P.V.O. (Russian Air Defence) General Thread:

If Vityaz was just a new system with 9M96 and some new radar they would not have taken this longer , infact they do not even need to build one , they can simply use the existing 9M96 series and the radar and that would make it cheaper and far faster to get.

The fact that they are taking effort to design a new system like Vityaz means they have a complete new system with new missile and radar most likely a AESA.

I think both Vityaz and S-400 compliment each other and in most cases we might just have a battery of both , while one is highly effecient in taking out air breathing targets the other is good to do both task of anti-BM and aircraft.

In paces where they do not see the need to have S-400 missile and less of BM threat they might jut have Vityaz like Air Bases deep inside russia or other places.

So i really dont think S-400 will replace the S-300PM/PS series , we just just find both S-300 and S-400 operating together and eventually Vityaz and S-400 and in places either one of those.

Austin wrote:The PMU1 is just an export model of PS and PMU2 is an export model of PM.

Only the oldest model of S-300 had 90 Km range , So i would expect Vityaz range to be between PS and PM.

I still feel the 9M98 lacks the energy of S-300 series.

Well S-300PS is exported as the S-300PMU with 5V55RUD missile (90 km range) , the S-300PMU-1 is the export version of the S-300PM with 48N6E missile (150 km range) .

The oldest S-300P variant is the S-300PT using 5V55K missile with 47 km range .

This Vityaz system seems to me to be a case... well lets say instead of a smaller missile for the S-300, lets say it was developed as a small missile to update the SA-3, being a smaller missile they could put four missile tubes on the old Quad launcher in place of each rail, so instead of 4 huge two stage missiles (SA-3), they realised that while a large (150kg in the case of the S-300) warhead is good for some targets, it is too much for many targets especially cruise missiles and fighter jet aircraft, so the new weapons are much smaller and lighter, but more accurate and longer ranged.

The situation however in that case would be that the new smaller lighter missiles are let down by the old and not so mobile technology of the SA-3, so rather than just introduce the new missile and send it to SA-3 batteries they have decided to build a new battery of radar and other sensors and a new launch platform that would allow a much larger volume of fire.

The drawings released so far show truck based Vityaz launchers that look nothing like S-300 trucks, and one presumes all the systems will be state of the art high tech digital systems that can operate as part of an air defence network.

As a medium system the requirements for mobility will be higher, while range and speed and size and weight will be much higher.

This new system will likely be widely used on a range of chassis from the Navy (Redut) to the Army and Airforce and the Space and Air Defence force groups as a medium range SAM.

What I dont understand is the difference between teh TOR and the PANTSIR...Arn't the PANTSIR supposed to replace the Tunguska? Those upgraded tunguskas have a longer detection range that pantsir's and TOR trumps them all. So why just not go with the TOR-M2 which have the ability to engage cruse missiles very effectively?

Makes me wonder if it is much better than this system at a fraction the cost...

The structure of a new Russian Brigade (that is heavy, medium and light... and including motor rifle and tank brigades) has two regiments of air defence vehicles... one missile and one missile and gun.

Traditionally the gun and missile was either Shilka and SA-9 or later Shilka and SA-13, and then Tunguska, while the missile units were SA-8 OSA and then SA-15 TOR.

In the future structure I rather expect they will go for Pantsir-S1 in the gun/missile units and TOR for the missile units. There is no need for one or the other to do everything.

Vladimir79 wrote:Makes me wonder if it is much better than this system at a fraction the cost...

Mistral is French equivalent MANPAD to Igla-S, so vehicle mounted Igla-S is the same as Mistral on this video. Different type of SAM comparing to Pantsir or Tor-M2. The nearest French equivalent to them is Crotale-NG.

There were reports, that ground forces receive first Tor-M2 systems last year, but up for now now picture of them. We only see pictures and video of Belarus Tor-M2. It's true, that Tor-M2U and Pantsir-S1 are very similar by their capabilities and having both in ground forces units only means, that you could choose which one will you use in particular environment and which capability you need more, gun fire or vertical launch.

Vladimir79 wrote:Makes me wonder if it is much better than this system at a fraction the cost...

Like Medo said, that is really a simple MANPAD adaptation.

The French, nor anyone really, have the kind of integrated defense system like the Pantsir, shortcomings or not.

This French system can be compared with modernized Shilka with Igla-S system and is in no comparison with Pancir-S1/Tor-M1 systems.



@TR1 - tnx for explanation.

whats the difference in roles between Tor-m2 and Pantsyr in russian army?

Pantsir is not jet in Russian army, only in air force air defense. But when tracked Pantsir will serve in army units, it will most probably take the role of old Tunguska, but otherwise they are equal SHORADs and could excellently supplement each other.

