Russian VSHORADS Thread

This is the machine 231 they are talking about in land reco role ( via keypubs )

Can see the rear turret for the Manta DIRCMs system and at the front a position for another turret or is that a turret on the left front?

Its an experience to be inside a Kamov.

So Jealous!!!

The picture of the "new" Strelets system is a set up very much like the SA-13 but with two clusters of 4 missiles for a total of 8 missiles.



This picture shows the same system in service in 2004 (minus the missiles), so I guess all that is new is the Igla-S missile being used as part of the system... so the "new MANPADs missile" to be revealed at AeroIndia 2011 was the Igla-S.

GarryB wrote:so I guess all that is new is the Igla-S missile being used as part of the system... so the "new MANPADs missile" to be revealed at AeroIndia 2011 was the Igla-S.

Yes that is what he told me as well.

How effective will Iglas-S be in bringing down a jet of the size of 747 class , Will it only manage to damage the jet or can it bring it down , considering it has proximity fuse ?

Here is a nice video of Igla-S

How effective will Iglas-S be in bringing down a jet of the size of 747
class , Will it only manage to damage the jet or can it bring it down ,
considering it has proximity fuse ?

Depends on the situation and where exactly it hits the aircraft.
Most of its flight time is spent well out of range of shoulder launched missiles so a 747 sized aircraft will only be vulnerable during take offs and landings.

A fully loaded fully fuelled aircraft taking off is probably the most vulnerable to the loss of power a missile hit would cause.
A MANPAD would actually be most lethal if it misses the engines and hits the wing of the aircraft because due to flight range requirements most 747 sized aircraft have wings full of fuel, so there is a chance of fire or secondary explosion and of course a full pressurised tank contributes to wing stuctural integrity, where a ruptured flaming fuel tank does not.

I would have said a small missile like igla would not likely totally destroy a very large military aircraft, but aircraft based on civilian models are not as damage resistent as some military aircraft.

The aircraft would certainly not be able to continue doing what they were doing.

I have seen video of early Igla blow the tails completely off Mig-15 drone target aircraft so I think destroying one engine completely and damaging the other is definitely possible and during a takeoff that would be a serious emergency. If it hit the wing however that would not give the crew the chance to dump fuel and turn around and try to land.

The proximity fuse is for using the system against small targets like UAVs and cruise missiles.
A big 747 like target it will most likely hit something.

If you look at this vid:



It includes a lot of stuff in the vid you posted but includes shots of the missile shown in animation form exploding further forward of the engine nozzle. This is part of the guidance algorithm that prevents the missile going for tailpipes and hitting the body of the aircraft instead (where it can do more damage).
If that makes it hit the body or wing of a large aircraft it will make it more lethal.

Legendary Aerospacee engineer Kelly Johnson said:" if it looks good, it flies good."

Yes he did, but to be clear he said if it looks good it will fly well... he didn't say if it looks bad it will not fly well, nor did he say if it flys well it must look good.

Nice videos about Igla and Igla-S. With all additional equipment like electronic planchete, IFF and night sight, they represent very sirious air defense, specially against helicopters, which could not fly over them.

Nice video Garry but there occurs some questions from my side:
1] The 6 nozzle booster; when did it separate. I mean just after the launch or only at terminal potion
2]For coarse correction; the gas dynamics nozzles are situated only at the front just besides the fins of the missile plus is also located at the tail side of the missile. In action the former can be seen but what abt the latter one?

1] The 6 nozzle booster; when did it separate. I mean just after the launch or only at terminal potion

Looking at it closely it seems to be about the size of an ice hockey puck and the central nozzle is straight but the ones around the edge are angled.

I rather expect this is a booster charge that has two main purposes... to blow the rocket out of the launch tube and clear of the firing position before the main rocket accelerates the missile to the target, and to impart an initial spin to the rocket to stabilise it initially while it is moving relatively slowly to prevent it veering off course one way or another. At such low speeds the small fin controls would lack the force to keep the nose pointed up at the target area so by giving it some spin it makes sure it doesn't belly dive into the ground straight after launch.

2]For coarse correction; the gas dynamics nozzles are situated only at
the front just besides the fins of the missile plus is also located at
the tail side of the missile. In action the former can be seen but what
abt the latter one?

