Russian VSHORADS Thread

Here's a solution: Make a 'super' version of Verba. Verba + additional large rocket stage which extends the missile an additional 75-100% in length. Should of be doable without too many compromises.

Considering that Ataka and Kornet ATGM have the same 10 km max range and are also laser guided missiles as Sosna, that they will not be so much unprotected against helicopters.

True but most will have HEAT warheads, while dedicated anti aircraft versions with HE frag warheads wont be on the battlefields in such numbers... and also the matter that they are much much slower, so engagements out to 10km take much longer.

Pine is a purpose designed vehicle mounted anti aircraft anti munition missile system... Ataka is designed for vehicle mount but Kornet is designed to be semi man portable with the assistance of a vehicle.

Problem is, that Sosna turret weight more than 3 tons and you could not put it on Tigr armored car. It is for heavier armored vehicles, which could carry such turrets.

I am sure a smaller lighter turret could be developed for smaller lighter vehicles... the missiles themselves a proper dedicated SAMs rather than MANPADS.

For vehicle units having MANPADS makes sense... a half dozen tubes in a vehicle with a gripstock or two is a simple addition and with an IADS giving the operators warning and directional cues they would be very effective, and also fire and forget, but in warfare against a modern enemy the extra reach and much much higher speed make sense... just because your force consists of light fast mobile vehicles does not mean you don't want the max reach possible.

Here's a solution: Make a 'super' version of Verba. Verba + additional large rocket stage which extends the missile an additional 75-100% in length. Should of be doable without too many compromises.

There is not much fundamentally wrong with Verba as it is... it is a good system and helicopters wont be detecting and engaging individual soldiers at more than 6km anyway so in its current format and layout it makes a lot of sense as it is.

The problem is when you put it on a vehicle as an air defence system, where its weight and size is not so important, but its range and performance is.

When the Soviets had SA-9s and SA-13s with 5km range missiles and they were faced with new generation helicopters with new 6km range Hellfire missiles the solution was Tunguska with 8km range SAMs that were relatively small... very fast and cheap command guided weapons. These were replaced by 10km range missiles for later models as the 8km range MMW hellfire missiles were introduced.

Pine has a small light missile that is very fast and has good range... if you need to you could easily fit a bigger more powerful solid rocket booster to get better range and speed for the future, but being a 30kg weapon it is pretty small and compact and a potent little system.

Certainly a mix of missiles could be considered... you could add Kornet or Ataka tubes to engage a variety of targets... even add a few MANPADS from old stocks... replace the IR seeker of an old SA-7 with a command guidance package or newer IR seeker to use up old stocks of missiles on low threat targets like drones etc. When the South Africans upgraded their SA-13s they did so by fitting SA-9 and SA-13 missile tubes to the vehicle so more difficult targets could be engaged with the newer missiles and less difficult targets engaged with older stock cheaper missiles.

MANPADS are fire and forget which makes them useful in some situations, but Pine is probably cheaper and faster with a bigger engagement range and cannot be stopped by DIRCMs.

Infantry units will be carrying Verba anyway...

GarryB wrote:True but most will have HEAT warheads, while dedicated anti aircraft versions with HE frag warheads wont be on the battlefields in such numbers... and also the matter that they are much much slower, so engagements out to 10km take much longer.

Pine is a purpose designed vehicle mounted anti aircraft anti munition missile system... Ataka is designed for vehicle mount but Kornet is designed to be semi man portable with the assistance of a vehicle.

True, they have combination of missiles with HEAT in majority. But there will not be hundreds of helicopters around, so there will be enough of them to keep them on distance. There is specialized Tigr vehicle with Kornet complex with 8 missiles on launchers.

I am sure a smaller lighter turret could be developed for smaller lighter vehicles... the missiles themselves a proper dedicated SAMs rather than MANPADS.

When have to vait to see, what kind of turret will get Pticelov for VDV. Most probably it will be a lighter one.

For vehicle units having MANPADS makes sense... a half dozen tubes in a vehicle with a gripstock or two is a simple addition and with an IADS giving the operators warning and directional cues they would be very effective, and also fire and forget, but in warfare against a modern enemy the extra reach and much much higher speed make sense... just because your force consists of light fast mobile vehicles does not mean you don't want the max reach possible.

