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

Check page 70-74 ,Eastern AirDefense Compared

http://www.my-catalog.biz/R102510/

First thing that jumped out at me was the part about the BUK M3 with 9M317M1 missiles fired vertically from sealed containers... clearly the vertical launch BUK will enter service... with the Russian Army.
This will be the Army equivalent of Ezh.

Lets see what BUK-M3 turns out to be its still a mystery missile to me , well so is S-300V4 , but that is the fun part as well

Buk-M3 is very mysterious project and very little is known about it. For now we see only Buk-M2. Is Buk-M3 different or the same project as Vityaz, but only Buk-M3 for ground forces and Vityaz for air force? Vityaz will use 9M96 missiles, but I don't know which missiles Buk-M3 will use.

Any more news about Morfei SAM system or Sosna ground based SAM system? Are they the same or different projects?

Any more news about Morfei SAM system or Sosna ground based SAM system? Are they the same or different projects?

SOSNA is a simple beam riding missile. It is a bit like an SA-19 in appearance, but with the same guidance as the Kornet.
Means it is relatively fast and difficult to jam.

Morfei is supposed to be the 9M100 missile that is a joint missile developed for Army, Navy, and Air Force...
For Air Force it will be an ASRAAM like weapon with lock on after launch capability with an IIR seeker that is needed for the PAK-FA. An IR guided AAM fired from the PAK FA needs to be launched without a lock on the target because when it is launched it wont see the target till it gets clear of the weapon bay anyway.
For the Army it will replace the SA-13 series as a 10km range IIR seeking missile. There are rumours of the missile being used with the Vityaz launcher where medium range radar guided missiles and short range IR guided missiles can be mounted in vertical launch cells on a truck. Vityaz is the radar guided missile with a range of about 40km or 120km depending on the model and the IR guided missile is Morfei that can be used out to 10kms.
And for the Navy the Morfei will be very similar in practise to the SEA RAM except it will be vertically launched and compatible with the standard AAM vertical launch bins being introduced to pretty much all surface ships.

Actually the lock on after launch capability might make the Morfei an interesting weapon for submarines.

Normally when air power is hunting subs all the subs can do is dive and hope the aircraft hasn't got the right weapons to take out the sub like homing torpedoes and depth charges.
Using a SAM to destroy the aircraft (ie immediate threat) and then diving and running might allow the sub to escape.

One question Garry, it is related to the SAM systems. Can a Buk or some other system be able to fire both ARH and SARH missiles? For example, you have a Buk-M2E TELAR and 4 ARH missiles on it, you fire them at targets, they do usual, you have a lock, launch it and then the missiles radar takes over, you load SARH missiles and then launch them on targets and of course guide them with your radar until they hit(or miss), all from the same vehicle (TELAR)? Or would ARH and SARH missiles require 2 compleetly different systems/TELAR's and equipment?
What I mean is can a guidance and illumination radar of the Buk TELAR be used for both ARH and SARH missiles, with ARH it would do less work, while with SARH it would guide the missile al the way, like it's supposed to!
By this I don't mean like have 2 missiles on the TELAR that are ARH and 2 that are SARH and then use them at the same time, but use one, reload and use the other type, or launch the other tipe from the transloader which with Buk-M2E has that ability!

I don't actually know for sure, but if we look at fighter aircraft it is clear that aircraft that can operate SARH missiles can also operate ARH missiles including in mixed loads.

Very simply there are things that are exactly the same for both seeker types and there are things that are different.

The target needs to be detected, and tracked and identified as hostile.
Based on target data like target height, speed and flight direction with ARH missiles the launch platform needs to determine based on the distance to the target and the targets flight attributes how long your missile will take to get to the general interception airspace. Using that time estimate the future position of the target can be calculated and so the missile is launched towards that estimated airspace with the seeker off till it gets within the seeker radars range limit which is where it turns on its radar to look for and lock on to the target.

With modern SARH missiles the process is very similar except because the SARH missile has a passive radar seeker looking for a projected by the launch platform and reflected off the target it doesn't need to "turn on" its radar.

Some SARH require the target be illuminated before missile launch and others will fly on inertial navigation system control (basically a simple autopilot) till it is closer to the target and by then if the target is not illuminated then the missile will fail.

Anyway for BUK scanning and finding targets and then tracking those targets will be the same for both types of missile. Once an engagement starts however both types of missile might be used for a single engagement where one missile is ARH and the other is SARH. Both missiles will be fired towards the target intercept point while the BUK continues to track the target. If the target turns then a new interception area will be calculated and new course correction data will be sent to both missiles to send them in the new direction. As both missiles approach the target the BUK will illuminate the target for the SARH missile, while the ARH missile will turn on its radar and scan for the target itself. Both missiles will home in on the target.


Obviously a powerful large PESA radar on a BUK will likely be more capable than the little radar set and electronics that can be fitted into the nose of a missile, but ARH missiles are practically fire and forget which is good for attacks by large numbers of cruise missiles for example. The ARH missile also has the advantage of closing in on its target whereas the SARH missile relies on rather long distance use of the target illumination radar of the BUK.
Of course SARH missiles are cheaper too.
In some roles one is better than the other, and in some roles the difference in performance is not important. In such a case having a mix of missiles is probably best.

