Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

Just thinking that perhaps a good idea might be one of those telescopic case rounds for the new 57mm calibre weapon.

There is no reason why they have to stick with the old 57mm calibre round, they could adopt brand new telescopic case technology and introduce a 57mm round and develop all their new rounds based on that.

It means higher muzzle velocities, more efficient conventional ammo for the gun to further extend range, and of course for the guided rounds their effective range could be further extended and indeed effective altitude improved as well.

Obviously more expensive than using an existing round but then why do you want a reason to hang on to all those old guns and old ammo anyway?

It seems that the Russian naval infantry are not getting upgraded PT-76s anyway, they are getting all new vehicles so this new upgrade could go a step further.
Telescopic case rounds in this case could start as a 57mm weapon and develop maybe into a 65mm shell later on very easily and the performance of a decent sized round should make 250-350mm penetration performance out to 2km potentially possible with a smooth bore long barrel which means as a MIFV main gun you should be able to take on anything except enemy tanks front on and be a significant threat from the side and to hovering aircraft to fairly long range.
A thin walled HE round should pack enough HE but still be carried in large enough numbers of rounds to effectively replace the 30mm cannon and 100mm rifled gun in some situations.

The better shaped new round should make mechanised ammo racks much simpler and more effective and carry more ammo.

I should point out the main reason I am thinking the 57mm system might be useful... especially if the altitude and effective range of the guided munitions for it can be increased is the problems the Russian forces had with Georgian UAVs.

The thing is that UAVs have relatively small IR signatures so missiles like Igla have trouble getting locks on them, especially the small higher flying ones (5,000-6,000m or so).

The ZU-23 would be a waste above about 2,000m and BUK missiles are a bit expensive, though at a 15km ceiling they can certainly do the job.

Pantsir-S1 could do the job and TOR could too, but I think a guided 57mm shell... if its cost can be brought down enough, makes for a better solution and would introduce a round that is useful for other roles.
Certainly the laser guided shell is not limited to aerial targets and could be used against sea based targets and targets on land.

It might even have potential as a CAS gun round using laser homing guidance for single shots at the roofs of tanks where the aircraft comes in on a run and fires 4-5 x 57mm guided shells at a tank turret roof and each shell slams into the target one after the other... even if they are HE FRAG that will mess up their fancy optics quite a bit. Would be a relatively efficient way to deal with a line of soft vehicles like fuel and ammo trucks... especially if some sort of optical self homing system could be used or perhaps MMW radar.

Modernized 57 mm gun with autoloader and stabilization developed for PT-76 modernization is excellent basis for heavy AA gun. I think this gun must be placed in heavier turret with better armor and placed on tank chassis. In that way this will be heavy AA gun, which could go together with tanks in first line. Instead of Liga-S FCS it could have newer FCS with TI and higher vertical angle. It definitively need data link, search radar is more an option. This gun could engage flying and ground targets and could use different ammo, like HE-frag, HEAT, APFSDS, laser guided, etc. Which will be used will depend on target and situation of engagement.

This gun could be also used on SPRUT-SD chassis for VDV air defense, because it could engage higher targets than MANPADs or Strela-10.

I think the problem is that good enough is the enemy of the best.

This new 57mm gun has potential to reach aerial targets out to about 6km or so and ground targets probably to 8km.

It would be an excellent replacement for the 76.2mm gun of the PT-76, but as a replacement for the 30mm the question is does the 30mm need replacing just yet?

The problem is that while the 76.2mm gun of the PT-76 is certainly obsolete and in need of replacing, the fact is that it is more likely that it will be replaced with Sprut than with the Liga upgrade. The 125mm is in widespread service and ammo is not a problem.
Reintroducing the 57mm (after the SA-8 pretty much replaced it) when the 30mm is already pretty capable is a bit of a stretch.

I suspect it will depend a lot on how experiments with 57mm on the BMP work out, because if they can develop a round that will penetrate Bradleys and Warriors and other in service western IFVs and it also has a guided shell for air to air use then it might make sense to replace the 30mm with the 57mm.