Tigr with Gibka-S is pure VSHORAD while Sosna is more SHORAD than VSHORAD. Point of VSHORAD is to be light, quick and as cheap as possible. It is better to have missile on launcher and you could react quickly and be on guard for a longer time, than to keep a missile on your shoulder for a longer time. VSHORAD is not there to replace SHORAD, but to cover it. Russian ground forces are not dependent on MANPAD based air defense like NATO is. They have full layered air defense structure. VSHORADs and AA guns have their own place in the structure and Gibka-S with Verba is good enough for this job.






Polish Poprad complex with Grom MANPADs. When Poland will retire their old soviet Kub (SAM-6) and Osa ( SAM-8 ), Poprad will be their most capable air defense complex for their ground forces. You could bet Tigr with Verba is no vorse than similar NATO complexes. Difference is, that Russian VSHORADs will work in well integrated layered air defense and with air force, while those NATO counterparts could rely only on air force.

True, they have combination of missiles with HEAT in majority. But there will not be hundreds of helicopters around, so there will be enough of them to keep them on distance. There is specialized Tigr vehicle with Kornet complex with 8 missiles on launchers.

The problem for air defence is that if you do it on the cheap and use 6km range MANPADS then it doesn't matter if there is only one flight of enemy helicopters or hundreds, because you will be using all your missiles to shoot down incoming missiles instead of the aircraft delivering them...

An Apache fires a Hellfire from 8km range it is cheaper and easier to fire a Pine missile at the Hellfire and the other Tigr-M a Pine missile at the Apache, than to sit there in your Tigrs firing at the 16 Hellfires that Apache fires at you remaining out of range of your Verba and Igla MANPADS.... or if you pop up out of the blue in an unexpected position but while you can continue to shoot down the Hellfires the Apache jams your MANPADS missile guidance using DIRCMS... so you still get the Hellfires but the Apache survives to fight another day... though a few 57mm shells fired from a Tigr or Typhoon might ruin their day of course..

Russian ground forces are not dependent on MANPAD based air defense like NATO is. They have full layered air defense structure. VSHORADs and AA guns have their own place in the structure and Gibka-S with Verba is good enough for this job.

But that is the point isn't it.... NATO really don't have an alternative but Russia does so an air defence vehicle on a Tigr or Typhoon base let alone something heavier would benefit from the extra performance of PINE over MANPADS that will be carried in IFV models anyway.

The PINE system is probably more expensive than GIBKA, but the missiles will be rather cheaper as they have no sensors or seekers on board and are just cheap command guided missiles.

You could bet Tigr with Verba is no vorse than similar NATO complexes.

Of course, but just because NATO doesn't give a shit about air defence and expects their air power to dominate any situation should Russia do the same?

I would say Russia is in a much better situation regarding air defence than all of NATO combined and they shouldn't erode that by copying mistakes and dumbing down their systems and equipment.

Gibka and Verba and Igla-S are excellent systems for what they are... the former is vehicle mounted and the latter are man portable... at 30-35kgs per missile Pine is not going to be man portable, but as a vehicle mounted short range system it is superior to MANPADS in several very significant ways... and while I agree MANPADS are the cheap SAMs... I honestly don't think the Verba or Igla-S missiles will be cheaper than Pine missiles... or the price difference wont be significant. TOR and Pantsir missiles are rather bigger and are probably more expensive because of their size and volume but they are also cheap command guided weapons that offer good value for money in the sense that you can actually use them in combat and not break the budget. Kornet would be another example of a cheaper to use weapon though while it has range it does lack raw speed for use against aircraft and drones.

Beware gold plated super weapons that are just too expensive to use unless someone else is paying the bills.

Tigr with Gibka-S is VSHORAD, not SHORAD. It have its place in air defense structure. Soviet army also use Shilka AA guns and Strela-10 VSHORAD although they have Osa-AKM SHORAD in armament. They could simply use only Osa as it have longer range.