If you look at about 2 minutes in the video I posted there are actually four fins near the front of the missile that pop out after launch. One main pair of two fins that are also on the older Igla missiles and a smaller second pair of fins there too to assist in steering the missile to the target.
The four fins at the very rear of the missile are fixed stabilising fins, they fold out on launch and then do not move and provide stability to the missile in flight. The fins at the nose steer the missile toward the target.
The rocket nozzles near the nose are used in the terminal phase of the interception to improve hit probability to shove the missile on target and reduce miss distance.

The video above in the first few seconds shows a missile destroying a drone aircraft with the missile zapping through at supersonic speed... such a weapon is not that easy to dodge as it is moving very fast. A last minute turn by an aircraft can be compensated for by the force of a side thruster rocket firing to shift the missile onto the new target position and as the missile is spinning several times a different thruster can be fired in the same direction to move a significant amount to reduce the miss distance.

Interesting I didnt knew Igla-S has side thrusters , I hope they bring a digital version of Igla-S soon while the expensive Verba keeps getting inducted.

A digital version would allow them to reprogram for newer countermeasures on the field , beyond the only weakness Igla-S seems pretty good.

GarryB wrote:What makes you think the Igla-S is not digital? The only countermeasures likely to be effective against the Igla-S would be DIRCMS and they are really not that wide spread in use these days.There is a reason NATO aircraft stay as high over Libya as they did over Kosovo...

I was told its not digital and not reprogrammable on field by Russian rep during AeroIndia

I was told its not digital and not reprogrammable on field by Russian rep during AeroIndia

Did he say that was the same for both export Igla-S he was showing and the domestic Igla-S missiles being produced for Russian forces?

I hope they start spending money on the Russian electronics industry because such systems should be digital by now... I suspect it is the lack of investment in the electronics industry in Russia and the problems of getting modern foreign electronics imported into Russia that will be the problem.

Their new AAMs are digital (ie RVV-MD and RVV-SD) including those for export...

GarryB wrote:Did he say that was the same for both export Igla-S he was showing and the domestic Igla-S missiles being produced for Russian forces?

I hope they start spending money on the Russian electronics industry because such systems should be digital by now... I suspect it is the lack of investment in the electronics industry in Russia and the problems of getting modern foreign electronics imported into Russia that will be the problem.

Their new AAMs are digital (ie RVV-MD and RVV-SD) including those for export...

Yes the Igla-S are analog there is no digital Igla/Igla-S , there is some advantage in keeping it analog for this small missile and some disadvantage.

The verba will be digital , for most part Igla-S should work unless some one figured out how to decoy its seeker , like they figured out with Stinger used in afganistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At%C4%B1lgan_PMADS

In Wikipedia site I find between operators of Turkish Aselsan pedestal mounted air defense systems (PMADS) also Russia, which evaluated Zipkin variant, the same as Netherland use on their Fenneks. They wrote not in service yet, evaluated only. How many Russian MoD (or maybe it is FSB) buy for evaluations? Are they placed on original Land Rovers or on Russian Tiger or Vystrel vehicles? Are they planing to buy them, when they have similar Strelets system placed on MT-LB and could be placed on similar vehicles? Anyone have any more informations about Zipkin in Russian army? It's strange that Russian would buy foreign air defense system, although it will use their own Igla missiles instead of Stingers.

The Russians are buying small batches of all sorts of systems for testing, and I rather suspect that is as far as most will go.

The Russian Navy already has Gibka, and for land based systems they have Phoenix with 8 missiles and two 50 cal HMGs and 360 degree IR sensors that we know of.

True, but usually those buyings of foreign equipment for evaluations are more known in medias, like buying from France, Italy, Germany and Israel. Buying of air defense equipment from Turkey is quite unknown and also strange. There is no mentioning of it in other NATO members nor in Russian medias. If they actually have Zipkin, they could show its testings as they show Israeli UAVs and Iveco LMVs. Or maybe it is FSB who evaluate it and not MoD, that it is in such secret.

Well the fact that the system is offered with the SA-18 Igla as an option perhaps suggests the Russians might want to get a piece of the action for exports that will require SA-18 missiles to be supplied?

This is simply a stabilised MANPAD launcher with TV and Thermal Imager with a laser range finder and 12.7mm HMG backup... it is hardly something Russia would need to import.

Unless it is linked to oil or gas agreements I rather doubt they will do more than buy a few evaluation systems.