Personally I think to get that performance they will need to go to a new type of 57mm ammo, perhaps telescopic case to improve ammo handling and storage while maximising performance and power of the round. I also think a smooth bore gun would be warranted as its primary ammo would be armour piercing for use against enemy IFV and the guided anti aircraft shell would be fin stabilised too, with HE rounds needing simple fin stabilisers the performance of the gun could be further improved through higher muzzle velocities lower gun weight and easier maintainence/cleaning.

I personally think they will likely develop the 57mm round further, probably naval use will begin first.

Remember there was some experimenting with a 57mm gun for the Il-102 and the Su-25 before they decided to go for a 30mm twin barrel gun... eventually perhaps all three services will take the plunge but likely not together... hopefully they will share the technology and not have to reinvent the wheel three times.

They certainly did it right with the 30 x 165mm shell.

US military got Centurion C-RAM land based system based on Phalanx, and German military got similar MANTIS system to counter rockets, artillery and mortars. I wonder if towed Sosna gun/missile system is capable to do the same job connected with proper radar system? Sosna itself have EO system with laser range finder. How far development of Sosna system come? I know that Pantsir could do that job also, but Sosna as towed system is cheaper and could be used to protect less important bases and points.

[img][/img]



Here is photo of Sosna gun/missile system.

The Russians have TOR to counter enemy rockets, artillery and mortars, SOSNA is simply a proposed air defence system.

If anything I would have thought SOSNA might have replaced the Towed ZU-23 with Igla missiles attached, but while it is cheaper than a system with radar it is not a cheap system due to the thermal optics.

Much cheaper than Tunguska because it doesn't need the search or tracking radar it is likely to become either an export favourite, or die from neglect.

GarryB wrote:The Russians have TOR to counter enemy rockets, artillery and mortars, SOSNA is simply a proposed air defence system.

If anything I would have thought SOSNA might have replaced the Towed ZU-23 with Igla missiles attached, but while it is cheaper than a system with radar it is not a cheap system due to the thermal optics.

Much cheaper than Tunguska because it doesn't need the search or tracking radar it is likely to become either an export favourite, or die from neglect.

As far as I know the ZSU system is no-missile[no iglas] system only radar guided gun??

As far as I know the ZSU system is no-missile[no iglas] system only radar guided gun??

Both the ZU-23M (upgraded towed twin barrel 23mm cannon with optics, electric drive and two Iglas mounted ready to fire) and the ZSU-23-4M4 upgrade of the self propelled 4 barrel 23mm calibre anti aircraft gun system with four Iglas mounted on arms at the rear of the turret have Iglas for use against appropriate targets or when the guns are being reloaded.

In a competition to replace the original manual ZU-23 a bid by SOSNA would be competing with the ZU-23M.

The advantage of the SOSNA would be longer range missiles that would be more difficult to defend against which have a much higher flight speed. The single twin barrel 30mm cannon also has a harder hitting shell with a greater effective range and higher rate of fire.

Both the ZU-23M (upgraded towed twin barrel 23mm cannon with optics, electric drive and two Iglas mounted ready to fire) and the ZSU-23-4M4 upgrade of the self propelled 4 barrel 23mm calibre anti aircraft gun system with four Iglas mounted on arms at the rear of the turret have Iglas for use against appropriate targets or when the guns are being reloaded.

[quote]

I know for those two upgrades, but I don't know if they are only in prototype state or are in army use in whatever number. Upgraded ZSU-23-4M with new proper radar, that could detect and track small targets, could easily do CRAM missions and actually protect army units of top attack ATGMs like Javelin or Spike.

Sosna could be better suited for air force, where towed system is not that problem. Pantsir is excellent system, but expensive, so air force will not buy them in thousands. Sosna is cheaper and could be almost the same effective for protecting less important bases and installations.

I know for those two upgrades, but I don't know if they are only in prototype state or are in army use in whatever number.

They are both in a much better situation than SOSNA, their older models are in service in fairly large numbers around the world, whereas the SOSNA is a brand new suggested system to replace the older models and to buy instead of the new upgrades.

Upgraded ZSU-23-4M with new proper radar, that could detect and track small targets, could easily do CRAM missions and actually protect army units of top attack ATGMs like Javelin or Spike.

