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

This is the Vityaz vehicle chassis I was referring to:





Both tractor and trailer unit have engines and the connection between then has hydraulics to allow the front section to actually raise the rear section or vice versa.

As both sections float it means that when in the water the connection can be used to lift the front up onto floating ice and once up the front can then assist the rears section up onto the ice as well so it can get out of water much better than most other amphibious vehicles.

As you can also see the rear trailer section is quite tall and would allow lots of vertical launch pallets for a relatively small missile like Morfei or TOR to be carried in the vertical position ready for launch.

In comparison the original TOR vehicle crammed 8 missiles in the turret ring of the vehicle, which was two four missile bins.

On the Vityaz you could probably get 10 or more 4 missile bins on the trailer which offers excellent capacity to defend against attempts to overwhelm the defence with numbers.

The missiles of TOR are command guided, while Morfei are lock on after launch IIR guided, so having all the missiles on the vehicle ready to launch is an advantage.

The front vehicle could carry a roof mounted four face AESA array for continuous 360 degree scanning with no moving antenna but with and EO ball on top to ID targets. Electronic scanning is much faster and more efficient than mechanical scanning of radar antenna.

Unifying the launcher with TOR and Morfei means that a mix of missiles could be used as TOR is still very effective and cheap, while Morfei will be even more capable and fully fire and forget, though more expensive. Morfei will have air force air launched equivelent (new AAM to replace the R-73/R-74) and a naval version so it will be an inter service missile.
TOR may continue to be used by the Navy and Army as a cheap but still effective system for air defence.

The four face AESA antenna will offer very rapid initial detection of targets capability, while the EO ball will enable the operator to positively ID a target especially in peacetime, and can also be used against targets with low RCS.

As I mentioned above a decent wireless datalink connection between launcher and front vehicle could allow one control vehicle to launch missiles from several trailers at once.

For instance if defending a really large area target like an airfield that could be 4-5km long and 2-3km wide 4-5 trailers could be positioned at each end of the runway with a mobile command vehicle scanning the skies for threats.
The command vehicle even at one end of the runway spotting a target coming from the opposite end of the runway could launch missiles from the trailer closest to the incoming threat, which might reduce intercept time by several seconds.

I agree, that Vityaz is very interesting vehicle and would be very suitable for AD systems for arctic units. It could be built in two ways:
- One way with radar and FSC components in the first part and missile launchers in the second part, what means it could carry larger number of missiles like 32 or even more.
- Second way is with classical tor configuration in the first part of vehicle and with crew compartment in the second part. For 24 hours working Tor need three crews, what mean one crew is on duty, while the rest are in the second compartment with food, water, heating and place to rest, what would be very welcome for cold arctic environment. As I know Russian AD have vehicles for resting crew comfort based on MAZ 8x8.

You are correct, a lot of options could be placed on Vityaz vehicle. Do you maybe know if Vityaz vehicle is armored or unarmored?

Probably not armoured.

The vehicle itself is designed for harsh climates (ie deep snow or mud) and poor roads, so it would likely operate in places where wheeled vehicles operate.

Perhaps a wheeled equivalent vehicle with two sections could be developed for places where the roads are better and the climate not so harsh.

I would envisage with the mobility of the command (front) vehicle that it could be centrally located with the missile trailers located around the base being defended, so when the end of a shift comes you could drive the command vehicle to accommodation facilities and swap crews and drive back to the location with the best radar and optical view of the surrounds... which will likely be on raised ground like a small hill.

The trailers could even be hidden amongst boxes or otherwise camouflaged so they are not obvious to the enemy.

Vityaz is excellent for harsh arctic climates with its two sections (vehicles). If I would have to use Tor or any other system placed on Vityaz in arctic region, than for sure I would more like to see, that Tor complex is installed in first section or vehicle, while the second sections accommodate reserve crews with water, food, fuel, heating and place to rest. If you have stored supplies for let say a week, this could mean a lot in arctic conditions. What ever happened in battles and if you suddenly are alone somewhere in Arctic region, you have large distance to the first base or populated place, so if you have supplies for few days and warm place to rest, you have better chances to survive and later continue with fighting. This is just my opinion, I'm not an expert for polar warfare.

The problem with your logic is that this vehicle would never be sent out on its own into the middle of nowhere.

Being an air defence vehicle it would be protecting something, whether that was an airfield or secret radar station, or ICBM field or whatever.

Supplies and other goodies would be stored on the base where they were located and considering they had a few TOR based Vityaz vehicles then it would make sense to have a few standard vehicles, because of the automotive commonality of engines and parts etc.

If you found you had to survive or get out of there then the standard vehicle would be a much better choice.

For defending bases or installations, standard version of AD systems would bu just OK, we are talking about systems mounted on Vityaz vehicles. They are more suitable to escort units, which operate in arctic region outside bases. It is true, they will not be sent alone in the middle of arctic, but with a ground unit to defend it. Teoreticaly, there could be war for arctic natural resources, so the enemy will not be some guerrilla but equally or better armed regular army. Battles could be hundreds of miles out of bases and in battles could happened everything, but anyway you have to account on heavy losses. Maybe your unit is destroyed or you win, but with heavy losses or you have to retreat. There is a lot of option, that you find yourself in the middle of ice and snow as in desert in the middle of sand. In that case it is fine to have your own supplies, because units supplies could be destroyed and you have to survive few days until you reach your own bases.