Installing SA-18 Igla on Zipkin doesn't need Russian evaluations, the same as Germans don't need Russians to install Iglas on their Ozelot system.

This is very strange. For evaluations and comparing to similar Russian systems, I personally think, that German Ozelot or French Aspic would be better choice, because they are for sure better quality than Turkish one and would be better standard for comparing. In my opinion, maybe Russians could use Zipkin for easier breaking into Georgian C4I, because Georgia buy a lot of Turkish equipment. In that case customer could be FSB and not MoD.

However we do not know, what is the case behind, but Russia for sure doesn't need foreign air defense systems, their own are in the World standard.

I would suspect that they probably identified as many systems in that category and approached all the manufacturers for test batches.

I highly doubt there will be any foreign purchases, these systems will start as comparison test systems and once the evaluation is finished they might be used to test defensive systems, or used as OpFor equipment in exercises.

I agree with you, but I still have a feeling, something is unusual here. It was never mentioned Russians tested or evaluated Ozelot, Aspic, Avenger, RBS-70 or similar, but they evaluated Zipkin. More strange is a sentence "not in service yet". This could be understood as they decide to buy them and to operate them in units, although there is no need for them. And still, there is no any other information or picture about it.

They used the SA-13 to replace the ZU-23 in VDV service as an interim system till the final system is ready.

They have plenty of systems that use MANPADs or similar missiles like the naval Gibka, the land based Phoenix, plus they have other short range missile options including SOSNA and Morfei, while regarding "systems" rather than missiles I hear they have accepted that Barnaul-M system into service.

We know they are developing a new system for the VDV, and that the Morfei system will likely replace short range IR systems like SA-9 and SA-13, and we also know they have alternatives in the SOSNA gun/missile system and the Phoenix MANPADS system, and that they also have the Digit twin launcher for Igla too.

I suspect this is just an evaluation and that "not yet in service" is pure speculation that is pretty unsubstantiated.

Lets face it, this is about a stabilised mount with a HMG and a thermal camera that can be fitted on a range of vehicles.
That also describes the Phoenix and the various systems we have seen mounted on MTLB vehicles too.

No disrespect meant to Turkey, but I can't see their system being sufficiently better than any Russian equivalent to warrant interest.

Exactly as you said. Russians don't need any foreign SAM system, because their own are on the world level. If they want comparing foreign system to their own, I still think it would be better to compare with German Ozelot or French Aspic, because their level of quality is very high and that kind of comparing could be only in quality of production and of tolerances in components, all other is nothing that Russians could not put together.

I would expect they probably did look at the German and French systems, and I rather suspect there was an ulterior motive for looking at the Turkish system... perhaps related to Turkish consideration of S-400 systems?

Could be, it is a part of business agreement. Instead of paying with money, part of payment could be done with other systems and selling Zipkin could not be so problematic inside NATO.

The thing is that I don't see Russia actually selling S-400 to Turkey any time soon.
First of all the production rate seems too low to produce for non domestic orders in the next 5 years or so anyway, despite two new production facilities being built I can't see them selling an all S-400 system to Turkey or any NATO country except Greece and I don't think that would go down well... half of Europe bailing out Greece and Greece buying S-400 from Russia...

I think a more likely case is that Russia has offered S-400, which Turkey is looking at to put pressure on the US for them to sweeten the deal and perhaps as a protest against Israel because Israel can't pull strings on Russian SAMs.

If Turkey did select the Russian system I think we will find that it is actually mostly S-300, but with a few S-400 bits to make it more effective but without giving away too much.

In return the Russians have said if you buy our stuff we will buy some of your stuff... most military deals these days include offset clauses where the buying has to invest an equivalent amount in local products. This is a small batch for testing, no doubt they are looking at other products as well, but as we agreed the Russians are not really short of equipment and technology options for their SAMs so most likely it will be a case of 10 systems for testing that might end up with a border patrol unit in the far east that is used till it wears out and is retired.

If the sale goes through Russia will likely pick a national product and buy some of it.

Russia isn't selling to Turkey only S-300 or S-400, they sell them other stuff also, like Kornet ATGMs. I agree, that Zipkin could be only stuff, Russians could be interested to buy. Maybe they will only test them, maybe they could also use them with foreign operations under UN, where Zipkin could be easier integrated with NATO and other systems inside operations, where is also air force involved. But even in that case they don't need much of them. Maybe 20 to 30 for units rotations.