Main SHORAD in Russian ground forces is Tor-M1/M2, than Tunguska and in near future Sosna. Sosna is somewhere in between. By its range it is SHORAD, but it is seen as VSHORAD, because it is not equipped with radars and because it will replace Strela-10. Tigr with Gibka-S is clear VSHORAD. Experiences from Syria and other places show, that SHORAD is the main fighting force against majority of treats from the air. But they are expensive and you could not have them in thousands. That is why they need VSHORAD and AA guns, to form proper perimeter around and protect SHORAD, when it is vulnerable as in time of reloading or to help to fight off attacks with big swarms or to cover dangerous shadows, where SHORAD could not see.

When Russia will fight a war, it will not fight it with light vehicles like Tigr and tanks will be in garages. The same went for air defense. They will not fight it only with VSHORAD, but with whole structure. Apache will have troubles to come that close because of Buks and Tors, but if it come, Tigr with Gibka will be able to shot down incoming missiles, while Buk and Tor will deal with helicopter. They are all integrated in IADS and they all coordinate their work.

It's true, that Verba or Igla-S will not be cheaper than laser guided Sosna missile. Good thing is that they could use MANPAD missiles from stocks and any infantry unit with MANPADs could give missiles to Gibka if needed. They are not excluding each other, but supplementing.

Tigr with Gibka-S is VSHORAD, not SHORAD. It have its place in air defense structure. Soviet army also use Shilka AA guns and Strela-10 VSHORAD although they have Osa-AKM SHORAD in armament. They could simply use only Osa as it have longer range.

I know all that, and I appreciate I am being a bit of a dick, but what I am trying to say is arm up rather than down.

Pine is not fully ready and in widespread service yet... so that is certainly an issue, and the fact that the guidance and long range sensors needed to make Pine work will not be cheap... but similar sensors will be needed on those vehicles to detect and engage targets at 6km anyway... so they wont be a separate expense... the sensors for Gibka will only be slightly cheaper.

What I am trying to say is that if we were talking about bigger heavier more expensive missiles like Pantsir then I would agree with you... Manpads are smaller and lighter and likely cheaper and good enough.

The problem is that instead of being 6-7 times heavier (Manpads are around 10kg per missile... Pantsir is about 60-70kg per missile in launch tube, while Pine is about 35kg per missile in its tube), pine is only about 3 times heavier but is much faster, has almost double the range and uses cheap guidance built into the launch platform instead of the missile that is destroyed with each use.

It is a bit like being the guy who has to carry the Metis launcher... a pistol is light and handy and kills people over short range... but a SMG is more effective and still small and light enough to not hamper his primary role.

Any IFV or APC operating with these vehicles will have ATGM launchers or MANPADS gripstocks... the Russian military is really spoiled for choice when it comes to dealing with aircraft and armoured ground vehicles.

Experiences from Syria and other places show, that SHORAD is the main fighting force against majority of treats from the air. But they are expensive and you could not have them in thousands. That is why they need VSHORAD and AA guns, to form proper perimeter around and protect SHORAD, when it is vulnerable as in time of reloading or to help to fight off attacks with big swarms or to cover dangerous shadows, where SHORAD could not see.

But that is my point... Pine does not have a nose mounted IR sensor and should be rather cheap in terms of missile cost... it is very much a cheap simple small missile for jobs Pantsir and Tunguska and TOR are too big for.

In many ways it is the surface to air or air to air equivalent of a Kornet... they have been shown with Hinds as an air to air alternative to ATGMs like Shturm or Ataka. Both of those are relatively cheap command guided missiles so it is rather unlikely Pine will be expensive.

It's true, that Verba or Igla-S will not be cheaper than laser guided Sosna missile. Good thing is that they could use MANPAD missiles from stocks and any infantry unit with MANPADs could give missiles to Gibka if needed. They are not excluding each other, but supplementing.

Well maybe that is a solution... upgrade Gibka to take a variety of missile types... from SA-9 and SA-13 through all the MANPADS... SA-7/14/16/18/24, and Pine.

The problem is that a lot of older missiles have limited performance and would not be much use against a variety of targets. For instance only Igla-S and Verba have proximity fuses so the other missiles wont be effective against cruise missiles or munitions.