First of all one would be classed as gun/missile and the other missile.

Second as medo points out Pantsir-S1 comes in wheeled and tracked models, though Tor will likely also be offered in different models too, the wheeled or trailer based models are designed for operating on roads or fixed sites respectively, so protecting a convoy or airfield would be likely missions for wheeled and trailer based versions respectively.

In their Army tracked versions at Brigade level there are gun/missile regiments and missile regiments, and in a well equipped brigade the Pantsir-S1 on a tracked chassis (looking externally very much like a Tunguska with more sophisticated radar and EO sensors) would operate in the gun missile regiments and the TOR would likely operate in the Missile AD regiments. Both would perform frontline defence of ground units from low flying targets including incoming enemy missiles, aircraft and helos. Further to the rear medium range SAMs like BUK and soon Vityaz will also operate, while to the rear the S-400s and S-300VM4s will offer longer range protection and TBM protection for HQs and C4I centres and communication hubs. Major airfields will be protected by Air Force and Aerospace Defence forces and of course the aircraft themselves.

Both are very capable and it would be hard to pick between them... TOR is probably the more expensive as its electronics and sensors are more sophisticated including a 3D search radar and phased array tracking and engagement radar. Its missiles are also probably cheaper as they are fairly simple radio command guided. Pantsir-S1 on the other hand however is also very capable and has longer reach in terms of range and altitude.
One factor is that the Pantsir-S1 has a booster rocket to improve its performance, but that creates a danger from the falling used booster, while the TOR is a single stage missile. Pantsir-S1 has the advantage of guns so it can engage close range targets where needed while both missiles have a dead zone of about 1km where targets can't be engaged by missiles. Obviously a BMP-3 with a couple of Igla-S gripstocks and 10 missiles or so also solves that problem...

Might be a silly question, but how are the missiles in the S-400s and S-300s arranged? I mean like the S-400 has three main missiles (that I know of), and each launcher has four launch tubes (if thats even the right word). Does each launcher carry, like, two 40N6's and two 48N6's or do have a standard loadout (like all four tubes carry 40N6's), and the other missiles are loaded are as required. Or do the different launchers in the battery, carry different missiles loadouts, and the launcher(s) with the appropriate missiles engage as required?

The different missiles would be deployed as required and it would simply be the case that as each battery connects to the network it will indicate to the Integrated Air Defence Network where it is, what it can see and what it has in terms of ready to launch missiles. The battle management system will then determine which launcher will engage which target with which weapon during an engagement. Of course tactics might come in to it too where long range missiles will only be used against long range targets.

I think division (battalion) is the main unit for S-400, which have radar complex + 8 launchers. It could have 2 launchers equipped with 40N6 long range missiles, 4 launchers with 48N6 "medium" range missiles and finally 2 launchers with "short" range 9M96 missiles. It also have protection from Pantsir Platoon. So different targets, different missiles.

The 9M96 short range missiles are especially designed for when there is no extra battery of small missiles to protect the S-400 battery, so that with a couple of tubes it can defend itself.

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20130424/934250446.html

Ostapenko said that at present, work is continuing on the creation of ground-based air defense "Hero". "Hero" - a tool that will significantly outperform the S-300. Even the fact that the guide will be 12 instead of 4 as it is now - it is almost three times the increase firepower, "- said the general.

Good news that development of new systems is active. I hope we will soon see prototypes of Morfei, Vityaz and S-500.

- Morfei will be finished in 2015

- Vityaz will be finished probably in 2015 or before

- interesting thing is that each TEL/TELAR of Vityaz system will 12 missiles not just 4 as in S-300.

- Vityaz is much more powerful system than S-300

- my guess is that we might be not talking about 9M96 series of missiles but that remains to be seen

The complex air defense "Morpheus" will be adopted in 2015



Earlier Ashurbeyli Igor, who headed up the company in 2011, the developer "Morpheus" (lead system design bureau "Almaz-Antey") reported in an interview with RIA Novosti that the enacting of the complex is scheduled for 2013.


MOSCOW, April 24 - RIA Novosti. latest range of defense "Morpheus" ultra low-rise will be adopted by the Russian Army in 2015, told reporters Wednesday, Deputy Defense Minister, Colonel-General Oleg Ostapenko.
Earlier Ashurbeyli Igor, who led until 2011 the company-developer of "Morpheus" (lead system design bureau "Almaz-Antey") reported in an interview with RIA Novosti that enacting this complex is planned for 2013 .