GarryB wrote:I don't actually know for sure, but if we look at fighter aircraft it is clear that aircraft that can operate SARH missiles can also operate ARH missiles including in mixed loads.

Very simply there are things that are exactly the same for both seeker types and there are things that are different.

The target needs to be detected, and tracked and identified as hostile.
Based on target data like target height, speed and flight direction with ARH missiles the launch platform needs to determine based on the distance to the target and the targets flight attributes how long your missile will take to get to the general interception airspace. Using that time estimate the future position of the target can be calculated and so the missile is launched towards that estimated airspace with the seeker off till it gets within the seeker radars range limit which is where it turns on its radar to look for and lock on to the target.

With modern SARH missiles the process is very similar except because the SARH missile has a passive radar seeker looking for a projected by the launch platform and reflected off the target it doesn't need to "turn on" its radar.

Some SARH require the target be illuminated before missile launch and others will fly on inertial navigation system control (basically a simple autopilot) till it is closer to the target and by then if the target is not illuminated then the missile will fail.

Anyway for BUK scanning and finding targets and then tracking those targets will be the same for both types of missile. Once an engagement starts however both types of missile might be used for a single engagement where one missile is ARH and the other is SARH. Both missiles will be fired towards the target intercept point while the BUK continues to track the target. If the target turns then a new interception area will be calculated and new course correction data will be sent to both missiles to send them in the new direction. As both missiles approach the target the BUK will illuminate the target for the SARH missile, while the ARH missile will turn on its radar and scan for the target itself. Both missiles will home in on the target.


Obviously a powerful large PESA radar on a BUK will likely be more capable than the little radar set and electronics that can be fitted into the nose of a missile, but ARH missiles are practically fire and forget which is good for attacks by large numbers of cruise missiles for example. The ARH missile also has the advantage of closing in on its target whereas the SARH missile relies on rather long distance use of the target illumination radar of the BUK.
Of course SARH missiles are cheaper too.
In some roles one is better than the other, and in some roles the difference in performance is not important. In such a case having a mix of missiles is probably best.

That's pretty much what I thought...if not 2 SARH and 2 ARH, then at least the same type in one load and the other type in the other load. As much as I know missiles are different, but the vehicle firing them and the guidance radar are the same...just like you said, find the target, identify it's status, speed, height, distance, etc. and then SARH will have a lock and be guided until the destruction of the target, or jamming or fooling the missile somehow, or it loosing lock...and ARH will be launched, travel, then it turns on its own radar, searches and locks and engages the target. So I'm on the same page, Buk-M2E/M2 should be able to use both without any changes to the system itself, maybe few different algorithms and protocols in the computer, but those can exist both for ARH and SARH, today's computers are powerful enough! But if someone else has any info or knowledge on this, he/she would be very welcome on it!

One question Garry, it is related to the SAM systems. Can a Buk or some other system be able to fire both ARH and SARH missiles? For example, you have a Buk-M2E TELAR and 4 ARH missiles on it, you fire them at targets, they do usual, you have a lock, launch it and then the missiles radar takes over, you load SARH missiles and then launch them on targets and of course guide them with your radar until they hit(or miss), all from the same vehicle (TELAR)? Or would ARH and SARH missiles require 2 compleetly different systems/TELAR's and equipment?
What I mean is can a guidance and illumination radar of the Buk TELAR be used for both ARH and SARH missiles, with ARH it would do less work, while with SARH it would guide the missile al the way, like it's supposed to!
By this I don't mean like have 2 missiles on the TELAR that are ARH and 2 that are SARH and then use them at the same time, but use one, reload and use the other type, or launch the other tipe from the transloader which with Buk-M2E has that ability!

I'm sure all Buk variants could work with missiles with both SARH ans ARH homing head. Maybe some older radars need a software update, but they are able to use ARH missiles. In both case radar send in missile data of target location, before launch and in time if inertial flying, radar still send to missile corrections if target change curse and is not in place for missile intercept. When missile reach a distance of using its own radar, than tracking radar illuminate target for SARH missile, while ARH missile find target with its own radar. The only difference in older Buks and Buk-M2 is how many targets it could engage simultaneously. Older Buks with mechanical radar antenna could engage only one target, because radar antenna could look and lock on only in one target. Buk-M2 have radar with PESA antenna and could simultaneously engage 4 targets, be it with SARH missiles or with ARH missiles.

http://lenta.ru/news/2011/08/09/morphey/

It seems a prototype of new Morphei SAM system could be shown on MAKS 2011.

Air Force SAM network

Overview



The Soviet Legacy
Modern Russia inherited the USSR’s vast SAM network, including most of the current S-300 series sites, many of which are located on former SA-2 sites. At its height the Soviet SA-2 network had approximately 1,000 SAM Sites, many of which can now be seen on Google Earth. The main SAM network in Russia is operated by the Air Force, with the Army generally operating different systems. A brief chronology of the Air Force SAM



SA-1 Guide (S-25). Anti-Ballistic missile system deployed around Moscow. Replaced by SA-10 by 1982.
SA-2 Guideline (S-75). Medium ranged high-altitude SAM widely deployed. Many variants and widely exported. Phased out of Russian service in 1990s.
SA-3 Goa (S-75). Short-medium range system more commonly deployed to defend specific high-value targets.
SA-5 Gammon (S-200). Ultra-long ranged SAM system, with correspondingly poor mobility. Phased out by 2001 but still employed by other nations.
SA-10 Grumble (S-300P). Replacement for SA-2, generally analogous to Patriot. Main SAM from late 1980s through to present. Several variants in service, and generally considered more mobile than previous systems, but deployed in static sites in peace time. Later versions designated SA-20 Gargoyle.
SA-21 Growler (S-400). Development of S-300 series. Introduced to service 2007 and slowly replacing older S-300s.