Gun systems would not be ideally suited to hitting very small targets like an ATGM... guided missiles would be much more effective, though they would need very high acceleration because of the short range and lack of warning of an attack.

APS systems on tanks makes more sense. Note if the Javelin was fired at the ZSU-23-4M it would be easier as its accuracy improves as the missile closes range but firing hundreds of shells over your own tanks with only the shells that hit detonating and the rest presumably landing all over the front line might be a bit unpredictable.

Sosna could be better suited for air force, where towed system is not that problem. Pantsir is excellent system, but expensive, so air force will not buy them in thousands. Sosna is cheaper and could be almost the same effective for protecting less important bases and installations.

As long as there is little mobility requirement SOSNA would be a good replacement for the ZU-23 towed AAG. It might also be good for exporting to countries that don't want the cost of the Pantsir-S1 with all its radars and sophisticated night vision equipment.

The naval equivelent of PALMA might find some success on exported ships and Russian ships where deck penetration is a problem.

Gun systems would not be ideally suited to hitting very small targets like an ATGM... guided missiles would be much more effective, though they would need very high acceleration because of the short range and lack of warning of an attack.

APS systems on tanks makes more sense. Note if the Javelin was fired at the ZSU-23-4M it would be easier as its accuracy improves as the missile closes range but firing hundreds of shells over your own tanks with only the shells that hit detonating and the rest presumably landing all over the front line might be a bit unpredictable.

Guns have a big advantage against missiles, far shorter minimal range to engage target, that is why they are more suited to deal with that kind of targets. Top attack ATGMs like Javelin and Spike fly high, so it is safe for ZSU to engage them comparing to Kornet, which fly very low. In that case rounds, which not hit ATGM will fall on territory where enemy ATGM team have its position.

The naval equivelent of PALMA might find some success on exported ships and Russian ships where deck penetration is a problem.

As I know Palma is placed on two Gepard frigates for Vietnam. We will see if Palma will be placed on Russian ships too. Anyway, have Palma anything other in common with Sosna project or only Sosna missiles?

Guns have a big advantage against missiles, far shorter minimal range to engage target, that is why they are more suited to deal with that kind of targets.

I totally agree, but the performance of guns rapidly diminishes with distance and the Tunguska or SOSNA for that matter hardly have the armour to operate amongst tanks and will much more likely be located a km or more behind the line. From 1.5-3km the natural dispersion of shells means a small point target will need long bursts and probably several bursts to ensure a kill, whereas from say 3-5km back a single SOSNA should do the job with a 3-4 second flight time to the target, and most importantly for a small target like a Javelin... a proximity fuse to ensure even a slight miss will still kill the target.

As I know Palma is placed on two Gepard frigates for Vietnam. We will see if Palma will be placed on Russian ships too. Anyway, have Palma anything other in common with Sosna project or only Sosna missiles?

Same company:

http://www.kbtochmash.ru/products/products_6.html

http://www.kbtochmash.ru/products/products_2.html

http://www.kbtochmash.ru/products/products_4.html

Regarding the Verba MANPAD... it seems it will be revealed at Aero India 2011 as part of the Strelets system of dual MANPADS launchers.

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110204/162454795.html

Wonder what other goodies they will reveal this year...

Regarding the laser guided missile question, SOSNA will likely use an autotracking optical system... so the crosshair is placed on the aerial target and a lock is acquired after which the optics automatically track the target.
On missile launch there will be a delay while the missiles main booster burns and then when it falls away the laser will be activated with the laser sensor in the tail of the missile.
The way I understand it the laser beam consists of a 4 colour beam so when the missile is in one colour it will know it is off course and which way to manouver to get back on target.
For example if the colours are red, blue in the top left and right respectively, and green and orange bottom left and right respectively then if the missile looks back and sees green it knows it is low and to the left so it will start to climb and turn right... if it then sees red then it knows it is too high and still left so it levels off and starts to descend a little while still turning right. When it sees all four colours it knows it is on target and if it remains on target it will eventually collide with the target.

This is how the Kornet works.

