Russian VSHORADS Thread

Sosna will replace Strela-10.

Gibka-S will replace some of the hand-held Iglas and Verbas. The rest will be transported by Taifun-PVO.

The ZU-23 will stay. Forever! It is a last resort weapon. And just to versatile, as GarryB said.

GarryB wrote: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...

i agree the Zu-23-2 has been very handy i Syria but that was as a direct fire role. I have never seen the ZOM series in any configuration strela-2, igla, or strela 10, just the radar controlled gun version. I wasnt sure if this was in service or if it was just export only. I havent seen strelets in service either. I remember seeing greek BMP-1 having their turrets removed and replaced with zu-23-2 although i think they could have done a better job and made a enclosed turret

Hole wrote:Sosna will replace Strela-10.

Gibka-S will replace some of the hand-held Iglas and Verbas. The rest will be transported by Taifun-PVO.

The ZU-23 will stay. Forever!  It is a last resort weapon. And just to versatile, as GarryB said.

i think the Zu-23-2 is a great weapon and although its mostly used as a direct fire role now. SOSNA i knew was replacing strela 10. just not heard any planned orders. And as i said i havent seen strelets or and ZOM series in service with Russia. which made me think is it export only.

In afghanistan in the 80s and other wars since the VDV in particular liked to lash twin 23mm cannon to trucks and APCs as direct fire mobile fire support, but I suspect they might be interested in upgrading... once the Shilkas are gone from service there will only be the twin 23mm towed guns firing that powerful round... it is a 23 x 152mm round with high velocity... the other weapons in 23mm calibre are the 23mm guns on the new model Hinds with chin turrets mounting twin barrel 23mm cannon but that gun is the same as the twin 23mm gun of the MiG-23 and MiG-21 and the six barrel gatling of the MiG-31 and Su-24 and fires a much lower velocity heavy shell that is 23x115mm. This enables it to be used at high rates of fire with a potent effect on target with its HE charge without enormous recoil or taking up too much space on the platform.

A while back they showed a towed mount with an enclosed cabin and four SOSNA missiles ready to fire and a single twin barrel 2A38M cannon from a Tunguska (which uses two of these guns). Longer range, 2,500 rpm so comparable rate of fire to the twin 23mm mount but heavier projectile and already in use on Havoc and Hokum and Hind helicopters as well as Tunguska and Pantsir as well as BTR-82A APCs, 30mm RWS for vehicles, and of course BMP-2 and 3.

They would retain a gun mount but it would use standard ammo already widely used and have better performance.

So a ZU-30-1 technically.

Heavy calibre guns are a useful way of stopping an attack before it fully gets going... the Americans knew that from Vietnam with Vulcans in the Jungle...

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/8291041

МОСКВА, 21 апреля. /ТАСС/. Машины разведки и управления для новейшего комплекса противовоздушной обороны (ПВО) "Гибка-С" могут поступить в войска уже в 2021 году. Об этом сообщили ТАСС в понедельник в пресс-службе холдинга "Росэлектроника" (входит в Ростех).

Как уточнили в холдинге, испытания машины разведки и управления (МРУ) завершились в конце прошлого года в составе комплекса ПВО "Гибка-С". Испытания прошли успешно, по их итогам был получен ряд рекомендаций от Министерства обороны, направленных на повышение эффективности комплекса.

"Сейчас разработчик МРУ - НПП "Рубин" (входит в концерн "Вега") - ведет работу по внедрению этих рекомендаций в конструкцию, и параллельно началась подготовка к серийному производству. Рассчитываем, что уже в следующем году мы поставим заказчику установочную партию машин", - приводит пресс-служба слова генерального директора Концерна "Вега" (входит в "Росэлектронику") Вячеслава Михеева.

Command post vehicle from Gibka-S complex will be delivered to army units in 2021. Producer HPP Rubin is now installing some modifications recomended from MoD during tests and is preparing serial production of the complex.

Apparently the Gibka-S complex is capable of firing while driving up to 30 km/h. It's also capable of firing Ataka missiles.