Pine will pretty much take out any target because it just needs to be tracked by the launch vehicle which can have a range of sensors from optical to MMW radar perhaps from a helicopter platform like Havoc or Hokum.

Verba and Igla-S can take on targets out to 6km but not just any target... small electric drones it might not get a lock till about 4km... even if given target information from other platforms it needs a target lock before it can launch a missile.

With pine the onboard IR system can be much higher performance than that fitted to the nose of a missile... which will make it more expensive, but will also give much better situational awareness for the vehicle and allow a much wider variety of targets to be engaged and from further away.

A unified launcher means you could load 4 Pine missiles on one side of the turret and 8 MANPADS on the other... being a mix of Verba and Igla-S perhaps...

Long range engagements with Pine, and shorter range engagements with MANPADS.

Not long ago, there were discusions, why to buy Sosna, when there is Tor. Now we discus why to buy Gibka if there is Sosna. They all have their place in integrated air defense. Buying Gibka does not exclude buying Sosna and Derivatsia-PVO. They all have their place.

Yes, I see Sosna missile displayed with modernized Mi-24. It would be interesting to see, if Sosna could use the same launching mechanism as Ataka ATGM. If yes, than you could choose, which missile you will install on the launcher. Ataka also have anti air version 9M220O which have 7 km range. It's top speed is 550 m/s, what is similar to Roland missile. Using both missiles from the same launchers will increase anti air capabilities to Ataka users like BMPT or T-15 with DUBM-57 RCWS with 57 mm gun and 2 Ataka missiles. This is actually important difference between Russian and western ATGMs. Russian one are laser guided and fast while western are slower and attack from above like Javelin and Spike. You could hardly use them in anti air role and they are very expensive missiles.

The driving reason to buy Sosna is that it is cheap, and its guidance means it can be aimed at any target that can be tracked by a video autotracker... whether TV or thermal or LLTV sensors are used... in fact you just need positional information about the target so even a radar tracking system could be used to aim the laser to guide the missile to the target if you wanted so it could be all weather day night capable.

Very high flight speed and decent range of 10km are also very useful against a range of targets... Speeds I have seen suggest 1km/s average flight speed with 8km target engagement time of 8 seconds and 10 second to max range of 10km.

The very high flight speed gives the target little time to react or evade... it would be pretty pointless trying to dodge these missiles in a helo let alone a drone which would likely not even know it is under attack until something goes boom.

Gibka makes sense on certain platforms, but in terms of cheap numbers SAM the Pine makes a lot of sense and ticks so many boxes.

With the tube next to the Hind it looks like an ATAKA/Shturm tube and if it can steer the laser beam guidance system with information from that radar then it becomes night and all weather capable... though perhaps white out, heavy rain, and of course brown out might degrade performance... but then they have khrisantema with MMW radar guidance for that anyway...

They are certainly spoiled for choice... with a range of options...

Gibka is light system for light vehicles. Sosna could as well be used on wheeled vehicles like Boomerang or BTR-82 to protect lighter motorized units on wheeled platforms. What is more interesting. is a fact, that all those MANPADs, VSHORADS like Strela-10, Gibka and Sosna and AA guns like Derivatsia-PVO use the same Barnaul-T radar and command and control complex. Barnaul-T is primarily installed in MT-LBu vehicles. VDV receive them installed in their BTR-MD vehicles and now we could as well see them installed in Tigr vehicle and in BMP-3. Barnaul-T was used in Syria together with Verba MANPADs, when Russian AD unit cover SAA operations in liberating Damascus area and they shot down a number of terrorist UAVs. Barnaul-T is a common point of all those complexes and a point through which they are all integrated inside IADS.

medo wrote:Gibka is light system for light vehicles. Sosna could as well be used on wheeled vehicles like Boomerang or BTR-82 to protect lighter motorized units on wheeled platforms. What is more interesting. is a fact, that all those MANPADs, VSHORADS like Strela-10, Gibka and Sosna and AA guns like Derivatsia-PVO use the same Barnaul-T radar and command and control complex. Barnaul-T is primarily installed in MT-LBu vehicles. VDV receive them installed in their BTR-MD vehicles and now we could as well see them installed in Tigr vehicle and in BMP-3. Barnaul-T was used in Syria together with Verba MANPADs, when Russian AD unit cover SAA operations in liberating Damascus area and they shot down a number of terrorist UAVs. Barnaul-T is a common point of all those complexes and a point through which they are all integrated inside IADS.