Note because the laser does not have to travel all the way to the target and reflect off the target back to the missile seeker the laser can be much much less powerful and less easy to detect. It is also not effected by the colour of the target or how reflective it is.

Because the laser sensor on the target is looking back at the launch vehicle it is not effected by DIRCM or dazzlers or flares or chaff.

The system is reliable and very cheap though it is not fire and forget you can still abort the engagement if the target turns out to not be what is expected.

GarryB wrote:Regarding the Verba MANPAD... it seems it will be revealed at Aero India 2011 as part of the Strelets system of dual MANPADS launchers.

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110204/162454795.html

Wonder what other goodies they will reveal this year...

Nice , These days Russia uses AeroIndia for international presentation of new systems , they did with Mig-35 back then and now Verba.

I am planning to visit AeroIndia this year hopefully should have some details.

Note because the laser does not have to travel all the way to the target and reflect off the target back to the missile seeker the laser can be much much less powerful and less easy to detect. It is also not effected by the colour of the target or how reflective it is.

Because the laser sensor on the target is looking back at the launch vehicle it is not effected by DIRCM or dazzlers or flares or chaff.

The system is reliable and very cheap though it is not fire and forget you can still abort the engagement if the target turns out to not be what is expected.

This is true and the same goes for radio guided missiles. The only thing enemy could jam is missile locating sensor in launch vehicle, which look in target direction. Tunguska's modernized missile have blinking light, that IR sensor easier recognize missile comparing to flares and other jams. I'm not sure if Tor and Pantsir also have blinking IR light in missile for working in optical mode.

Regarding the Verba MANPAD... it seems it will be revealed at Aero India 2011 as part of the Strelets system of dual MANPADS launchers.

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110204/162454795.html

Wonder what other goodies they will reveal this year... Smile

I'm a little surprised, that Russians will reveal new MANPAD in India and not at home at MAKS or similar. Is Strelets operational in Russian army or they use only its naval version Gibka in Buyan class ship Astrakhan? Strelets with Igla-S missiles is good replacement for Strela-1 and Strela-10.

Please do take a good camera Austin...

This is true and the same goes for radio guided missiles. The only thing
enemy could jam is missile locating sensor in launch vehicle, which
look in target direction.

The Shturm and Ataka are both radio command guided missiles it makes them very cheap, but unlike a laser beam riding missile it adds the problem of being able to know where the missile is in relation to the target so flight corrections can be calculated and sent to the missile.

AFAIK the radio command signals are line of sight with the sensor in the missile looking directly back at the emitter in the launcher and that the goniometer that tracks the outgoing missile does so because in the tail of the missiles was a flare in the older missiles and was later changed to rear facing light. With the flare a circle of material was put over the flare and it has holes in it at various intervals so as the disk spins the flare flickers and it is this coded flickering that lets the guidance system distinguish the missile from flares or fires on the battlefield. With later model missiles I understand IR frequency lights were used without the disk and they were just turned on and off in a pattern for the same effect. I would suspect that by now a decent LED light would be used.

Having said all that I would have thought the tracking radars on the Tunguska, Pantsir, and TOR (and Kashtan and Kashtan-M for that matter) would be capable of accurately tracking the target and the outgoing missile without the need for optical tracking of the missile, though of course they might use that as you say in optical mode.

I'm a little surprised, that Russians will reveal new MANPAD in India and not at home at MAKS or similar.

I am quite surprised myself, but I think this new missile will likely be quite expensive unless the seeker uses a QWIP sensor so it may be reserved for more difficult targets like tiny UAVs with little IR signature.

The Igla-S is certainly no slouch and with its proximity fuse is very effective for most jobs you'd use a MANPAD for.

Will be interesting to see whether the Igla-S will be used together with Verba or if Verba will replace Iglas and older model MANPADs in Russian service.

Having said all that I would have thought the tracking radars on the Tunguska, Pantsir, and TOR (and Kashtan and Kashtan-M for that matter) would be capable of accurately tracking the target and the outgoing missile without the need for optical tracking of the missile, though of course they might use that as you say in optical mode.