The complex itself is located on the chassis of the Tiger armored car (VPK-233116) and allows you to fire at various types of air targets, including when the car is moving at speeds up to 30 km / h. “Gibka-S” provides for the destruction of air targets using missiles of the Verba and Igla / Igla-S portable anti-aircraft missile systems. The launch of missiles is carried out remotely. Additionally, the installation can use ATGM "Attack".

https://topwar.ru/170448-nazvany-sroki-postuplenija-v-vojska-mashiny-upravlenija-kompleksa-pvo-gibka-s.html

I still feel their's justifiable criticism of Gibka-S, the same I had for Pine/Sosna-R; With Pine and it's short range set to 10km (for Gibka-S is limited by Verba's max range of 6.5km) so it has to make up for it with greater amount of missiles, but Pine/Sosna-R at least has 12 ready to fire missiles, but Gibka-S only has a measly 4 missiles.

Just look at it:



There's clearly room for a system similarly seen on Kornet-M, there should also be at least 8 ready to fire missiles, with additional 8 manpads ready to replenish in the cabin.

This is the mobile version of Igla/Verba. Its main purpopse is to guard marching columns/convois or ponton bridges against some stray drone/helicopter/cruise missile that somehow managed to get trough all the S-300V/Buk/Tor/Tunguska/Derivatsia/Sosna systems. No need for a large amount of ready to fire missiles.

Hole wrote:This is the mobile version of Igla/Verba. Its main purpopse is to guard marching columns/convois or ponton bridges against some stray drone/helicopter/cruise missile that somehow managed to get trough all the S-300V/Buk/Tor/Tunguska/Derivatsia/Sosna systems. No need for a large amount of ready to fire missiles.

So looking at the image I posted, you could honestly tell yourself they couldn't, and they shouldn't add more manpads with all the space available? If they're to going protect a pontoon bridge, it's extremely unlikely that a stray attack/kamikaze drone or an attack helicopter would stumble on it accidentally, I mean a river sticks out pretty clearly different from general forest foliage from the above aerial view.

You bring up other anti-air assets from the Russian Federation, but you wrongly assume that Gibka-S would only be used domestically and not sold on the export market. A small fraction of Russian export clients have shown interest in IAD (China, Egypt, and Algeria are the exception), even India isn't even slightly interested in full-fledged IAD, so from a marketing stand point for the countries who can't afford full-fleshed out IAD, or countries who aren't interested, it actually makes sense to have more manpads for marketing persistence capability.

The 3rd world clients might not even be able to afford singular assets of Buk or Tor or Derivation or even Sonsa, but they still might want some air defense with mobility that aren't static elements like Pechora, S-75, S-200, etc. They could probably be enticed to buying them to protect their antiquated immobile air defenses, or protect VIPs from surprise 'light' aerial attacks.

If the russian army would think it needs more missiles on that system it would get more. Because of the reasons I gave you the need isn´t there.

They should make a system with r-73/74 like the houtis. Bigger, better computing, better aerodynamics and more reliable missile than manpads which are designed for use by soldiers on foot. Vehicles are less limited by weight.

For export they could sell it to countries that have migs and don't really use them or that operates r-73.

I would also add that such system are much better than in the past because they have high resolution IR/Visible cameras that can watch 10 km or more away making them real survelliance tools.

magnumcromagnon wrote:I still feel their's justifiable criticism of Gibka-S, the same I had for Pine/Sosna-R; With Pine and it's short range set to 10km (for Gibka-S is limited by Verba's max range of 6.5km) so it has to make up for it with greater amount of missiles, but Pine/Sosna-R at least has 12 ready to fire missiles, but Gibka-S only has a measly 4 missiles.