Whilst the SA-1 network was only deployed around Moscow, with the advent of the SA-2 the Soviets began a widespread deployments with rings of sites surrounding major cities and strategic sites, and vast belts of sites along the borders. In many respects this was simply the Soviet equivalent of the US’ Nike-Ajax/Hercules and BOMARC SAM networks. The SA-2 was augmented by the shorter ranged but more advanced SA-3 system, which was deployed both tactically, and at fixed sites by the air force.

The SA-2 Network, now defunct:



Key to border deployment. Note that these are my groupings and do not reflect the Soviet organization of these assets:
A. Kola peninsula and Severodvinsk area. Major naval bases including ballistic missile submarine bases.
b. Baltic coast. Baltic states now independent.
c. Belarus and Ukrainian border with Warsaw Pact.
d. Ukrainian coast. Covering NATO ingress routes from Greece and Turkey.
e. Crimea. Major naval and aviation bases. Strategic location.
F. Eastern Black Sea coast. Covering NATO ingress routes from and Turkey.
G. Caucasus states. Covering NATO ingress routes from Turkey, and US Ally (until 1978) Iran.
H. The Great wall of USSR.

The arctic north was generally not covered by SA-2 sites. The border with Finland also appears to be sparsely covered.

SA-10A Grumble (S-300PT)

A handful of SA-10A sites remain operational and it seems reasonable to assume that significant stocks and equipments remain in reserve. There are 3 active sites around Severodvinsk in NW Russia, and 2 around Novosibirsk in central-southern Russia.





SA-10B Grumble (S-300PS)
The successor of the S-300PT is the S-300PS (SA-10B). As well as a general upgrade in missiles, radars and other equipment, this system features the now synonymous Maz 8x8 TEL

The S-300PS uses the 36D6 ‘Tin Shield’ surveillance radar which can be mounted on top of a mast for better coverage:




SA-20 Gargoyle (S-300PM)
The Russian service equivalent to the infamous S-300PMU export series, the S-300PM is an incremental update of the SA-300PS. In Russian service the S-300PM can be differentiated from the S-300PS by use of a towed TEL rather than the Maz 8x8 truck.





S-300PMs are concentrated around Moscow, in a ring. The density of advanced air defences here is unparalleled in the entire world.



The S-300PM also uses the more advanced Big-Bird radar rather than Tin Shield.




Around Moscow, the Big Bird radars are often mounted on tall towers to greatly increase radar coverage, particularly against low flying targets. The radar sites are often close to, but separate from, the launch sites. A single Big Bird radar can serve multiple batteries, and/or all of the Big Bird radars are consolidated into a single air picture.


The towers are 30m in height, and are also employed with the Tin Shield radar and other, older radars.

SA-21 Growler (S-400)
The latest and most potent SAM system in RuAF service, the S-400 Triumf is an incremental improvement on the previous S-300P series (see below). Externally the main difference



The only operational Growler site confirmed as of early 2010 is on the West side of Moscow within the Gargoyle SAM belt, near the town of Elektrostal. The site is not covered by sufficiently recent imagery in Google Earth but has been identified as a former SA-1 site.



Operational SA-21 sites only appear to have the legacy S-20 48N6DM missile, but a longer ranged (400km) is in testing and the active-radar homing 9M96 missiles can also be used.


Gammon
The S-200 (SA-5 Gammon) missile system was introduced in the 1960s to complement the already old SA-2. The Gammon is most notable for its extreme range of 250km, although that is against high-flying non-maneuvering targets. The Gammon was thus seen as an “AWACS killer” especially when deployed by countries like Syria and Libya. In defence of Russia it was more useful against the expected streams of B-52s. It was in part because of missile systems that NATO heavy bombers started the low-level doctrine (B-1B, Vulcan). Operationally Gammon had some limitations inherent in building a missile with such range in the 1960s – it was massive and immobile. Like the older SA-2 the Gammon was deployed in fixed sites with rings of 6 launchers, although two rings were generally employed thus 12 ready to fire missiles per site.



After the collapse of the Soviet Union the SA-5 was generally withdrawn from service and many sources suggest it has been retired from Russian service altogether. There remains at least one SA-5 site in Russia, clearly visible on Google Earth near Kaliningrad:



The Kaliningrad SA-5 site covers much NATO territory including NE Poland, and most of Latvia. Kaliningrad Oblast is an exclave of Russia with no direct border with the rest of Russia. It is heavily defended with SAMs and air bases.

