Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

GarryB wrote:I have seen a small trailer mount that had a small cabin and a single twin barrel 2A38M 30mm cannon as fitted to the Tunguska (Tunguska has two of course), that had an optical ball turret and no radar, but it did have a quad launcher for SOSNA-R missiles.

The advantage would be light weight and low costs...

2,000-2,500 rpm is pretty good in terms of shooting things down and the small relatively light SOSNA missiles are light and cheap and very high speed out to about 10km range so they are much better than MANPADS.

Another advantage is that they don't have an optical port that looks at the target... so the AH-64 with its flashy DIRCMS system will find no amount of dazzle directed at the incoming missile will have any effect... at the 8 or so seconds from launch to impact will reduce its ability to "dodge" the incoming threat...

It was in trailer form but there is no reason by it could not be mounted on a small vehicle like a Tigr or similar.

If you were prepared to spend money you could use airburst 30mm cannon shells too making it effective against small UAVs too.

Sounds good pity we haven't seen more of it. Of course the beauty of such a system is the fact it can be tailored to customers need. So Sonsa or verba or even SA-24 could be used with 30mm or 57mm. This system would still offer the ground support role if really needed. The reason why I think such a system has potential is that some countries who maybe can't afford more advanced systems or face a lower threat from the air this system would become affordable also the purchasing country may have surplus vehicles that it could be mounted on such as mt-lb or BTR -60 or bmp-1 this would reduce the need for a different chassis to what they already stock. I am actually surprised Sonsa hasn't been marketed more or maybe there waiting to offer it along with the 57mm system also I wonder if the reason why we haven't seen anything more on the subject is that maybe there waiting for the 57mm system to be ready then they will implement a 57mm version on trailer configuration.

On the subject of export sales I kinda feel that Russia is missing many opportunities in many areas of defence and potential countries. Obviously more money is to be had selling new weapons etc but the market of selling second hand upgraded systems or selling upgrades to countries which cannot buy new expensive systems this market I feel Russia could do better on as well as the market for new but less sophisticated systems such as mig-29M, combat yak-130, T-72BM-3 etc. The strategy here is not necessarily to make big money from the deals (although profit will be made) but rather to gain a new or keep a current customer and deny other companies/countries winning the deal. But this also guarantees maintenance and parts contracts which help Russian companies for many years and help companies going through quiet times as well keep people in jobs. It would be interesting to see annual sales figures for such contracts because I actually think that the list would be quite long if you consider how many soviet and Russian systems still in use and then you have the ammo contracts. Of course some countries also sell soviet parts and ammo such as Ukraine Belarus Bulgaria etc which will likely gain some sales share. Although I am not sure what quality is like from those countries and I would imagine that parts are likely from cannibalised equipment. The beauty about upgrades etc is that Russia doesn't have a problem making upgrades and doing them fairly quickly thus eliminating customer waiting time and costs for Russian companies in lengthy testing and research.

Sounds good pity we haven't seen more of it.

I would suspect those groups likely to want to use such a system probably don't want attention...

Of course the beauty of such a system is the fact it can be tailored to customers need. So Sonsa or verba or even SA-24 could be used with 30mm or 57mm.

I don't think the trailer mount would be substantial enough for 57mm guns, and to be honest the SOSNA is really the only missile that makes sense... its performance is excellent and it has the range to keep helicopters at beyond standoff distance...

The 30mm would be useful when reloading the missiles, but it would be a secondary weapon most of the time except for small hard to spot targets...

This system would still offer the ground support role if really needed.

In a trailer it could be used against ground forces, but on a mobile vehicle most of the supporting vehicles would be better armed for the ground role...

Air burst rounds fired at a row of infantry that bursts just short and sends shrapnel at the target would be devastating...

I am actually surprised Sonsa hasn't been marketed more or maybe there waiting to offer it along with the 57mm system also I wonder if the reason why we haven't seen anything more on the subject is that maybe there waiting for the 57mm system to be ready then they will implement a 57mm version on trailer configuration.

Two reasons for a trailer mount system... mobility and low cost.