I would suggest, that it is not proper to look at Gibka through NATO perspective as in NATO such VSHORAD systems are the best what their ground forces have. Gibka-S is a VSHORAD and it have its own niche of tasks, but not on battlefield. Russian ground forces have S-300V4, which is placed on tracked vehicle. They have many versions of Buks, which are placed on tracked vehicles. Than they have Tors placed on tracked vehicles, Tunguska-M1 placed on tracked vehicles and finaly Derivatsia-PVO and Sosna will be also placed on BMP-3 tracked vehicles. Which of those tracked vehicles would be used to protect logistical convoys? They need wheeled and cheaper one for that job and Gibka-S on Tigr-M is just fine it as its armour protect against small arms. Yes, it could have 8 missiles, but even 4 are enough as convoy will be protected by the unit and not by single Gibka. Their targets will be mostly drones, which will succede to come through the cluster defense on the front line and for such treats Verba is good enough.

This is an RPG-7 for air defence... it is a cheap simple light vehicle that can take down threats when needed.

It wont be used on its own and ideally would be allocated targets to engage from a command vehicle.

They could fit a lot of missiles in the rear so I doubt lack of missiles would be a problem... most enemies will run out of aircraft before Russia runs out of anti aircraft missiles.

@ Lsos... that is an interesting idea regarding the AAMs modified for use from light ground vehicles... there are plenty of countries around the world with fighter planes and a store of missiles that would benefit from using the AAMs as makeshift SAMs... especially if they can be made in to effective SAMs.

Even old R-3 and R-13 missiles could be used as well as R-60MK models that were exported widely.

The R-73 would certainly be the most potent but even the IR guided models of the R-27 family could be used.

A modest size solid rocket booster could be used to get the missile airborne and moving towards its target so ground launching does not take too much performance away from the missiles...

Putting them on a very mobile platform like a trailer launcher with a decent IR based sensor module to find targets a bit like the system on the Kornet-EM and their new SAMs like Pine should allow targets to be detected and monitored from useful distances...

Small missiles like the R-60 should be still rather useful in relatively close and once they are used up you could buy Igla-S or Verba to replace them in the system.

For old R-3 and R-13 stocks you could probably set up several sets at a time to increase lethality on different trailers located around the place, while any R-73s and R-27Ts could reach up to decent altitudes against planes that normally think they are safe from ground fire... though you would need to be rather careful in that regard as civilian airliners would be at risk, but then also enemy troop transports and inflight refuelling aircraft and even command aircraft and AWACS...

They could modify the system to replace the existing seekers to allow command guidance options to improve performance against well protected targets... and of course they have a whole backlog of SAMs they could sell... SA-9, SA-13, SA-8 etc that all have the potential to reach a little further than MANPADS and carry a heavier warhead too but could probably be provided cheaply...

GarryB wrote:This is an RPG-7 for air defence... it is a cheap simple light vehicle that can take down threats when needed.

It wont be used on its own and ideally would be allocated targets to engage from a command vehicle.

They could fit a lot of missiles in the rear so I doubt lack of missiles would be a problem... most enemies will run out of aircraft before Russia runs out of anti aircraft missiles.

@ Lsos... that is an interesting idea regarding the AAMs modified for use from light ground vehicles... there are plenty of countries around the world with fighter planes and a store of missiles that would benefit from using the AAMs as makeshift SAMs... especially if they can be made in to effective SAMs.

Even old R-3 and R-13 missiles could be used as well as R-60MK models that were exported widely.

The R-73 would certainly be the most potent but even the IR guided models of the R-27 family could be used.

A modest size solid rocket booster could be used to get the missile airborne and moving towards its target so ground launching does not take too much performance away from the missiles...

Putting them on a very mobile platform like a trailer launcher with a decent IR based sensor module to find targets a bit like the system on the Kornet-EM and their new SAMs like Pine should allow targets to be detected and monitored from useful distances...

Small missiles like the R-60 should be still rather useful in relatively close and once they are used up you could buy Igla-S or Verba to replace them in the system.

For old R-3 and R-13 stocks you could probably set up several sets at a time to increase lethality on different trailers located around the place, while any R-73s and R-27Ts could reach up to decent altitudes against planes that normally think they are safe from ground fire... though you would need to be rather careful in that regard as civilian airliners would be at risk, but then also enemy troop transports and inflight refuelling aircraft and even command aircraft and AWACS...