Another site in the far north of Russia which is now deactivated:



Distribution of SAM network


Today Russian Air Force SAMs are positioned to defend strategic targets and major cities, and not in the ‘great ring’ of Soviet times. Although there are some 64 SA-10/SA-21 sites, plus one or two SA-5 and possibly some SA-2 sites, this is nowhere near the quantity of SA-2, SA-3 and SA-5 sites simultaneously deployed during the height of the cold war. There is clear open source imagery evidence of substantial open storage of SA-10 vehicles and components in several locations and serge deployment could see many more batteries deployed, but still nowhere near enough to cover every inch of territory. The 400km SA-21 system will greatly increase the footprint but it seems unlikely these will be deployed much different to the current SA-10s.



Moscow is an interesting model for air defence. No less than 19 SA-10 sites ring the city giving it unrivalled air defence. A confirmed SA-21 site is also present on the eastern side of the city, further improving the situation. As more SA-21 sites are bought up to action, the air defence and anti-ballistic-missile defence will increase dramatically. I cannot think of any city on earth that can possibly rival Moscow for air defences, although Pyongyang in North Korea is more ‘heavily’ defended and Natanz nuclear facility in Iran is by far the world’s most densely defended location. Neither of these locations rival 20 SA-10/SA-21 sites for potency. The actual layout of Moscow’s air defence ring is based on previous SA-1 Guide SAM sites and SA-2 sites.

Army SAM Systems – SA-12
Certain Russian Army SAM systems complement the RuAF S-300 series in peacetime, notably the related but quite different S-300V (SA-12) system. The SA-12 is relatively more mobile, designed to advance with the other Army units, providing long range area air defence. Relative to the SA-10 the SA-12 is anti-ballistic missile optimized, although recent SA-10 and SA-21 developments close this gap. The SA-12 system is very interesting but I am not going to cover it here as it should be saved for a subsequent Bluffer’s Guide on Russian Army.


Air Defence black hole?
When the practical engagement envelopes of all operational SAM and Fighter bases are plotted together, there remains a massive portion of Siberia with no viable coverage:



There are some hardened airstrips in Siberia which fighters could be forward deployed to eliminate this gap but there does not appear to be any history of routine deployment in this manner and the air strips/air ports in question have limited military infrastructure.

The situation remains similar when known long-range air surveillance radars are plotted:



In part this is a factor of the sheer size of Russia – even the smallest circles in the above image are 200km in radius! The radar coverage varies greatly depending on target altitude and radar cross-section.

The massive ‘black hole’ in Siberia is also target-less, it can be argued with some credence, that defending the Siberian wastelands is pointless as there is nothing to defend. At any rate only the USAF has aircraft which could conceivably take advantage of the black hole.

Sources and acknowledgements

Primary research resource was Sean O’Connor (Sean’s Blog is recommended reading! http://geimint.blogspot.com/)

MilitaryPhotos.com http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?99988-Russian-Photos-(updated-on-regular-basis)

Air Power Australia, notably http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html
Russian Forces.org http://russianforces.org/blog/2009/02/voronezh-class_radars_photos.shtml
Key Publishing military aviation forum http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=5

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?175769-Defending-Mother-Russia

Some photos of wheeled TOR in Russian Army paint colours:

http://www.missiles.ru/MAKS-2011_1_news.htm







Regarding the TOR vs Pantsir-S1 the Pantsir-S1 can fire guns and missiles on the move, which I don't think TOR can do, however TOR can engage closer targets as they are single stage missiles and don't have a booster rocket motor.

Operationally the TOR and the Tunguska would work together to defend armoured units from air threats and the Pantsir-S1 basically replaces the Tunguska so it is possible they might remain in service together till perhaps Vityaz replaces both TOR and BUK.

TOR is an expensive system, though the wheeled version should be very cheap to operate and to actually use because the missiles are very simple and don't contain expensive seekers like active radar homing or IIR sensors.

Of course looking at this poster:




We can see the same truck vehicle base with Pantsir-S1 in the top left, S-400 missiles top right, the vehicle chassis in the centre, long wave low frequency radar middle right, phased array radar (folded down in this pic) for the S-500 bottom left and Buk-M3 on the vehicle bottom right. This version of BUK clearly uses the vertical launch version of the naval system with the missile tubes presumably rotated 90 degrees to vertical for launch.

Based on this I don't see why the wheeled version of the latest TOR system could not be fitted to this chassis like the Pantsir-S1 system has... perhaps that is the future of mobile light brigade SAMs?

The idea of adopting a range of SAM types on one unified platform makes a lot of sense as you can use the same modular SAM system on a range of different base vehicles to achieve the cost and mobility and protection you desire. Once you have one system in service and the logistics to support that vehicle then buying another SAM type becomes much cheaper and easier... and there is no reason for an exported system to use a Russian vehicle base if the customer makes their own chassis they can adapt the SAM missile launcher and radar vehicle and command and maintainence vehicles to any suitable base vehicle.

Garry,

a small correction, the pics above are of the wheeled Buk-M2 variant.

The new TOR-M2K was reportedly shown on Maks but I still haven't come across any pics to see if there's any external difference....I'm guessing that externally it will look like the export TOR-M2E

P.S.

the vertical launch BUK-M3 looks interesting. Thanks for posting.

Great pictures of wheeled Buk-M2, I also notice it have different EO camera than older Buks.

