due attention from potential customers, which is why he remains at the design stage and has no real prospects
    The framework of the budget and the corporate interests of companies that make up the modern military-industrial complex of Russia leave not only Hermes behind. Unfortunately, at the present time it is clearly not enough to create a promising technique. You still need to be able to convince the leadership of his prospects. Somewhere in the bathhouse, or on barbecue ...
    1. alexmach
      alexmach April 22 2016 09: 43
      +1
      Unfortunately, currently it is clearly not enough to create a promising technique. You also need to be able to convince his prospects of leadership. Somewhere in the bathhouse, or on barbecue ...


      What do you mean by "now"? the last 2000 years? So it was always and everywhere. Design work is one thing - sales are another. To be successful, you need to be able to do both. And in KBP, by the way, not the last sellers in our market once sat
  • Termit1309
    Termit1309 April 21 2016 12: 05
    +1
    Quote: Verdun
    The framework of the budget and the corporate interests of companies that make up the modern military-industrial complex of Russia leave not only Hermes behind. Unfortunately, at the present time it is clearly not enough to create a promising technique.

    It also happens. But in the case of Hermes-K, this is only a project. Wishlist, give us money and we will try to do it.
    In the difficult 90s and zero, a really made promising technique quickly found a foreign buyer. Remember the SU-30, T-90, S-300, etc. Sometimes it was developed first for a foreign customer, and then it was adopted by us.
    And with Hermes some kind of crap turns out, it is not needed either by our aircraft or other potential customers. It does not go beyond steep projects. Apparently our military knows that which we do not know.
  • Aviagr
    Aviagr April 21 2016 12: 43
    0
    This type of missile is provided for me in containers for underwater gliders and robotic sailing unmanned catamarans. To reduce the cost, you can use the upgraded PuVRD (for large caliber - 300mm). But no ships, helicopters and submarines are needed: they secretly approached the coast, swam up at once (gliders) and waved in one gulp from different positions, according to radio commands and Glonass (RPKKs carry just a large caliber - 300mm with a range of 150-200km).
    To build large ships now is only a cut. Or for the North (where the ice is).
    For Malaysia-Indonesia, my option is the most optimal.
  • DM51
    DM51 April 21 2016 13: 31
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    Even with the adaptation of such is not necessary.

    MLRS must remain MLRS. Systems for volley fire. By group goals. And control systems for PCs should be extremely simple and extremely cheap. Providing lower ammunition consumption due to reduced dispersion of missiles in a salvo.
    We are not Americans who need universal facilities due to the fact that they plan to fight exclusively on overseas theater, and they are faced with the issue of military transportation.

    Who decided that it should be so and not otherwise; “You? By your logic, the planned guided bombs are not needed: not, but what?” We’ll throw off a dozen of the usual ones - something will get hit. Nobody can cancel the MLRS, but there must be a choice - if you want to cover the area with a volley, you want to hit a bunker or another point target with one or two missiles, how one can interfere with the other, I don’t understand? guidance systems, then there’s no escape from complication — times are such, but actually aiming a missile from a drone at a target is already such a well-traveled and worked out method that there’s nothing special about it
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 21 2016 15: 21
      0
      Quote: DM51
      Who decided that it should be so and not otherwise; - you?

      Nope. So decides common sense, dear. Extremely common sense.
      Guided weapons systems and MLRS have different tactics of use and different goals. Moreover, the MLRS is not an artillery gun, and changing the type of ammunition for it is a rather long haemorrhage, and when using systems such as "Hurricane" or "Tornado", it occurs with the participation of a transport-loading vehicle.

      How will this happen to you? Suddenly a target appeared. MLRS dumps from the firing to the loading platform, changes the rocket (missiles?), Leaves for the temporary firing, shoots, returns to the loading platform again ... And if there was a miss? In short, a whole saga ... At the same time, it practically incapacitates the installation of the MLRS, and during such a ballet it is not able to work for its intended purpose.

      And if you have, as originally planned, three or four specialized machines like "Hermes-S", then no dancing with tambourines. MLRS Division always will be ready to hit a group target or make remote mining. ATGM battery always will be ready to hit a single high-priority target
    2. alexmach
      alexmach April 22 2016 09: 46
      +1
      pointing a missile from a drone at a target is already such a passed and worked out method that there is nothing special about it


      Who has he passed? Does our army have gunners gunners?
      1. shans2
        shans2 April 22 2016 19: 33
        0
        The Russian one has, with laser guidance, Google to help
  • common man
    common man April 21 2016 13: 34
    +1
    Probably need a light rocket like Hermes, but with UVP. It is good if the UVP is unified with the Dagger. In addition to Gauges.
    By the way, why daggers are not installed on RTOs and the like?
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz April 21 2016 16: 44
      0
      Why do small dagger ships need Daggers? On pr.21631 there is a Duet and a couple of Flexible (although the effectiveness of the latter is questionable). On pr.22800, they will put a pair of AK-630 for now, and in the future they promise Pantsir-M. So they have something to fight back from enemy anti-ship missiles.
      1. alexmach
        alexmach April 22 2016 09: 50
        +2
        I wonder what you can fight off Flexible at all? From something like the Su-24?
  • DM51
    DM51 April 21 2016 16: 43
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: DM51
    Who decided that it should be so and not otherwise; - you?