I'd say Gibka has its place on those ultra-light technical formations Russia is forming on the basis of the UAZ Patriot chassis. Well either Gibka or the Djigit system. Have a dedicated MANPAD vehicle like that come along on any raiding party or other operation.

Gibka can also be useful on the lightest vessels. I believe a couple have them already.

For Bumerang, Taifun formations there are better options.

GarryB is right in pointing out that BMPs and presumably Kurganets, Bumerang, etc... vehicles have/will have MANPADs available for the squad to use anyway.

To be clear as well of course MANPADS mounted in Gibka are not the same as a guy with a shoulder fired missile... being vehicle based means attached to the network and receiving threat and target information to the grid so you have advanced warning and presumably improved optics and situational awareness... they will be fully able to fire on the move.

Lets fact it... before Pine there was little variety in this regard... you can boost the performance of a ZU-23 mount or a ZSU-23-4 by fitting a few twin mount MANPADS... you are looking for air targets anyway... sometimes a burst of cannon shells makes sense and other times a missile will get the job done better, but now that Pine is becoming available it is heavier... but as no one has to raise it on to their shoulder that is less of a concern... it certainly has better performance, yet does not weigh more than a Kornet ATGM and should be rather cheap and with an auto tracker effectively fire and forget for 10 seconds to reach the target.

flamming_python wrote:GarryB is right in pointing out that BMPs and presumably Kurganets, Bumerang, etc... vehicles have/will have MANPADs available for the squad to use anyway.

Actually they won't. After 2008 Russian army is going out of using MANPAD as squad weapon and made MANPAD units for ground forces integrated inside IADS with proper IFF. In South Ossetia majority of RuAF Su-25 was shot down by friendly fire, because Russian army MANPAD operators could not visually distinguish between Russian and Georgean Su-25 in the air. This is why Russian army introduce Barnaul-T C3I complex for MANPADs and Verba with IFF. Gibka on tigr or any other lighter vehicle is just another step in this direction as Gibka made MANPAD more mobile and easier visual ID with more powerful TV and thermal imager as well as IFF and data link networking.

Russia already tested Barnaul-T and Verba in Syria and they work well.

medo wrote:

flamming_python wrote:GarryB is right in pointing out that BMPs and presumably Kurganets, Bumerang, etc... vehicles have/will have MANPADs available for the squad to use anyway.

Actually they won't. After 2008 Russian army is going out of using MANPAD as squad weapon and made MANPAD units for ground forces integrated inside IADS with proper IFF. In South Ossetia majority of RuAF Su-25 was shot down by friendly fire, because Russian army MANPAD operators could not visually distinguish between Russian and Georgean Su-25 in the air. This is why Russian army introduce Barnaul-T C3I complex for MANPADs and Verba with IFF. Gibka on tigr or any other lighter vehicle is just another step in this direction as Gibka made MANPAD more mobile and easier visual ID with more powerful TV and thermal imager as well as IFF and data link networking.

Russia already tested Barnaul-T and Verba in Syria and they work well.

Tested Verba in Syria? Against what? 5 drones and an Aladin? Tests against drones can be done in Russia with even more intensity than in Syria.

Well due to the way russian aviation is moving- pilots will only worry about MANPADs when taking off and landing. Look at Syria and what heights russian pilots are flying at. This is sad for SU-25 as they will meet same fate as their western colleague A-10 and will end up scrapped.

The point is that Gibka was designed around MANPADS because that missile size was suitable for the task and those missiles are available... and they are actually more potent than older larger missiles like SA-9 and SA-13.

The thing is however that now they have newer missiles that are likely cheaper and better performing that can be widely deployed and used and offer better performance against a range of targets including those not suitable for IR guidance for whatever reason.

The IADS system doesn't require IR guided missiles, it can be integrated into wider networks or be used locally to defend a group of vehicles on its own... using better missiles improves the performance of the defence.