For a fixed structure protection a trailer mounted system can be setup in preprepared locations around the place... move them every once and a while to make attacks on the base costly because you can never be sure where it will be... from a ground attack and air attack perspective... in fact even during an attack extra trailers could be moved into position or moved as needed.

For mobile forces this might be the best air defence option in addition to MANPADS... certainly SOSNA missiles would be immune to DIRCMs and flares and chaff... and with a range of 8km and a missile flight time of about 12 seconds or so to 8km it is a very potent little missile.

Note I found this video... it has different stats for performance though...

If you oblige them to fly very low because you have a s-300 and some buks around your AAA any gun is good. Even a small machine gun could engage them.

Sure, did write up a big bit about that but didn't post it because the scenario was supposed to be low cost.

If you have proper SAMs you're a big player & these days they'll just standoff & degrade/destroy the SAMs with saturation attacks first then bomb you at leisure from beyond 23mm range.

Even against an older airforce like Syria that habitually flies low there's only been a few shootdowns despite jihadis having no shortage of 23mm etc.

^^^
Interesting....Any further info ?

Cyberspec wrote:^^^
Interesting....Any further info ?

Got it from this twitter thread.

https://twitter.com/Benoit_Cyvoct/status/1280152007601459208

One of the twitter pages that you follow, Hans Schmulke, doesn't believe it's necessary but he doesn't give a good reason why. KBP Tula created both Tunguska and Pantsir, and theoretically Pantsir is cheaper than Tor, and get's within 80-85% capability of Tor. KBP Tula will push for Tunguska being replaced with the vastly superior Pantsir series. What's most interesting about the future of Pantsir is it's new missiles will be getting to 40-45km range, which will eventually be extended to 60-65 km range, allowing it to supersede old model Buk. The new systems will cover the old envelope of SAMs. S-350 Vityaz and new model Buk will supersede old model S-300PS/PM, while new model Pantsir and Tor will supersede old model Buk. Probably when Morphei is ready and alongside with Derivatsiya, it will probably supersede old model Tor and Pantsir respectively.

The New trend in Russian IAD is to create new superseding systems: 1.) With significantly greater ready to fire munitions. 2.) To have a 'High-Low' dynamic similar to 4th gen fighter jet philosophy, but for SAMs. A higher tier more expensive system for the upper envelope, and a much cheaper/simpler system for covering the lower tier of the envelope.

Thanks

I wonder though... are the bigger longer ranged Pantsirs supposed to replace the older Pantsirs or to support them?

I noticed the longer ranged Pantsir has a bigger solid rocket booster which means the launch tube is bigger and longer while the actual missile stage that performs the intercept is slimmer, smaller and lighter that the older missile... I wonder if the new four round missile per tube missile for drones together with the new longer ranged missiles might be one system covering drones and munitions at short range and launch platforms at longer range, while the usual 20km range missiles might also be used for other targets that don't need the extra range...

Pantsir and Tunguska are a unified system... they are essentially the same system that now includes two navalised versions and an Arctic version too... I think the TOR and the BUK and the S-350 will all be improved too and all continue in use in niche areas where their best features makes them the best choice for the job.

Apart from unification across the branches, I think each system, now including Pine(SOSNA) each have their strengths and replacing any with any others does not make them stronger at all.

The new quad missile tube for Pantsir is especially interesting... imagine a quad pack of tubes each with four missiles per pylon and they are essentially cheap command guided missiles so mounting them on Helicopters or Su-25SM3s or even drones operating at high altitude for use against drones or light air targets would means large numbers of targets could be engaged.

Equally a ground based truck looking externally like a Grad with 40 tubes with these missiles sitting near a pantsir battery potentially with 160 ready to fire anti drone missiles.

But of course a drone with a 40mm grenade launcher loaded with special grenades that explode after travelling 50m or so could be used as a little fighter plane to shoot down enemy drones if connected to the local IADS network. The 40mm grenades could have claymore type bombs.... with a simple laser range finder you could fly round behind a drone and close to about 55m or 60m and fire a grenade or two to blow it down with one or two grenades.

Unlike small arms fire like a PKM machine gun the fragments from the exploding 40mm grenade will become ineffective at more than 50m or so which means you are not endangering people around your base and it would offer a pretty devastating anti drone shotgun type blast over close ranges...