[quote]

Pantsir, Tunguska and Kashtan (similarly also Crotale and Roland) have IR missile locating channel in their OE sighting system, this IR channel must not be mixed with IR night channel, radio guidance system only send guiding signals to missile. Tor and Osa, I think, have all communication with missile through radar and radio command guidance system also in optical mode. I don't know what is better, with IR locating channel you don't need to emit with your tracking radar, what means enemy could not that easy lock you for antiradar missiles. Using tracking radar for tracking missile, radar emit only in time of missile flying to target.

Pantsir, Tunguska and Kashtan (similarly also Crotale and Roland) have
IR missile locating channel in their OE sighting system, this IR channel
must not be mixed with IR night channel, radio guidance system only
send guiding signals to missile.

It is important to be aware of the roles of the systems... the Pantsir is designed as a short range defence for larger long range SAM systems and will be well inside friendly territory, so any ARM launch platform... while out of range of Pantsir will be dealt with by the SAM the Pantsir is defending and in a worst case scenario the ARM itself can be engaged by Pantsir too.

Tunguska will be near the front line and its primary role is defending armour from air attack. In this role it will be supported by TOR and BUK and further back by S-300/400, so again any ARM platform will likely be dealt with by BUK or S-3/400 with an ARMs being dealt with most likely by TOR and Tunguska as well as BUK.

Kashtan is a CIWS as you know and is primarily the last line of defence for a ship so it is primarily focussed on shooting down missiles of all types so anti radiation missiles will just be treated like high speed anti ship missiles and dealt with using the missile component.

Having said all that, going back to ATAKA and SHTURM they both use a radio transmitter that has a round black cover that is the nose of the Mi-28A/N that operates in the 35 GHz frequency range... now you might try to jam it but as far as I am aware there are very few ARMs that can home in on targets emitting at that frequency as it is a short range line of sight signal.

Tor and Osa, I think, have all communication with missile through radar
and radio command guidance system also in optical mode. I don't know
what is better, with IR locating channel you don't need to emit with
your tracking radar, what means enemy could not that easy lock you for
antiradar missiles. Using tracking radar for tracking missile, radar
emit only in time of missile flying to target.

Radar and radio command have the huge advantage of being truly all weather... on a heavy overcast day with a low cloud ceiling using an IR locating channel might be a problem when your missile passes through the cloud base. Equally at sea thick low sea fog would be a huge problem for an IR tracking system to locate your outgoing missile, whereas mm wave and cm wave radar would have little problem tracking two closing objects (the target and your missile).
Optical IR will be slightly more accurate but more effected by weather, or even heat haze.

Radar and radio command have the huge advantage of being truly all weather... on a heavy overcast day with a low cloud ceiling using an IR locating channel might be a problem when your missile passes through the cloud base. Equally at sea thick low sea fog would be a huge problem for an IR tracking system to locate your outgoing missile, whereas mm wave and cm wave radar would have little problem tracking two closing objects (the target and your missile).
Optical IR will be slightly more accurate but more effected by weather, or even heat haze.

When a system work in radar mode, tracking radar track both, target and missile and send correcting signals to missile through radio transmitter. IR missile tracking system is part of optical sight and work only in optical mode. If you have optical visibility to target, IR missile tracking system will also have optical visibility to missile, which is all the time between the launcher and target.

It is important to be aware of the roles of the systems... the Pantsir is designed as a short range defence for larger long range SAM systems and will be well inside friendly territory, so any ARM launch platform... while out of range of Pantsir will be dealt with by the SAM the Pantsir is defending and in a worst case scenario the ARM itself can be engaged by Pantsir too.

Tunguska will be near the front line and its primary role is defending armour from air attack. In this role it will be supported by TOR and BUK and further back by S-300/400, so again any ARM platform will likely be dealt with by BUK or S-3/400 with an ARMs being dealt with most likely by TOR and Tunguska as well as BUK.

Kashtan is a CIWS as you know and is primarily the last line of defence for a ship so it is primarily focussed on shooting down missiles of all types so anti radiation missiles will just be treated like high speed anti ship missiles and dealt with using the missile component.

I'm very aware of the rules of those systems, and for all those systems radar mode is primary and optical mode is secondary mode. IR missile tracking system on optical sight is just part of optical mode of working and that doesn't have any influence on their rule in air defense.