"Morpheus" - is generally unique product, unique in the world no. I think that the first samples of somewhere in the region of 2015 entered service "- said Ostapenko. According to the Defense Ministry, the maximum firing range" Morpheus "- 5 kilometers. This system is designed to shield military sites and has both active and passive means of combat (combat vehicles and radars).

Ostapenko said that at present, work is continuing on the creation of ground-based air defense "Hero". "Hero" - a tool that will significantly outperform the S-300. Even the fact that the guide will be 12 instead of 4 as it is now - it is almost three times the increase firepower, "- said the general.



LINK

They could as well be 9M96 or their upgraded variants. Don't forget, that in place of one S-300 missile, you could place four 9M96 missiles, so it is not impossible to have 12 such missiles on truck.

medo wrote:They could as well be 9M96 or their upgraded variants. Don't forget, that in place of one S-300 missile, you could place four 9M96 missiles, so it is not impossible to have 12 such missiles on truck.

We will see. No one knows for sure.

Interesting line about Vityaz. As is being said before it is a logical step as it is intended to repel saturation attacks.

In particular, according to available information, the "Knight" has increased significantly the number of destination channels, allowing you to simultaneously fire a greater number of targets, also expanded opportunities for maneuver.

LINK

Because of that I think we can formulate basic concepts and requirements around which Vityaz will have.

That as more information is revealed as time passes we can add or drop some of them but I think this is it - fell free to add:

- TELAR instead of TEL

- 12 missiles per TELAR (instead of 4 missiles for S-300)

- different type of missiles for same TELAR

- significantly increased number of destination channels in comparison with previous systems

- Excellent strategic and tactical mobility

- 360° coverage

- Detection of "stealth" targets

- AESA radar (search and shooting)

- Versions for Army PVO and territorial PVO

- Deployment time 5 min or less

- excellent low level radar coverage (20 min mast are in development for some time now)

- Ability to shoot down tactical ballistic missiles

- Possibly new generation of missiles (covering 150+km ranges)

- Possibly shooting from the movement

- Absolute ability to integrate with all present and future Russian ELINT/ECM systems

Austin wrote:

GarryB wrote:Which suggests the Mig-31 replacement will be the likely aerial platform for these S-500 based AAMs...

Interesting.

Where are they talking about S-500 AAM ?

Found it.

Igor Arshavin former director of Almaz-Antej meant something else.

- Today you looked at tomorrow defense-PRO-EKO?
- And what is there to look. I think that is now in the range of land development firepower EKR exhaustive. In addition to these funds and their subsequent upgrades, the other on the earth will be gone.
- I mean ...?
- That is the following weapon systems are not land-based and air. The following systems, which will appear after the C-500 will be airborne.
Some of them are also already being developed and tested.


LINK

S-300 is a very good missile system, but a requirement that it kills large strategic bombers means it needs a huge warhead. This in turn means a lot of rocket fuel is needed to get it up to speed and to carry it to distant targets.

With Vityaz, a smaller warhead can be used by making guidance and controls more precise and accurate so the warhead is delivered more effectively. The smaller warhead means less fuel and a smaller missile, which means less drag etc etc in a circle of weight and size reduction.

Smaller lighter missiles are generally cheaper and can be operated in larger numbers.

I would suspect for the Air Force the Vityaz will have a large box structure holding missiles horizontally on a truck base and when operational will rotate that box 90 degrees for vertical launch to allow targets from any direction to be engaged rapidly. The longer slimmer missiles should allow 12 tubes per truck, but the article is talking about an increase in firepower through the increase in guidance channels allowing more targets to be engaged at one time.

It is the lack of guidance channels that allows NATO to defeat old model Soviet SAMs with cruise missile attacks.

The Morfei missile is rather interesting and should be a small compact missile with an IIR seeker with lock on after launch capability that will be used across the services... the Air Force will likely use it as an AAM for helos and stealth fighters as an anti missile missile. I could also be used by AF ground forces to defend airfields and command centres. The Army will likely directly replace the SA-9 and SA-13 IR SAMs, but such missiles might be useful in light brigades as self defence systems, while the Navy can of course use them as CIWS because each missile will be able to engage a target itself so overwhelming a Russian Ship might become rather more difficult.

Beyond this, the Navy might also deploy them on its submarines where the lock on after launch capability means that they can be fired up from a submerged sub to engage enemy MPA and helos flying low (detected by Sonar equipment as noise from above), while deep bunkers could use them to defend themselves from bunker busters. Most bunker buster weapons need to penetrate the ground before exploding, so a SAM that hits the weapon above the ground should be able to destabilise it before impact with the ground resulting in very poor performance in defeating deeply buried targets.