We can see the same truck vehicle base with Pantsir-S1 in the top left, S-400 missiles top right, the vehicle chassis in the centre, long wave low frequency radar middle right, phased array radar (folded down in this pic) for the S-500 bottom left and Buk-M3 on the vehicle bottom right. This version of BUK clearly uses the vertical launch version of the naval system with the missile tubes presumably rotated 90 degrees to vertical for launch.

The systems based on those 8x8 trucks are actually SAM systems for air force air defense or now air and space defense, while Tor is created exactly for ground troops protection, what means it must be more compact and have good cross country capabilities.

Regarding the TOR vs Pantsir-S1 the Pantsir-S1 can fire guns and missiles on the move, which I don't think TOR can do, however TOR can engage closer targets as they are single stage missiles and don't have a booster rocket motor.

There were rumors, that Tor-M2 could also launch on the move, but for now there wasn't any prove of that rumors. Unfortunately there wasn't even any pictures of russian domestic version Tor-M2U, they only show export version Tor-M2E. Russian army claimed, that Tor-M2U will come in army units this year, but no informations about it up to now, all is quiet for a longer time. They keep it in secrecy, so I assume it is much more capable, that we think it is. After all the heart of SAM is in radars and Tor-M2 have larger tracking radar than Pantsir, so it could engage harder targets. Anyway both systems are excellent and same capable. For sure they could supplement each other in army units.

Operationally the TOR and the Tunguska would work together to defend armoured units from air threats and the Pantsir-S1 basically replaces the Tunguska so it is possible they might remain in service together till perhaps Vityaz replaces both TOR and BUK.

Tor, Pantsir and Tunguska are SHORADs, while Vityaz is medium to long range SAM to replace older versions of S-300 and Buks. Morfei is in class of Strela-10, but for now there is no replacement for Pantsir and Tor-M2, which are also new and enough capable.

Some photos of wheeled TOR in Russian Army paint colours

GarryB this in not a Tor-M2 ,but obviously a Buk-M2E system ,(don't let the "bulge" to deceive you); you can clearly distinguish it from the missile it carry ,in horizontal ,position above the launcher.
That is a pic with the missiles raised up


http://www.flickr.com/photos/49917410@N08/4582921796/


Tor-M2/M2E is a completely different system , this is a video of the system ,included a 2009 test [from 4:52] at Kapustin Yar of the export version against salvo of small,very manoeuvrable,high supersonic targets (9K33M3 missiles from OSA-ASM); the result against this very difficult targets was "one shoot-one kill" 15 times on 16 also in the test with single interceptor against single menace !!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJmpMCSI1qU


Good vision .

Oops, yes... when I typed out the name I was looking at the thread title and put TOR instead of BUK. I knew it was BUK and wouldn't have posted it if I thought it was TOR because wheeled TOR has already been shown in this thread anyway...

Great pictures of wheeled Buk-M2, I also notice it have different EO camera than older Buks.

I would assume it now includes thermals.

The systems based on those 8x8 trucks are actually SAM systems for air force air defense or now air and space defense, while Tor is created exactly for ground troops protection, what means it must be more compact and have good cross country capabilities.

Indeed, the purpose of the different weight class and protection class level vehicles as families for each unit type suggests that there will be TOR and BUK systems mounted on each family vehicle to match the protection and mobility of the other vehicles in the family.
The whole point behind the concept of weight class family vehicle chassis is that the vast majority of vehicles in the unit use that family vehicle otherwise the advantage in terms of support and logistics is lost.

I would expect BUK and TOR will operate with medium and heavy brigades and the light brigades will only have lighter air defence vehicles, perhaps including Morfei.

They keep it in secrecy, so I assume it is much more capable, that we think it is.

The level of secrecy of in service items not for export has always been high. We are now seeing a return to the Russian military getting higher standard of equipment compared to exported material except where a foreign country has paid for development like the Pantsir-S1.

After all the heart of SAM is in radars and Tor-M2 have larger tracking radar than Pantsir, so it could engage harder targets. Anyway both systems are excellent and same capable. For sure they could supplement each other in army units.

TOR is optimised for engaging very small and very fast targets like HARM missiles and stealthy cruise missiles. Both are very capable systems.

Tor, Pantsir and Tunguska are SHORADs, while Vityaz is medium to long range SAM to replace older versions of S-300 and Buks. Morfei is in class of Strela-10, but for now there is no replacement for Pantsir and Tor-M2, which are also new and enough capable.

Pantsir was the shelterised version of Tunguska, so I would expect Pantsir-S1 will have a reduced size version that can operate on tracks and be used in heavy and medium and perhaps even light brigades in the appropriate family of chassis.

A heavy tracked vehicle carrying the vertical launched BUKs would look like TOS... which might be a little impractical.

Vityaz seems to offer smaller more capable missiles than BUK, but BUK will remain in service for some time yet.

The level of secrecy of in service items not for export has always been high. We are now seeing a return to the Russian military getting higher standard of equipment compared to exported material except where a foreign country has paid for development like the Pantsir-S1.