Having said all that, going back to ATAKA and SHTURM they both use a radio transmitter that has a round black cover that is the nose of the Mi-28A/N that operates in the 35 GHz frequency range... now you might try to jam it but as far as I am aware there are very few ARMs that can home in on targets emitting at that frequency as it is a short range line of sight signal.

Shturm and Ataka are radio guided ATGMs and helicopter need radio transmitter to send correcting radio signals to missile, but missile is located with IR missile tracking device inside optical sight. But in helicopter like Ka-52, which have radar in its nose, radar could track both target and missile and send correcting radio signals to missile, what made ATGM all weather capable.

When a system work in radar mode, tracking radar track both, target and
missile and send correcting signals to missile through radio
transmitter. IR missile tracking system is part of optical sight and
work only in optical mode. If you have optical visibility to target, IR
missile tracking system will also have optical visibility to missile,
which is all the time between the launcher and target.

Quite true, though I think even in radar mode the optical tracking would still be useful as it would be more accurate than radar especially against very low flying targets.

The tracking of the missile in an engagement against aerial target would be effected if the target flys behind a cloud... the auto tracker will try to estimate the targets position based on its trajectory heading towards the cloud but that might not be accurate enough unless it is a small cloud.

In the fire control system for the Mig-29 the IRST and radar were linked so that a target acquired by the IRST could be handed over to the radar, or indeed used to align a missile seeker onto the target without the need for scanning.
In the case of say a TOR in optical mode this would greatly reduce the chance of electronic interference though it would not be electronically stealthy where a radar tracking beam (very narrow and not especially high power) could continue to track the target and a separate tracking beam for the missile to ensure a kill.

IR missile tracking system on optical sight is just part of optical mode
of working and that doesn't have any influence on their rule in air
defense.

What I am trying to get at is that the optical back up modes of these systems is not to protect them from HARMs, and other ARMs, it is more often to allow the system to operate under conditions of extreme jamming or malfunction.
The aircraft carrying HARM type weapons will be dealt with at longer ranges as will most of the missiles fired at these systems and the SAMs and radars they are protecting. At most these systems might have to deal with a few leaking missiles but that is well within their capability anyway.

But in helicopter like Ka-52, which have radar in its nose, radar could
track both target and missile and send correcting radio signals to
missile, what made ATGM all weather capable.

It is hard to say... the 35 GHz transmitter used for the ATAKA and SHTURM is a very high frequency, it really depends on the radar the Ka-52 uses. Remember the Mi-28N will use a MMW and CMW radar too yet it still sports the thimble nose transmitter for the ATAKA.
These missiles are very useful... cheap and accurate with the range to get the aircraft to the edge of MANPADs range and well out of small arms range, but they are only temporary and I think Hermes will be the primary ATGM used by Russian Helos. The ATAKA will likely remain in use for a while especially on the Mi-24s and Mi-28s as it is probably available in numbers with stocks of SHTURM likely available too. Once they are used up however the ATAKA might remain in low rate production for export and as a cheap alternative where HERMES is not needed or is too large like with light helos, and of course UCAVs.

Anyway... what I am trying to say is I think pictures showing Ka-52s with what appear to be ATAKA tubes is likely a temporary measure and that its primary weapon will likely be Hermes, Rockets for marking targets the old fashioned way and boxes of UAVs it can launch to explore at low risk.

Quite true, though I think even in radar mode the optical tracking would still be useful as it would be more accurate than radar especially against very low flying targets.

The tracking of the missile in an engagement against aerial target would be effected if the target flys behind a cloud... the auto tracker will try to estimate the targets position based on its trajectory heading towards the cloud but that might not be accurate enough unless it is a small cloud.

In the fire control system for the Mig-29 the IRST and radar were linked so that a target acquired by the IRST could be handed over to the radar, or indeed used to align a missile seeker onto the target without the need for scanning.
In the case of say a TOR in optical mode this would greatly reduce the chance of electronic interference though it would not be electronically stealthy where a radar tracking beam (very narrow and not especially high power) could continue to track the target and a separate tracking beam for the missile to ensure a kill.