They could modify the system to replace the existing seekers to allow command guidance options to improve performance against well protected targets... and of course they have a whole backlog of SAMs they could sell... SA-9, SA-13, SA-8 etc that all have the potential to reach a little further than MANPADS and carry a heavier warhead too but could probably be provided cheaply...

...already done and used in combat. By Houti, it work...sometime.

And the Serbs did the same against HATO, but the idea I think is to commercialise it so it performs better or more consistently and then they have a whole back catalogue of weapons they could sell instead of just having them as aerial targets. They could offer a range of performances for a range of prices...

Maybe Russia just figured that it needs a direct replacement for the Strela-1; a light wheeled SAM platform that can keep up with recon vehicles whether on roads, or off-road fording some river or whatever.

The Strela-10 and Sosna-R are really more for embedding with tracked elements and slower vehicles.

To be clear a Tigr-M light vehicle with four ready to launch Igla-S or Verba missiles is a great idea.... light mobile and likely rather effective... you don't have to shoot down the entire HATO airforce to get them to operate at 10km altitude and above and to not even bother with attack helos... which pretty much leaves drones... so having dozens of these light vehicles all over the place probable makes more sense than a Pantsir battery for most countries...

This weapons are not designed by some dude in an office and the army is forced to buy them. The army had specific requests and gave an order to the industry. Then the thing was tested and now put into service.

The predecessors of this system are some BTR-80/BMP-1/BMP-2 with one or two guys standing in a roof hatch with an Strela/Igla on their shoulder, exposed to sun and dust or cold and snow, not to mention enemy fire. Now the soldier sits in a (lightly) armored vehicle with an EO system on top to look for targets (plus data from a radar system mounted on the same sort of vehicle) and can launch his missiles with the push of a button.

Well this is true... this is probably part of their changes to policy where MANPAD gripstocks were carried in BMP-2 vehicles for use as needed by troops in the field.

Hitting quite a few of their own planes in the conflict in Georgia showed IFF was an issue and that they needed tighter control of air defence networks, so developing a relatively light and cheap but also mobile air defence vehicle makes a lot of sense. Being a dedicated vehicle they could access the battle management map and also receive target information from the IADS so they will have an idea of where enemy forces are... they could add those they see to the map too and perform a recon like function as they move around, but should be able to engage air targets fairly effectively...

Another point is that it can be easily airlifted.

MANPADS are extremly important to defend all your troops along the frontline, but even more so to guard the support troops in the rear. With Barnaul-T (command and control), Taifun-PVO and Gibka-S (mobility) Russia did a lot to modernise this last line of defence.

flamming_python wrote:Maybe Russia just figured that it needs a direct replacement for the Strela-1; a light wheeled SAM platform that can keep up with recon vehicles whether on roads, or off-road fording some river or whatever.

The Strela-10 and Sosna-R are really more for embedding with tracked elements and slower vehicles.

Correct. Gibka-S is succesor and replacement for Strela-1 on BRDM-2.


I don't see it smart to use AA missiles as SAMs. Yes, Serbs and Houtis in Yemen use them as SAMs, when they don't have fighter jets in the air and NATO also went for idea of using AMRAAM, Mica and IRIS-T as SAMs. AAMs are designed to ba launched at altitude and with given speed, not from zero on the ground. Using them as SAMs well degraded missile capabilities with far shorter range and less kinetic capabilities. AAMs give far morew protection for ground units, when they are used on fighter jets and it is not good idea, when you have to share your missile stock with air force fighter jets. Ground forces usually doesn't have AAMs with them. R-73 is far more expensive than Tor or Pantsir missile and when used from the ground it have shorter range than Tor or Pantsir. AIM-120C for Nasams have range of 25 km while as AAM have range of 100+ km. VL Mica have max range of 20 km, while as AAM have range of 80 km and at 12 km it lost a lot of energy and could hardly follow agile target. Using AAMs as SAMs is nonsense as it is too big degradation for very expensive missiles.