Sorry for misleading you Medo, my choice of the Vityaz was not its ability to climb up on icebergs or operate in harsh backwater places...

My main interest was the large volume of space in the rear trailer that would allow far more missiles to be carried in vertical launch positions than is possible within the restricted space of the turret on the current vehicle used by TOR on the tracked and wheeled versions.

Part of the idea behind it is for the front part to operate with multiple trailers located around the target being defended to allow for some surprise as the enemy will no doubt locate the radars of the command vehicle, but locating the missiles might be more difficult.

Equally having several command vehicles able to fire any or all of the missiles means that with one command vehicle operating the enemy might try to engage it but other command vehicles with passive sensors operating only could use missiles to target the attacking forces by surprise.

Indeed an enemy attack helo that has flown in low to attack an airfield might detect the radar emissions near the tower of the command post and as it launches a missile that command post might initiate a missile launch from a launcher behind the helo to engage the helo plus another missile in front of the helo to engage the Hellfire the helo just fired.

Boeing Tested Microwave Rocket shows Tor-M2 as potential target.

Those EMP warheads are politically correct weapons that are supposed to reduce damage and deaths. They are the creation of a moral west that likes to use war as an instrument of "justice" but at the same time trying to ban all sorts of weapons on moral grounds.

These things often have comparable ranges of effectiveness as HE, so in this case the diagram is a little silly. The TOR system could engage such missiles before they get anywhere near the TOR launch platform so each of these EMP missiles will either be engaged by missiles heading for the launch platform or they can use up their EMP warheads defeating the missile that was going to shoot them down... meaning they have no payload for the launching vehicle.
TOR missiles are very simple command control missiles... EMP warheads would have a very hard time disabling them. EMP pulses on the other hand would be ideal for defeating Javelin and Spike missiles.

I think I understand your idea for Vityaz vehicle. In my opinion for defending bases, they don't need Vityaz to get more missiles ready to fire. They could place Tor on normal truck and place additional missiles on truck trailer, which could be connected with main vehicle with FCS with additional cable. For driving around base this configuration could not represent any problem and is much cheaper than Vityaz vehicle. Vityaz vehicle is expensive and will not be built in very large numbers, so it would be better, that they serve in places for which they were created. Tor or Pantsir placed on Vityaz is excellent idea, but let they serve in arctic units.

Now you are getting it... I picked Vityaz because I knew it was available, but certainly a wheeled truck based system with a wheeled trailer would also do the job and be much cheaper to buy and operate.

By picking a standard truck design it also has the result that during an attack a threat might just mistake a missile battery for a group of truck trailers parked in a carpark...

Obviously the AESA array on the truck might give it away but that AESA array should detect aerial targets long before they get within optical range so it is really only trying to fool optical satellites.

I hardly wait to see Morphei prototype, I think it will be build with this concept in mind.

Well actually I remember Andy posting a photo of a ball with IR elements all over it that reminded me of the IR sensor fitted to Russian bombers and strike aircraft that was used to detect IR threats.

It in many ways would act like a 5 faced AESA radar (with a radar panel looking up) except it would detect IR rather that scan with radar. This makes a lot of sense of course as the Morfei is an IR guided missile so if its sensor can't detect a target then Morfei wouldn't get a lock anyway.
The Morfei on the other hand is supposed to be a lock on after launch missile, but I have read that the ground launched model will only have a range of 5km so a 360 degree IR sensor is probably all it would need... and be totally passive and all weather to boot.

We will see what actual Morphei prototype will have installed. But that kind of 360° IR sensor could be excellent back up for battery command posts for Tors, Pantsirs and other SHORADs, when they want to work in radar silence or radar is jammed.

Is Phoenix IR sensor for Strelets developed further or it is abandoned? It was interesting start in this way.

But that kind of 360° IR sensor could be excellent back up for battery command posts for Tors, Pantsirs and other SHORADs, when they want to work in radar silence or radar is jammed.

Indeed, and they are very common on aircraft as part of the ESM suite too.

Is Phoenix IR sensor for Strelets developed further or it is abandoned? It was interesting start in this way.

AFAIK the Phoenix turret... normally mounted on a Vodnik chassis could be fitted to other platforms.
Considering they have IR guided missiles a 360 degree IR sensor makes sense to me, but SA-9 and SA-13 were most often seen with electronic boxes for detecting terrain following radar and radio altimeters used on low flying aircraft and low flying cruise missiles, which is just as passive. Unless it was ridiculously expensive I would fit both.

AFAIK the Phoenix turret... normally mounted on a Vodnik chassis could be fitted to other platforms.
Considering they have IR guided missiles a 360 degree IR sensor makes sense to me, but SA-9 and SA-13 were most often seen with electronic boxes for detecting terrain following radar and radio altimeters used on low flying aircraft and low flying cruise missiles, which is just as passive. Unless it was ridiculously expensive I would fit both.

