TOR Air Defence system

Impressive.

The OSA is a small supersonic target and from the video it appears that both of the two missiles fired at each target actually hit something.

Considering the cost of the TOR, with its sophisticated 3D search radar and phased array tracking radar, I always thought that 8 missiles would be a bit limiting in combat.

Especially with the types of targets it would be used against warranting two missiles per target.

I was thinking that some sort of trailer could be developed to be towed behind the standard TOR vehicle with the same vertical launch cannisters fitted.
A decent sized trailer could probably carry 4 of the 8 round bins with no trouble, so a total ready to launch compliment of 40 missiles could make it a better point defence system.

The latest model Pantsir has a range of 20km and ceiling of 15km, but the TOR is ready to fire in any direction with its vertical launcher and able to carry lots of missiles in trailers parked around the target area.

Both missiles are command guided so they don't have expensive seekers and are therefore cheap enough to use in large numbers, in fact having both systems would compliment each other, with the Pantsir engaging targets out to longer range and higher altitudes, while the TOR handles the lose in difficult targets.

It isn't a T-50 or Bulava it seems..

I guess they can't fix everything at the same time and for the moment the air defence SAMs are still pretty good.

The focus seems to be more on aircraft and navy which is probably OK because an all weather day night capable airforce and a navy that has real global reach are probably more important than replacing TOR-M1 with TOR-M2. TOR-M1 is still an extremely capable system on land and at sea. (At sea it is called Klintok).

No, of course not.

The Army needs to sort through everything it has and perhaps sell on the international market things it doesn't need or want or they could go into a pool of stuff to give away to allies that might find the material useful.
The Army should also go through the stuff it wants to keep and then it needs to work out the stuff it wants in the future, from upgrades to new material.
There is likely a lot of money to be made through selling to museums and collectors and legitimate sales to countries.
Cuba might want some more Mig-29s for instance... even if just for parts.
North Korea might want some stuff and you could use it to increase trade. There is a country that could use a friend.

The budget is a finite thing and will not stretch to cover everything right now.

At the current time the focus for the army it seems is the new command and control system.

This is a structure that needs infrastructure to work so you need the upgraded communications systems and battle management systems all linked together.
The need to upgrade the communications so that the Russian armed forces becomes a network where every component of that network can get and send information to every other part of the network.

This structure will work better the more components are added, but before you start you need to establish rules and standards so that the radios used by your army can communicate with the radios of your air force and navy for instance. Is the data rate fast enough?
The command structure needs to reach right down to individual soldiers.
The first set of gear will be clumsy and cumbersome, but it will highlight areas that the armed forces can demand progress in.

Look at that Barnaul system for the Igla is a good example where the introduction of newer radio communications, a netbook type computer and the right software could improve it and make it more portable.
In practical terms it might not be more effective but it will be lighter and because parts can be standardised and reused in other kits (ie for Towed 23mm gun units you'd basically use the same stuff as an Igla operator, and SA-9 and SA-13 units could also do with night capability plus a laser rangefinder to make sure the target is within range before the weapon is launched, and advanced warning from the C4IR net would be generally useful all round... in the Barnaul case the implementation looks low tech and bulky.
One of the Cs in C4 is computers, and with better computers in 10 years time the equivalent to Barnaul could be a net linked palmtop computer that communicated with the C4IR network and transmits target information directly into the thermal sight fitted to the launcher which will be a binocular system that includes a laser rangefinder and GLONASS receiver and ring laser gyro so that marking the target with a laser will determine range and angle to the target with the launchers coordinates the palm computer calculates the position of the target and transmits that data to the C4IR, while the IFF system built into the launcher marks the target as friend, foe, or unknown. An image database is used to analyse the thermal image to determine ID of the aircraft type and possible origin.

Right now the Army has enough armour and armoured vehicles (Actually far too much of it in fact), though they all seriously need proper upgrades they have decided that there needs to be a finalisation of the C4IR kit that needs to be fitted to the upgrades before they go implementing upgrades willy nilly.

My opinion is that they will have a break till 2011 and then from 2012-2015 they will be working on upgrades of existing models like the T-90 upgrade with German and French additions possibly, and BTR-82s and whatever they turn the BTR-90 into.
From 2015 onwards they will have a replacement BTR-xx ready and also likely a new T-9x tank when it has matured and more of the content is Russian made and of course they have made it lighter.

I know I know the T-95 is cancelled, but there is only one tank maker in Russia now and the T-95 was the best they could manage just the end of last year and early this year.
Unless the Russian Army has made specific requests, like visibility and situational awareness requires a manned turret to fundamentally change the design back then I think 80% of what the T-95 is right now will be their future tank in 5 years time. They will add more capabilities and make it lighter perhaps or better protected but unless they fire everyone in the development department and destroy all the information stores and then hire all new people to start from scratch then I don't think a new tank design is going to change much in 5 years.
They might go for an electric gun with liquid plasma propellent, and electric armour and electric drive... it could be like star trek where power is transferred from the shields to the cloaking device to the main photon torpedoes...