That issues can be solved with a booster. It would bring the missile at same speeds as when launched by jets.

Your numbers are max ranges and achieved at very high launch speed and high altitude. An AMRAAM or R-77-1 launched from low altitude and lower speeds won't have 100+km range but more like 50km i.e the same as would the same missile have with a booster and launched from the ground.

A booster would help redress the problems, but Medo is right in the sense that the converted AAM is a desperation measure for countries whose air forces would be overwhelmed quickly if they did take to the air, meaning the AAMs are not going to be used for anything else.

An example would be for Syria... their AAMs would be more useful ground launched against Israel and Turkey... especially older models like the R-3 and R-13 (HATO codename AA-2 ). R-73s would probably be most useful on MiG-29s, but Su-22s would just be cannon fodder with R-3s.

For some other third world country... against other third world country neighbours using planes against contemporaries would be fine, but if they find themselves up against HATO or France or the US or UK then ground launching might be their best way to go...

Ironically such a system could be modified as a unified launcher of old missile types of all missile types and actually used by Russia to launch simulated attacks using old obsolete missiles as aircraft simulators with corner reflectors etc for air defence units to get some practise...

To convert AAM´s to SAM´s would only be useful if you (country X) don´t have any SAM systems. For Russia it would be superfluous.

One plus of russian AAM´s are their different seeker heads (at least up to the R-27). Could be a good idea to fit a IR seeker to a Buk-M3 missile.

Isos wrote:That issues can be solved with a booster. It would bring the missile at same speeds as when launched by jets.

Your numbers are max ranges and achieved at very high launch speed and high altitude. An AMRAAM or R-77-1 launched from low altitude and lower speeds won't have 100+km range but more like 50km i.e the same as would the same missile have with a booster and launched from the ground.

Yes, you could add the booster to prolong range, but it will also increase the price of missile. I don't think, that R-77-1 is much cheaper than 9M317M missile from Buk-M3 or 9M96 from S-350 and even with booster it will not reach their capabilities. With those two missiles and soon also cheap Pantsir-SM missile, there is no need to place this AAM to SAM role, specially when even air force fighter jets doesn't have enough of them in stocks. Actually the opposite would be better option. Just think to place long range 9M96E2 missile with around 150 km range on a fighter jet like Su-35 or Su-57. How much would range be prolonged, when launched from high altitude and high speed? And their capabilities to engage agile or very fast targets.

Hole wrote:To convert AAM´s to SAM´s would only be useful if you (country X) don´t have any SAM systems. For Russia it would be superfluous.

One plus of russian AAM´s are their different seeker heads (at least up to the R-27). Could be a good idea to fit a IR seeker to a Buk-M3 missile.

Strela 10 are getting old and vehicle mounted r-74 would be a nice replacement and would allow to standardize missiles used for aviation and IR shorad.

Yes, you could add the booster to prolong range, but it will also increase the price of missile. I don't think, that R-77-1 is much cheaper than 9M317M missile from Buk-M3 or 9M96 from S-350 and even with booster it will not reach their capabilities. With those two missiles and soon also cheap Pantsir-SM missile, there is no need to place this AAM to SAM role, specially when even air force fighter jets doesn't have enough of them in stocks. Actually the opposite would be better option. Just think to place long range 9M96E2 missile with around 150 km range on a fighter jet like Su-35 or Su-57. How much would range be prolonged, when launched from high altitude and high speed? And their capabilities to engage agile or very fast targets.

We are talking about shorad and r-73/74 would be a very good replacement for strela 10 with longer range and better seaker. I agree about bigger missiles even if the air to air counterpart to buk m3 and s-350 missiles would be R-77M with 200km range rather than r-77-1. A ground launched r-77M with a booster would achieve 100km pretty easily IMO.

Booster is primitive technology and not expensive. Activre radar technology is.