True, but secrecy about domestic Tor-M2U is still unusual high, same as about Hermes. They only show export Tor-M2E and there are differences between them, like domestic Tor will have 16 missiles comparing to 8 in export, domestic one will have new missiles with range of at least 15 km, export will have standard ones with 12 km range and we could assume it will have differences in radars and computers inside. I think Tor-M2 will also do the job of C-RAM (In my opinion Pantsir could do it also at least with guns) and engage very small targets, that they don't want to show it or discus about it.

A heavy tracked vehicle carrying the vertical launched BUKs would look like TOS... which might be a little impractical.

Vityaz seems to offer smaller more capable missiles than BUK, but BUK will remain in service for some time yet.

Maybe Russian military will continue here with their tradition. Vityaz have same missiles as S-300 PMU or S-400, what means it will be only for air and space defense. On the other hand Buk-M3 is something like S-300V and compatible with other Buks, so it will be produced for ground troops only in divisional or army level.

Sincerely i beleve that ,at now, Pantsyr represent a significantly better solution for the same role covered by Tor-M2 (naturally if the ratio between the capabilities of the internal and export version of the two systems is similar).
Pantsyr is vastly superior in almost any cardinal parameter; in fact even in its export version its missile are :

1) Much faster, capable to intercept at maximum altitude/range a Mach 2,7 small manoeuvring target ,
2) Have an heavier and most modern expanding rod warhead (even in its export 57E6-E and 95Ya6-E versions),capable to hit and destroy any aereial target 100% even with a miss of 6 meters
3) Have avastly greater engagement footprint : 20 km of range and 15 Km of altitude

Even its export version, Phazotron 1RS2-E "Shlem" radar,is a genuine two band tracking/engagement radar (an element truly crucial,togheter with the integrated optical system, for unavoidable decoy discrimination ,anti-jamming measure and to reduce chance of detection by part of RWR ) with a range of detection of 32 - 36 km and tracking range of 24-28 Km against a 2m RCS target (therefore about 18-21 Km detection range and 14-16 km tracking range against a typical 0.2 meters RCS staelth aircraft target as F-22).
Its integrated IR/TV electro-optical tracking system with dedicated engagement channel has a tracking range,obviously toally passive, of 17-26 km (and one more time ,after Farnborough 2010 Air Show,we all get a solid proof that the supposed low visibility in the IR spectrum of VLO aircraft was a purposely construted and spreaded false information); anyone can realize as even a single Pantsyr unity could share any target's coordinates acquired also in full passive mode - included those identified and eventual decoys tracked-, with the whole IAD structure, so in matter of few seconds a group of aircraft in transition on an area hosting insulated Pantsyr could see coming a salvo of Mach 7,6 48N6E2 shooted by over 200 km of distance even without being exposed to the Gargoyle's detection systems !!
Pantsyr at contrary of TOR-M2 can shoot on the move -both missile and gun- and carry 12 missile for TELAR ,moreover ,of course ,it has its twinned 30 mm 2A38 guns with 1400 rounds, a very important element to don't waste precious missiles against ,at example, subsonic and/or not-manoeuvring menaces (like BGM-109-like cruise missile and glide bombs).

What intrigues me the most is the 2A38 30mm cannon mounted on the Tunguska and the Pantsir (2A38M). It has a rate of fire between 1,950 and 2,500 rpm. This is a very high rate for a non-rotary cannon. Note the residual gun powder is still burning as the spent shells are being ejected from the gun ejection port in the following Tunguska video.

Tunguska-M

Pantsir-S1

True, but secrecy about domestic Tor-M2U is still unusual high, same as about Hermes.

Operational gear is normally secret... according to Max the AK-200 is already in use by some branches of the Russian FSB and other civilian agencies, yet still no photos I have come across.
Very rare photos and video of the ADS yet it is probably already in service too.

The secrecy either suggests to me that because it is not for export there is no hurry to reveal its use, or perhaps their might have been delays and it is not in service yet.

Hard to tell either way.

I think Tor-M2 will also do the job of C-RAM (In my opinion Pantsir could do it also at least with guns) and engage very small targets, that they don't want to show it or discus about it.

I would suspect the single stage Tor missiles will be cheaper than Pantsirs two stage missiles and while they will be slower I think Tor will remain better suited to engaging small RCS targets.

A good upgrade would be the four sided AESA radar revealed for the corvettes as it would offer 360 degree coverage and could operate as a search and tracking system with full 360 degree coverage. This should allow continuous tracking of targets from all angles and allow the Tor to take advantage of its vertical launch SAMs. The current advantage is lost by having to turn the turret to face the tracking array towards the target before firing.

Having full 360 degree radar coverage along with vertical launch missiles means reduced engagement times... and better coverage.

Another idea would be a powered trailer vehicle like the Vityaz (Knight) series of prime movers could be used instead of the current vehicle with the crew and radar in the front chassis and a large number of ready to launch missiles in the trailer. A wireless communication system between the front chassis and the towed trailer could allow one front chassis with AESA four faced radar array with the electronics to detect and track hundreds of targets to launch from several trailers at once at a fixed location.

For example on an airfield you could have trailer launchers scattered all over the place with camouflage so they are not emitting and not disclosing their position till they start launching missiles. The one prime mover with its radar, perhaps tied in to the radar of the airfield and also the local air defence network grid could send launch commands to the closest launcher to the target and control the missile to impact. This would extend range and reduce intercept times and allow for saturation attacks.