Certainly IFF is a problem but it is a problem for most systems so all systems should be included in an IADS.

Ironically it will be missiles like Pine that make low altitude flying difficult, rather than IR guided missiles which can be defeated by DIRCM systems, though nothing is perfect of course and various filters and other methods could keep them effective...

The main problem with Pine is its weight, but I am not suggesting MANPADS be replaced in the man portable role with Pine, just that vehicle mounted SAMs should take advantage of the mobility of a vehicle and range potential of the optronics fitted to reach further and faster... especially if it is cheap enough.

Regular wrote:Tested Verba in Syria? Against what? 5 drones and an Aladin? Tests against drones can be done in Russia with even more intensity than in Syria.

Yes, against Aladin and his carpet. Russian army use Barnaul-T and Verba around Damascus to give protection to SAA in time of operation to liberate large parts from the hands of terrorists. It's not only about shoting down few drones from terrorists. It is also about coordination with SAA air defense, Russian air force, Syrian air force and with Russian and SAA drones, which were also operating in the area. Terrorists mostly use drones to direct artillery fire on SAA position and for bomb attacks. SAA also use them to direct artillery fire, so they were both in the same area. Tests in Russia could not be compared with real combat situation, because SAA and terrorist drones are not operated by Russians, so they didn't have influence when and where drones will apear and when and where they will dissapear, what will be their flypath, what mission they have, etc. This is the real combat test for command and control center Barnaul-T.

https://www.janes.com/article/92851/russian-military-completes-testing-of-advanced-ground-platforms

The Russian military is completing testing of advanced ground platforms, including the upgraded T-90M main battle tank (MBT), Gibka-S very short-range air defence (VSHORAD) system, and Kungas unmanned ground vehicle (UGV), ground forces commander Colonel General Oleg Salyukov told the Red Star military newspaper on 25 November.

"State trials of the T-90M, which will be followed by series deliveries, are planned to be completed soon ... State trials of the Adjutant multi-purpose aerial target and the Gibka-S VSHORAD system incorporating an AD [air defence] platoon commander reconnaissance and control vehicle and a man-portable air defence system squad combat vehicle are in the final stages," Col Gen Salyukov reported.

State trials for Gibka-S VSHORAD complex and Adjutant training complex will be soon finnished and we could expect for them to start deliveries in near future.

Kungas is not a UGV (= robot) but a command and control system for robots.

https://vpk.name/news/358624_rossiya_zavershila_ispytaniya_kompleksa_pvo_gibka-s.html

Россия завершила государственные испытания комплекса противовоздушной обороны (ПВО) "Гибка-С" на базе бронеавтомобиля "Тигр". Об этом в субботу, 21 декабря, агентству ТАСС рассказали в представительстве разработчика "Тигра" — Военно-промышленной компании.

Испытания проводились на полигоне Капустин Яр. В ходе тестов проверили, можно ли стрелять из новинки по воздушным целям на скорости до 30 км/ч.

О разработке "Гибки-С" стало известно в марте нынешнего года. Целью создания комплекса было обеспечение переносными зенитными ракетными комплексами (ПЗРК) пусков управляемых ракет для улучшения эффективности мотострелковых и танковых подразделений сухопутных войск России. "Гибка-С" использует снаряды от ПЗРК "Игла" или "Верба".

Russian army succesfully finnish state tests of Gibka-S complex, placed on Tigr-M armored vehicle. it is capable to launch missiles, when driving at speed of 30 km/h. Gibka-S could use Igla family and Verba missiles.

Nice.

The Tigr will improve mobility and information basis for operations, so they will have a better idea of the aerial situation around them.

medo wrote:

Nice

SOSNA-R, strelets, and ZU-23/ZOM series is there any evidence of these systems in service yet? or are they purely for export? as all have been out for sometime and are cheap so no real reason as to why Russia doesnt have them unless they are looking at more expensive systems such as Pantsir, Tor, Buk,

I suspect the Sosna will be replacing most twin 23mm towed mounts, though I think they will hang on to them after seeing first hand how useful such weapons are in Syria... in Afghanistan the Soviets used twin barrel 23mm cannon mounts as base protection, they certainly were valuable in that war...