    Nope. So decides common sense, dear. Extremely common sense.
    Guided weapons systems and MLRS have different tactics of use and different goals. Moreover, the MLRS is not an artillery gun, and changing the type of ammunition for it is a rather long haemorrhage, and when using systems such as "Hurricane" or "Tornado", it occurs with the participation of a transport-loading vehicle.

    How will this happen to you? Suddenly a target appeared. MLRS dumps from the firing to the loading platform, changes the rocket (missiles?), Leaves for the temporary firing, shoots, returns to the loading platform again ... And if there was a miss? In short, a whole saga ... At the same time, it practically incapacitates the installation of the MLRS, and during such a ballet it is not able to work for its intended purpose.

    And if you have, as originally planned, three or four specialized machines like "Hermes-S", then no dancing with tambourines. MLRS Division always will be ready to hit a group target or make remote mining. ATGM battery always will be ready to hit a single high-priority target

    Well, here you’ve painted the ballet too. Good sense says the opposite. Are you an artilleryman? It’s as if there is one machine in the MLRS division — half the missiles are enough on one chassis or the entire ammunition is replaced by Hermes-S. Moreover, there is already a whole range of ammunition for Tornado: anti-tank elements, a drone, etc., and all this in the standard ammunition, which makes it difficult to add a few more - only your opinion or is it not for Feng Shui?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 21 2016 18: 12
      0
      Quote: DM51
      As if there was only one machine in the MLRS division - it’s enough to half the missiles on one chassis or replace the entire ammunition safety with Hermes-S.

      Y-yes ... Why, dear? For some unknown reason to reduce the division's firepower? "That was"? I hope you always carry a jackhammer with you in case you need it ...

      Precisely because I am an artilleryman, I am perfectly aware of the simplest truth: every vegetable has its own garden. MLRS have their own tasks in battle, and there are so many of them that they do not need dances with tambourines around the "Hermes" at all.
      Moreover, each machine will count ... some tend to overestimate the combat capabilities of the MLRS. And to suppress (not destroy) the defending motorized infantry platoon of the US Army, among other things, a full salvo of 36 Grad installations is needed. Not less. Two divisions.

      Quote: DM51
      Moreover, there is already a whole range of ammunition for Tornado: anti-tank elements, an unmanned aerial vehicle, etc. and all this is in the standard ammunition that prevents adding a few more - is it just your opinion or is it not for feng shui?

      This is cool, of course. But the problems of the combat use of all this wealth are entirely on the conscience of the missilemen. Did you know that the Smerch MLRS are not in service with the Russian artillery?
  • DM51
    DM51 April 21 2016 18: 45
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: DM51
    As if there was only one machine in the MLRS division - it’s enough to half the missiles on one chassis or replace the entire ammunition safety with Hermes-S.

    Y-yes ... Why, dear? For some unknown reason to reduce the division's firepower? "That was"? I hope you always carry a jackhammer with you in case you need it ...

    Precisely because I am an artilleryman, I am perfectly aware of the simplest truth: every vegetable has its own garden. MLRS have their own tasks in battle, and there are so many of them that they do not need dances with tambourines around the "Hermes" at all.
    Moreover, each machine will count ... some tend to overestimate the combat capabilities of the MLRS. And to suppress (not destroy) the defending motorized infantry platoon of the US Army, among other things, a full salvo of 36 Grad installations is needed. Not less. Two divisions.

    Quote: DM51
    Moreover, there is already a whole range of ammunition for Tornado: anti-tank elements, an unmanned aerial vehicle, etc. and all this is in the standard ammunition that prevents adding a few more - is it just your opinion or is it not for feng shui?

    This is cool, of course. But the problems of the combat use of all this wealth are entirely on the conscience of the missilemen. Did you know that the Smerch MLRS are not in service with the Russian artillery?