Maybe Russian military will continue here with their tradition. Vityaz have same missiles as S-300 PMU or S-400, what means it will be only for air and space defense. On the other hand Buk-M3 is something like S-300V and compatible with other Buks, so it will be produced for ground troops only in divisional or army level.

True. It could also be that they might want to keep overlapping ability, so they can use some for export and keep some types to themselves. I rather suspect the vertical launch BUK in its naval form might export well... especially if it can be paired with other missiles in the same launcher to offer some of the flexibility of UKSK... or perhaps if they can be made shorter than UKSK so it can fit in smaller vessels or take less internal space than the UKSK system.

The Russian Air Force needs SAMs, the Russian Army needs SAMs, and the Russian Space and Air Defence forces need SAMs, and the Russian Navy need SAMS.
There seems to be a bit of scope for a few SAM systems... and the plan for a short range SAM Morfei, Vityaz, S-400, and S-500 sounds like an Air Force or Space and Air Defence force requirement. I rather expect the other forces might have niche requirements that lead to other systems remaining in service.


I agree that Pantsir-S1 is a huge step forward, but I would expect the new TOR to also be an improvement. The old TOR system could detect 48 targets and track 10 at once, and with the missile load doubled to 16 ready to launch single stage missiles I think the on paper advantage of the Pantsir-S1 in practical terms will not make a huge difference.

All the new SAMs will be part of the AD network so even a soldier with a Barnaul-T suite with an Igla-S missile can detect a target and pass that target info into the network for other platforms to engage.

I think the vertical launch capacity of the Tor lends itself to multiple trailer launchers for each command and launch control vehicle, but likely the same would apply to Vityaz the S-400 based SAMs.

Each different user will require different platforms because of different cost/protection/mobility requirements, and I suspect that some specific requirements might favour Pantsir-S1 or Tor... which could result in both being kept in service.

What intrigues me the most is the 2A38 30mm cannon mounted on the Tunguska and the Pantsir (2A38M). It has a rate of fire between 1,950 and 2,500 rpm. This is a very high rate for a non-rotary cannon. Note the residual gun powder is still burning as the spent shells are being ejected from the gun ejection port in the following Tunguska video.

Its rate of fire is actually lower than the GSh-30 it is based on which has a rate of fire of 3,000 to 3,500 rpm... which sounds a lot... and it is but for a twin barrel gun it hasn't got twice the rate of fire of the GSh-301 single barrel cannon firing at 1,800rpm.

Th GSh-30K has longer barrels with a higher muzzle velocity but a lower rate of fire to 2,000-2,600 rpm for the Hind in the Mi-24P model.

BTW the Tunguska uses the 2A38M gun as well... it has improved design that reduces wear and an improved water cooling system.

A good upgrade would be the four sided AESA radar revealed for the corvettes as it would offer 360 degree coverage and could operate as a search and tracking system with full 360 degree coverage. This should allow continuous tracking of targets from all angles and allow the Tor to take advantage of its vertical launch SAMs. The current advantage is lost by having to turn the turret to face the tracking array towards the target before firing.

Four side AESA radar is excellent, but I doubt Tor will have it. Tor is meant for ground units, so it have to be compact and I doubt it could have enough big and powerful power generator to supply four radars, electronics and other systems in the vehicle. It will be more suited for SAMs for air force or air and space defense, because they have larger trucks, which could carry larger and more powerful electro generators. Maybe Pantsir based on larger BAZ truck could use it, because with larger truck it could have enough powerful generator.

Another idea would be a powered trailer vehicle like the Vityaz (Knight) series of prime movers could be used instead of the current vehicle with the crew and radar in the front chassis and a large number of ready to launch missiles in the trailer. A wireless communication system between the front chassis and the towed trailer could allow one front chassis with AESA four faced radar array with the electronics to detect and track hundreds of targets to launch from several trailers at once at a fixed location.

For example on an airfield you could have trailer launchers scattered all over the place with camouflage so they are not emitting and not disclosing their position till they start launching missiles. The one prime mover with its radar, perhaps tied in to the radar of the airfield and also the local air defence network grid could send launch commands to the closest launcher to the target and control the missile to impact. This would extend range and reduce intercept times and allow for saturation attacks.

This concept work fine for point defense air defense, which is behind front line. Ground units need for protection self propelled SAMs for which is fine, that every launcher have its own radar. From experiences with Kub, they see, that when radar vehicle is destroyed, whole battery is out of action and radar vehicle could be also destroyed from ground attacks and is capital target for ground units.

I agree that Pantsir-S1 is a huge step forward, but I would expect the new TOR to also be an improvement. The old TOR system could detect 48 targets and track 10 at once, and with the missile load doubled to 16 ready to launch single stage missiles I think the on paper advantage of the Pantsir-S1 in practical terms will not make a huge difference.

I always said, that Tor-M2 and Pantsir-S1 are equal, one have guns, other have cold vertical missile launch. Which system suits you more depend on situation and environment. If you have Tor-M2 or Pantsir-S1, you have the same excellent SHORAD.

All the new SAMs will be part of the AD network so even a soldier with a Barnaul-T suite with an Igla-S missile can detect a target and pass that target info into the network for other platforms to engage.