I didn't have in mind whole turret, only 360° IR sensor, which was seen only in this Strelets prototype mounted on Vodnik vehicle. This sensor doesn't need to be places on every SA-13, it could be placed only on battery command posts. The point is, if the system is working and is effective, why not developed it further and use it on your systems?

Morfei:

The drawing you have posted is slightly different to the other drawings I have:





Indeed the flat four faced structure on your drawing makes rather more sense as four flat AESA arrays would offer the 360 degree continuous coverage that a short range close in defence missile system would need to be effective.
Being able to scan 360 degrees in miliseconds rather than seconds means faster detection, acquisition, etc etc.

Russian Design Bureau claims about Morfei is that it can intercept anything that can fly at 5 km and its design will remain unique for a decade , entry date for Morfei is 2015 as of now.

Russia has many shortrange missile with better range but i think there is something unique about Morfei , to have such a short range for a point defence missile and then to claim it unique they must have something up their sleeve.

I for one can only guess what it means but looking at the design

It would be a missile with very high energy and can sustain large G
The radar design of a half sphere suggest that it will have no blind zone at 360 *
It would have a very quick reaction capability i.e from detection to launch will be in secs ( has to be for such a short range missile )
Last but not the least it is mobile.

Austin wrote:Russian Design Bureau claims about Morfei is that it can intercept anything that can fly at 5 km and its design will remain unique for a decade , entry date for Morfei is 2015 as of now.

Russia has many shortrange missile with better range but i think there is something unique about Morfei , to have such a short range for a point defence missile and then to claim it unique they must have something up their sleeve.

I for one can only guess what it means but looking at the design

It would be a missile with very high energy and can sustain large G
The radar design of a half sphere suggest that it will have no blind zone at 360 *
It would have a very quick reaction capability i.e from detection to launch will be in secs ( has to be for such a short range missile )
Last but not the least it is mobile.

I think Morfei will be more like Iron Dome in Israel to defend important objects against any rocket, bomb or missile.

medo wrote:I think Morfei will be more like Iron Dome in Israel to defend important objects against any rocket, bomb or missile.

I had something similar in mind a very quick reaction , highly energetic and highly manouverable missile , basicly a last ditch vshorad weapon to kill what was missed by Long/Medium/SHORAD Air Defence system.

Yes, that will be right.

These missiles will not be cheap, especially initially.

FPA sensors are not cheap, but if they are QWIP based then over time their cost and with large scale production their costs will probably drop to be comparable to CCD chips.

No doubt missiles like SA-13 and of course Manpads like Igla-S and Verba will be used to support them as cheaper options intially.

My doubts about the Morphei;

- The missile canisters are so large that I believe that the system has a range that far exceeds 5kms. Of course the drawing could be wrong.

- IR may not be the guidance system (or not the only system).

The canisters appear to be very similar to the old Vityaz.

- IR may not be the guidance system (or not the only system).

Well they have developed an ARH seeker that they describe as being for the purposes of upgrading older AAMs that has a calibre that actually only matches the R-73.

This suggests a return to the old practise of radar and IR guided versions of all missiles.

A natural progression from that would be to combine IR and radar seekers on the same missile if the IIR sensor can be made small and efficient enough to allow a radar array too.

It is possible that a MMW radar ARH head could be in development for fire and forget models of HERMES and Krisantema, and such a seeker with a combined IIR seeker would be useful for air to air missiles, surface to air missiles, air to surface missiles, and other types as well... especially with a datalink that allows the missile to get closer to the target for a better look than can be achieved from an aircraft at standoff range.

A QWIP FPA IIR seeker would be expensive at first but with mass production it would be like and AESA module and the price would come down. The variety of uses for such a sensor from rifle sights and night vision equipment would be broad, and generally improve all round night fighting capability across the services.

The drawing of course could be wrong, but would need to include a catapult to launch the missiles 20m into the air, and could include an extra section either at the front or rear to turn the missile towards the target before main engine ignition.

Missiles like TOR have side thruster rockets built in, but as it is primarily an AAM the surface launched missiles (army and navy) might need extra addons as the focus of its design will be to keep it compact for internal weapons bay carriage on the PAK FA.

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-367.html

Some more info about Morphei.

Interesting.

The BMP-3 based command vehicle drawing is interesting too, but the BMP-3 is pretty much a dead end at the moment with kurganets-25 being the most likely chassis.

I think it could be possible that there might be two versions of Kurganets-25 like the armata with one having an engine at the front where a ramp rear entry would be useful, as for example a troop transport vehicle, while a rear engine mount better suits a tank like vehicle.

With a front mounted engine, centrally mounted radar antenna array, and rear mounted two man crew with electronics such a command vehicle could provide 360 degree radar coverage for air defence, and also monitoring enemy artillery and other radar related roles.

A vehicle with three crew in the front hull, and engine to the rear with a small IR/optical sensor sphere and the central section filled with vertically mounted ready to fire IR guided SAMs could be the TL (with no need for an E as the missiles will always be ready to fire... a bit like TOR.