    So will we slaughter the US motorized infantry platoon in Grads alone, or can we also connect mechanized units with aviation? And would it be easier if the MLRS division was Hermes-S - you don’t have to let out a bunch of missiles at random. old templates, and you won’t understand that combining high-precision and conventional missiles in one complex solves several problems at once - one of them is the over-expenditure of ammunition during a salvo. In other words; where in the old fashioned way you need 36 Grad installations, for example, if you use a Hurricane with Hermes, you can completely manage with one division. We identify firing points with drones, hit them with Hermes, and for a snack we equalize what remains with conventional missiles, and all this within one It’s just necessary to slightly adjust the practice of using multiple launch rocket systems and much more in other types of troops in order to adequately respond to all threats. Even in WWII, a good sniper was valued higher than a company of conventional infantry, because it was often more useful at times , and you tell me about 36 Grad and carpet bombing, which is essentially the same
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 21 2016 21: 04
      -1
      Quote: DM51
      So we will hammer the US motorized infantry platoon in Grads

      In general, we will not hammer him with "Grads", they have another task. This is so, an example for a real assessment of the capabilities of the MLRS and the required number. MLRS has a completely different task. The fight against the second echelons

      Quote: DM51
      The fact of the matter is that you think according to old patterns and do not understand how that combining high-precision and conventional missiles in one complex solves several problems at once - one of them is the over-expenditure of ammunition during salvo.

      "Overrun"? 8))) I'm afraid, quite the opposite, you are advocating an overspending of high-precision ammunition. Suggesting them to be misused.
      Two important things to remember here. First: it is not advisable to use high-precision ammunition to defeat group targets. Both economically and tactically. Second: most of the goals in the modern non-Papuan battlefield are group.

      Quote: DM51
      In other words; where in the old fashioned way you need 36 Grad installations, for example, if you use the Hurricane with Hermes, you can completely manage with one division.

      Cool. And how in this particular example?

      At first, the enemy should be persuaded not to affect your intelligence. So that you could, with feeling, sense, and arrangement, scout and hit all of his armored objects and equipped firing points for group weapons.
      Then it is necessary to persuade the enemy not to defend themselves against the precision weapons used on him.
      Then the enemy must be persuaded not to conduct counter-battery combat while the division fires the first volley, reloads, and fires the second volley. You don't plan to shoot one Hermes for every infantryman in the trench ...
      At the same time, it is necessary to come to an agreement with the enemy so that he does not inflict fire damage on the combined arms units, which instead of holding a high pace of attack will crawl like a snail, while artillery spends time on these first, second and third parts of the Marlezon ballet ...

      Well, if you do it "the old fashioned way" ... One volley by two divisions. And the head does not hurt. The survivors will be finished off by their own infantry. Without losing the pace of the advance.

      Quote: DM51
      Even in WWII, a good sniper was valued higher than a company of ordinary infantry, because it was often more useful at times, and you tell me about 36 Grad and carpet bombing, which is essentially the same thing

      Hehe ... Tell me a fairy tale about the fact that in the Second World time factor it had absolutely no value ...
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst April 21 2016 19: 59
    +1
    In the vastness of the VO, anti-aircraft missiles with over-the-horizon flight range have been repeatedly discussed, which, as a rule, currently lack reliable target designation for a moving target (there are no AWACS aircraft and rested in the "Legend" bose). Why another missile with a reach of 100 km and Warhead in 30 kg of TNT? How is it better than existing weapons? The problem is in reconnaissance and target designation, and there is nothing to bang! The flight trajectory of the ammunition is generally incomprehensible: "in the rarefied layers of the atmosphere", and then, after ballistics, there is also a "slide" with a dive! Who needs it, where is the request from the troops for such a miracle weapon? If the amphibious assault is supported by fire support helicopters and in its combat formations there will be modern anti-tank systems and 120-mm mortars with high-precision ammunition targets for the Hermes-K are not expected.
  • DM51
    DM51 April 21 2016 23: 49
    +1
    All in a bunch: "people, horses." Again about reloading, a volley of two divisions, when you can get by with one, you just need to add an element and change the principle a little. Once again, I will ask: are you surely an artilleryman? Although you may not answer. Here are two examples: first , there is such a thing Msta-S, its ammo has guided projectiles and the self-propelled gun division also has the task of shooting and dumping and there is no separate superMsta for firing only (!) high-precision BPs, the second, http: //volos-news.ru/blog/ 43718357395 / V-Sirii-armiya-Rossii-br
    osila-v-
    boy-boevyih-robotov. This is for the overall picture of understanding, that is, first to fire, then to find firing points, then hit them. By reference everything is very complicated: everything is tied through Andromeda-D because you need to control robots, but it can be simpler. The principle is the same and in order for the enemies to keep an eye on them, it’s necessary to destroy their air defense systems and hit them with all means, including rocket artillery, and why should MLRS be used only against the US Marine Corps, and doesn’t allow karma against Syrian or other militants? prevents it from having one car with Hermes in the division, how will this weaken the unit? In my opinion, it will only amplify. But about WWII I wrote that you understand that accuracy is sometimes more effective than hurricane fire, but this does not cancel both.
    PS I noticed that in almost any article where you comment, you always argue with everyone, you never agree with anyone, so I'm not surprised that you argue with obvious things. I don’t want to bicker with you anymore - I feel that it's useless