Are Russian SAMs equipped with thermobaric warheads and if no would such a thing work?

GarryB wrote:S-300 is a very good missile system, but a requirement that it kills large strategic bombers means it needs a huge warhead. This in turn means a lot of rocket fuel is needed to get it up to speed and to carry it to distant targets.

With Vityaz, a smaller warhead can be used by making guidance and controls more precise and accurate so the warhead is delivered more effectively. The smaller warhead means less fuel and a smaller missile, which means less drag etc etc in a circle of weight and size reduction.

Smaller lighter missiles are generally cheaper and can be operated in larger numbers.

I would suspect for the Air Force the Vityaz will have a large box structure holding missiles horizontally on a truck base and when operational will rotate that box 90 degrees for vertical launch to allow targets from any direction to be engaged rapidly. The longer slimmer missiles should allow 12 tubes per truck, but the article is talking about an increase in firepower through the increase in guidance channels allowing more targets to be engaged at one time.

It is the lack of guidance channels that allows NATO to defeat old model Soviet SAMs with cruise missile attacks.

The Morfei missile is rather interesting and should be a small compact missile with an IIR seeker with lock on after launch capability that will be used across the services... the Air Force will likely use it as an AAM for helos and stealth fighters as an anti missile missile. I could also be used by AF ground forces to defend airfields and command centres. The Army will likely directly replace the SA-9 and SA-13 IR SAMs, but such missiles might be useful in light brigades as self defence systems, while the Navy can of course use them as CIWS because each missile will be able to engage a target itself so overwhelming a Russian Ship might become rather more difficult.

Beyond this, the Navy might also deploy them on its submarines where the lock on after launch capability means that they can be fired up from a submerged sub to engage enemy MPA and helos flying low (detected by Sonar equipment as noise from above), while deep bunkers could use them to defend themselves from bunker busters. Most bunker buster weapons need to penetrate the ground before exploding, so a SAM that hits the weapon above the ground should be able to destabilise it before impact with the ground resulting in very poor performance in defeating deeply buried targets.

Speaking of the morphei , are there any pictures of how exactly the missiles should look or is it top secret like the S-500?

GarryB wrote:
With Vityaz, a smaller warhead can be used by making guidance and controls more precise and accurate so the warhead is delivered more effectively. The smaller warhead means less fuel and a smaller missile, which means less drag etc etc in a circle of weight and size reduction.

Smaller lighter missiles are generally cheaper and can be operated in larger numbers.

I would suspect for the Air Force the Vityaz will have a large box structure holding missiles horizontally on a truck base and when operational will rotate that box 90 degrees for vertical launch to allow targets from any direction to be engaged rapidly. The longer slimmer missiles should allow 12 tubes per truck, but the article is talking about an increase in firepower through the increase in guidance channels allowing more targets to be engaged at one time.

It is the lack of guidance channels that allows NATO to defeat old model Soviet SAMs with cruise missile attacks.

The Morfei missile is rather interesting and should be a small compact missile with an IIR seeker with lock on after launch capability that will be used across the services... the Air Force will likely use it as an AAM for helos and stealth fighters as an anti missile missile. I could also be used by AF ground forces to defend airfields and command centres. The Army will likely directly replace the SA-9 and SA-13 IR SAMs, but such missiles might be useful in light brigades as self defence systems, while the Navy can of course use them as CIWS because each missile will be able to engage a target itself so overwhelming a Russian Ship might become rather more difficult.

Beyond this, the Navy might also deploy them on its submarines where the lock on after launch capability means that they can be fired up from a submerged sub to engage enemy MPA and helos flying low (detected by Sonar equipment as noise from above), while deep bunkers could use them to defend themselves from bunker busters. Most bunker buster weapons need to penetrate the ground before exploding, so a SAM that hits the weapon above the ground should be able to destabilise it before impact with the ground resulting in very poor performance in defeating deeply buried targets.

The Vityaz will have Active guidance system. In other words, the battery can engage as many targets as it has missiles ready for launch.

As for Morfei, I too expect that it will be IR guided (lock after launch) with vertical start. The given range of 5 km limits its role to the protection of high value targets (e.g. SAM batteries, command posts etc) against PGMs.
I expect to see a naval version of Morfei on ships of different sizes.
I don't see the Morfei as a replacement for the SA-13. The system is probably bulky or complex (spherical radar, superfast computing power, large number of vertically stowed rounds). It will be mobile for sure (like S-400), but not as mobile as an army SAM (like the SA-13. Potentially, I see the replacement of the SA-13 in a system based on the Sosna missile mounted on a tracked chassis.