Can't believe any of there disinformation anymore.

I prefer to assume that things were beyond their control and that they weren't lying as such, just being optimistic.

For instance I have read a lot of reports on certain things that were based on interviews and when I saw the interviews the problem was really misreporting.

I have read reports where the head of a tank making company states that the T-95 will be ready for service in 2005. I have then read the interview the report was based on and what the guy actually said was that with proper funding the T-95 could be ready for service as early as 2005.

I think we should just take figures given as estimates, so instead of this system being in service in 2011 we should actually take this to mean: If we get proper funding and no problems occur we hope to get this system into service by 2011.

Every program needs to be managed and estimates need to be made to plan all sorts of things. If they can't get a large enough skilled workforce in time, if certain components are found to be substandard and need to be reordered, if funding stops, if a machine tool fails... and a thousand other little things that could slow down production and prevent the deadline being achieved... that is just the fun of being manager.

It's a lie if you tell something like that to a soldier and it doesn't happen.

They might contemplate the situation a little deeper later, but when you tell them that such a magical system could be given to his guys some time later but it doesn't happen, then they feel wronged.

But is it the manager of the plant that is lying or the reporter that misses out vital information that is lying?

I have not ignored what Vlad has been saying about promises for the last two decades not being kept and I can understand him not believing them anymore.
I think however that the person saying it will start entering service in 2011 really believes it is possible, so they are not lying... if it doesn't enter service till 2013 then they were just wrong... unless he knows there is something that will delay its service entry.

I just think they need more time.

Even with all perfect new equipment the Russian armed forces will not be an up to date perfect force overnight either.

I see a lot of progress and unlike previous attempts the money for the programs actually seems to be getting delivered.

Things are and were never going to change overnight, but if everyone is a pessimist then look forward to all foreign material. It is the optimists that will be the innovators and the pessimists who complain that everyone elses stuff is better and if you can't have that then you shouldn't bother.

Nobody has all the best stuff. The British Army often complained in Desert Storm that their radios were from the 1950s and that their rifles had to be fired in bursts because they jammed less often that way even though they were trained to fire single shot.

New Zealand soldiers are notorious on exercise as being magpies (A black and white australian bird that "collects" bright shiny objects it comes across). They don't steal stuff but they will ask if they can have it and it will disappear into a pouch or pocket if the owner says yes... mostly because they were generally under equipped compared to the forces they operate with.

It is very likely that the Airforce model will be wheeled as this would improve strategic mobility and greatly reduce purchase and operating costs.
Obviously tactical mobility will be lower than a tracked model so it would not be able to keep up with tanks, but for the Air Force that is not really a consideration as much of their other stuff is wheeled so moving it around your defence district will likely be quicker by road/rail/aircraft.
I would imagine that the lack of roads in the district that covers much of siberia would still be better to have wheels as landed from an aircraft they could patrol an airfield and still run cheaper than a tracked model.

It basically comes down to what it is supposed to be operating with... if it operates with tanks or S-300V batteries then there will be support and fuel for track layers and the mobility of a track layer would be needed to keep up.
If it operates with S-300 then a wheeled model would be cheaper to buy and operate.
If it operates with a light armour unit with mostly wheeled vehicles then obviously wheeled SAMs will be used here too.

Well you have to remember from the point of view of the SAM system itself all it needs to do is match the mobility of what it is defending.

If the enemy take out the roads it is no advantage to have tracked SAM vehicles if the material they are protecting include a lot of wheeled vehicles. The SAMs still might be able to move, but if the vehicles they are protecting can't then having tracks is no advantage with regards to mobility and is a huge disadvantage in terms of road range and operating costs etc.

Communications centres and railroad hubs are not mobile at all so trailer version of SAM systems used together with wheeled models could be used to defend such a target. Mobility will mean that weapons that destroy fixed targets like JDAMS couldn't be reliably used against a wheeled SAM that was moved ever few hours or so.
The trailer models will be tied into the local AD network and might fire some missiles but will operate in radar silent mode to avoid revealing their position electronically.

Which is a good thing, because these wheeled vehicles will trade protection for speed and firepower and in the BMP-3M turret the Russians have a significant advantage in firepower in my opinion.

But the Russian Army is talking about heavy, medium, and light armoured brigades, and it is likely that the light armoured brigades will be mostly wheeled, so they will also need wheeled models to support them. Nothing really radical really as the SA-8 and SA-9 were both wheeled and seemed to cope. If it gets stuck then there are plenty of tanks to pull them out...