This is now standard, that every SAM system have to work integrated in network and to work independently alone if needed. I doubt you could now sell SAM which doesn't reach that standard.




E

ach different user will require different platforms because of different cost/protection/mobility requirements, and I suspect that some specific requirements might favour Pantsir-S1 or Tor... which could result in both being kept in service.

I Soviet times Red army accept both, Tor and Tunguska and they excellently supplement each other. I have no doubt they would do the same with Pantsir-S1 and Tor-M2U and they will also excellently supplement each other.

The biggest problem would be cost I would think.

The four faced AESA shown with the EO ball on top is designed to be fitted on masts of ships and is not that big or bulky... just look at the size of the existing tracking radar on the TOR, they are not even that big.

By design the TOR system has large slab sided turret ideal to fit ESA antennas on all four sides to perform search and track functions. It doesn't have to be a AESA, PESA would do, the point is electronic scanning for 360 degree continuous coverage in both search and tracking.

The weakness of the system in my opinion is that while the vertical launch missiles are ready all the time to be fired in any direction without needing to turn the launcher to face the target the tracking radar does need to turn to face the target. Now with 6 vehicles operating together it shouldn't be a huge problem but I think it would be much better to take the missiles out of the main vehicle, give it a four face radar and put launch bins in a trailer.

A powered trailer actually improves cross country performance and makes the vehicle less likely to become stuck in deep mud or snow.

The Vityaz (Knight) prime mover can actually drive out of sea water onto floating ice using its articulated connector and powered trailer by itself.

The existing 3D radar of the TOR uses a lot of power already... gas turbine generators are compact and relatively straight forward to design and fit. I rather suspect the generator used for the 1980s electronics on the old TOR probably used as much power as a new AESA radar.

Remember we are not talking about 400km range AESA radars as fitted to stealth fighters, it could be based on the simple AESAs being developed for helicopters right now.

From experiences with Kub, they see, that when radar vehicle is destroyed, whole battery is out of action and radar vehicle could be also destroyed from ground attacks and is capital target for ground units.

Just because every vehicle has a radar doesn't mean they will all drive around blasing out radar waves 24/7. Every battery will have command vehicles and battery radar vehicles and they will also be tied into the AD network and receive target data from all sorts of local assets and any scans they do with their own radars will add to that network picture of the air space around them.

I'm sorry, Now I know which Vityaz you mean. Not SAM system, but arctic all terrain tracked vehicle. This vehicle is excellent and would be perfect to mount on them Pantsir-S1 or Tor-M2 for using in arctic environment, because it could carry additional fuel and missiles and also food and water for crew in its second part.

Just because every vehicle has a radar doesn't mean they will all drive around blasing out radar waves 24/7. Every battery will have command vehicles and battery radar vehicles and they will also be tied into the AD network and receive target data from all sorts of local assets and any scans they do with their own radars will add to that network picture of the air space around them.

Of course not. It only means that protecting ground units on the front line is exposing radar vehicle to enemy attacks from the air and from the ground. If battery have only one radar vehicle, it means, when they lost it, they are blind and battery could not operate. If every vehicle have radars, anytime one vehicle from battery become master and other are slaves and silent and battery is still operational. Otherwise battery structure is still the same.

Of course not. It only means that protecting ground units on the front line is exposing radar vehicle to enemy attacks from the air and from the ground. If battery have only one radar vehicle, it means, when they lost it, they are blind and battery could not operate. If every vehicle have radars, anytime one vehicle from battery become master and other are slaves and silent and battery is still operational. Otherwise battery structure is still the same.

Exactly... it was a lesson the Soviets learned from Arab experience against Israel.
SA-6s were a serious threat, but the Israelis sent UAVs and when the Arabs tracked the UAVs with the SA-6s radar vehicle the israelis attacked and destroyed the radar vehicle with ARMs.

Once the single radar vehicle was taken out F-16s with bombs could fly in safely and take out the TELs with all the missiles because without the radar vehicle they could not engage any targets.

The extra radars make the battery much more expensive, but also much more survivable.

Having said that of course an AESA would have very low sidelobes (meaning even planes carrying ARMs would need to be targeted directly by the radar to get a signal to lock onto) and could operate in LPI like modes and in conjunction with EO systems too.

Regarding Vityaz, remember that the current TOR has all its missiles in its turret, so filling the Vityaz's trailer module with vertical launch containers could allow 28-32 missiles ready to launch in the trailer of each vehicle.

The advantage there is that if the trailer is designed so it can be released and left parked a single airfield could have two or four tractor vehicles with 8-12 trailers each trailer with 28-32 ready to launch missiles. One tractor could have direct datalinks with trailers located all over the airfield or perhaps a more permanent setup could use fibre optic connections so the tractor vehicle with radar and electronics could launch missiles from trailers nearest the incoming target, so an attack on the airfield from several directions could lead to launchers at each end of the airfield launching missiles with reduced interception times because the missiles are 1km closer to the incoming target than the radar tractor vehicle.

To save money and improve readiness you could buy 2-3 trailers for each tractor, and use ready to launch missiles in trailers instead of reload vehicles, which means missiles are ready to use all the time with no need to reload.