When target is locked by tracking radar, optical sight is also locked on target, so usually target is tracked with both, tracking radar and optical sight and commander decide which mode will be used. Usually you could change from one mode to the other and back, even when missile is flying (Roland can do this and I think other systems can also). When target is tracked with both tracking radar and optical sight, and you work in optical mode and lost target, than you go on radar mode, which than lock your optics again on the target.

What I am trying to get at is that the optical back up modes of these systems is not to protect them from HARMs, and other ARMs, it is more often to allow the system to operate under conditions of extreme jamming or malfunction.
The aircraft carrying HARM type weapons will be dealt with at longer ranges as will most of the missiles fired at these systems and the SAMs and radars they are protecting. At most these systems might have to deal with a few leaking missiles but that is well within their capability anyway.

Yes and no. It's true, that optical mode is a back up in a case of heavy jamming, but also protect from HARMs. Depend on tactics and strategy on higher level. If you must work in radar silence, than you work in optical mode, to be passive, that enemy could not locate your position. If there is a big danger of HARMs you will work with tracking radar just a limited time, what mean you work all the time optically and use tracking radar only to secure 100% kill. I don't think I could say anything more here.

Depend on tactics and strategy on higher level. If you must work in
radar silence, than you work in optical mode, to be passive, that enemy
could not locate your position. If there is a big danger of HARMs you
will work with tracking radar just a limited time, what mean you work
all the time optically and use tracking radar only to secure 100% kill. I
don't think I could say anything more here.

Except that the Kashtan and the Pantsir will most likely be operating using data from external sources.
The Kashtan has combat modules and command modules that use separate search and tracking systems to locate targets and allocate Kashtan combat modules to engage those targets. For a Kashtan module the focus is not to hide from ARMs... it is the last line of defence against missiles directed at the ship.

In many ways the Pantsir is the same except it will get its data from the radars in the position it is protecting.

Tunguska on the other hand has the role of defending armour and while ARMs are not threat to armour they do represent a threat to Tunguska vehicles and other air defence vehicles like TOR and BUK. The Tunguskas best defence against ARMs is simply to turn off its radars and drive a few 100 metres while scanning the sky with optics for targets to engage.

A formation of 6 vehicles could alternate the use of radar to enable the effective detection of targets at long range with continuous radar coverage by simply one vehicle scanning and passing target data to the other vehicles for 30 seconds or so and then another vehicle in the team could then scan for targets and share target data between the other vehicles in the force.

BTW regarding our chat about the Strela-10 and whether it was an all weather system note in this video:

http://visualrian.com/images/item/833944

One of the criticisms of the so called "MANPADS" alternative is that it can only be used in clear weather, which suggests that the Strela-10 can be operated in bad weather.

Confusion is created with the commentator calling the Strela-10 a MANPAD system when it is clearly not man portable, but I believe they are suggesting that the Strela-10 can be used in bad weather and despite the use of "jamming aircraft".

Except that the Kashtan and the Pantsir will most likely be operating using data from external sources.
The Kashtan has combat modules and command modules that use separate search and tracking systems to locate targets and allocate Kashtan combat modules to engage those targets. For a Kashtan module the focus is not to hide from ARMs... it is the last line of defence against missiles directed at the ship.

In many ways the Pantsir is the same except it will get its data from the radars in the position it is protecting.

Tunguska on the other hand has the role of defending armour and while ARMs are not threat to armour they do represent a threat to Tunguska vehicles and other air defence vehicles like TOR and BUK. The Tunguskas best defence against ARMs is simply to turn off its radars and drive a few 100 metres while scanning the sky with optics for targets to engage.

A formation of 6 vehicles could alternate the use of radar to enable the effective detection of targets at long range with continuous radar coverage by simply one vehicle scanning and passing target data to the other vehicles for 30 seconds or so and then another vehicle in the team could then scan for targets and share target data between the other vehicles in the force.

All modern SAM systems have data link to get radar picture from outside sources like battery radar, command post or from other radars and sensors in IADS. If your radars are turn off, enemy could not jam them. If you turn on your radar only to secure 100% kill, enemy plane have no time to jam you and it could be a big surprise for pilot, because RWR didn't detect radar emission. All SAMs have capabilities you mentioned, what capabilities and modes it will use depend on tactics, strategy and orders in IADS.

BTW regarding our chat about the Strela-10 and whether it was an all weather system note in this video:

http://visualrian.com/images/item/833944

One of the criticisms of the so called "MANPADS" alternative is that it can only be used in clear weather, which suggests that the Strela-10 can be operated in bad weather.

Confusion is created with the commentator calling the Strela-10 a MANPAD system when it is clearly not man portable, but I believe they are suggesting that the Strela-10 can be used in bad weather and despite the use of "jamming aircraft".

Interesting video. Unfortunately journalist often don't have a clue about the things, which they present. Strela-2 and Strela-3 are MANPADs, Strela-1 and Strela-10 are not, but for journalist they are usually the same think. It's difficult to say, what journalist want to say, but one think is sure, that Strela-10 is replacement for ZU-23 guns. Actually to give Strela-10 all weather capabilities is minor modification to put TI on the launcher and a display to operator, but a question is, if this is cost effective and how quick VDV and army units will get newer SAMs to replace Strela-10.

But even when local radars are off then some radars need to be on to detect non emitting enemy threats (Aircraft and weapons). Those radars that are on can be jammed to deny the entire air defence network information about objects operating passively in their airspace. Obviously it will be clear where the jamming aircraft are, but the radar and radio silent objects that may be receiving datalink info or not will be rather harder to detect especially at longer ranges or in bad weather.

I think we didn't understand each other correctly. I talked for the radars on SAM system or in battery, but anyway. IADS doesn't have only early warning radars, but also other passive sensors like Kolchuga, Orion, etc, and a network of visual observation posts. IADS than combine all those pictures and infos in one big picture, which they send to other air defense units and batteries through data link. If battery get a clear picture of air space from higher level, than they don't need to turn on their radars, but just optically track designated targets. You could also use radars, but for shorter period.

I don't think that is true. Most ESM suites are now fully automatic and are designed to kick in when particular threats appear. A heat bloom on the ground and a rapidly approaching object with a heat bloom following it for example will be identified as an incoming IR guided missile... the reaction time for which will be short. Equally the heat bloom of the launch of an AMRAAM from 40km might not be detected, but when it gets to a position 15km from your aircraft with its rocket motor burned out and only the friction heated nose of the missile as an IR emitter it will be the active radar in the nose of the missile that might be the first clue to the threat... a threat that is likely closing at over mach 3. The ESM suite would not be surprised, it would detect the radar signal and its direction and would likely immediately release chaff and if it is very sophisticated it might direct a jamming beam into the chaff cloud in the hope that the home on jam mode of the AMRAAM will direct it into the chaff cloud.
Either way the reaction to a sudden electronic signal will be very fast.

The point however is that Tunguska has a missile range of 10km and a gun range of 4km and I would guess that its optics can detect and track targets at this range except in the worst weather, so the only times it would have to use radar (ie during an engagement) the target it is engaging will not be the much of a threat for long as its missiles reach 10km in about 15 seconds or so and of they do need to go to radar mode for part of the engagement that is not long enough for that target to get the Tunguskas coordinates and fire an ARM. For threats further away the time it will take to find the Tunguska and lock on and fire an ARM the engagement will be over, the radar will be off and the Tunguska will be moving to a new position.

Misunderstanding again. I talked for radar mode for radio guided missiles. AMRAAM is different class with its active radar homing head. When you use optical mode for radio guided missiles, RWR will not detect emission of tracking radar. Missile itself will be detected by MAWS. To secure 100% kill with tracking radar is, that you turn on tracking radar and go to radar mode in last seconds before missile hit target, so plane have very short time to react. On the other hand you could still work optically, just target will try to jam tracking radar.

...& by the way what is photo-contrast guidance system in SA-13??

This is actually day time optical homing head which see a plane as a dark shadow on the bright sky. It works together with IR homing head and in case when IR doesn't recognize plane because of flares, photo-contrast still see a plane as a shadow.