Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Share

    Asf

    Posts : 472
    Points : 491
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Asf on Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:54 am

    10km range and laser beam riding guidance were two parameters that seem to rule out the IIR guided Morfei.
    IR fire and forget do have some advantages, thought laser-guidance missiles is much cheaper of course.
    And cheaper and light weight without all those CM and MMW radar systems of Pantsir-S1.
    First thing, Pantsir isn't a vehicle for ground forces. Ground forces near equivalent is Tunguska.
    Second thing, ground forces AA troops use both tunguskas and strela-10M in mixed battaries. So, there is no competition between those two systems. Sosna's missiles were initially designed for new version for Tunguska, as I know, so there the vehicle on MT-LB chassic can be an export only vehicle and russian ground forces will recieve new tunguska-like vehicle with sosna missiles and strela-10M will be replaced with another type of vehicle with IR misslies. Or may be the armed forces will change the concept of close-range AA battalions, switching from Tunguska/Strela-10 mix to Sosna-only battaries, but as I said IR guidance do have it's advantages (if a missle is locked on target, there is no need of LoS to it). Or the ground forces may switch from SPAAG-missile systems like Tunguska to missile-only system like this MT-LB Sosna, but I don't think so because autocannons are useful things.
    he laser beam riding guidance wont be able to see through the booster stage
    It's not a rule, as Kornet and Sosna uses sophisticated multi-spectral lasers which is bery difficult to disrupt even by countermeasures, not a mere smoke

    Asf

    Posts : 472
    Points : 491
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Asf on Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:03 am

    The electronics and sensors are being developed as an avionics suite
    That's true. As I know about Boomerang chassis, it have near plane-like electrical harness net with lots of sensors and onboard computers
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:00 pm

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Asf wrote:
    The fact that some versions of Sosna can be mounted on an MT-LB based chasis doesn't mean that it is a Strela-10 follow-on.
    It has similar tactical purpose
    I think Sosna is primarily a ZU-23-2 follow-on.
    What do you mean? ZU-23-2 is a towed AA autocannon
    the radio control for the first stage of the missile
    I always thought Sosna is laser-guided

    GarryB wrote:
    The fact that some versions of Sosna can be mounted on an MT-LB based chasis doesn't mean that it is a Strela-10 follow-on. There are other systems developed as Strela-10 follow-ons.

    I think Sosna is primarily a ZU-23-2 follow-on.

    The VDV announced the Strela-10 was a temporary replacement for the ZU-23-2, but that a new system was going to replace it in the near future. I suspect the SOSNA-R is that replacement because figures given match SOSNA-R better than Morfei or other systems known to be in development. 10km range and laser beam riding guidance were two parameters that seem to rule out the IIR guided Morfei.

    There are two reasons for that conclusion: the MT-LB based chassis and the radio control for the first stage of the missile. It seems that the non-export versions of Sosna don't need the radio control for the first stage control.

    I would suggest all versions of SOSNA-R would require radio command guidance for the initial portion of flight to get it heading in the right direction... the laser beam riding guidance wont be able to see through the booster stage in the first second or two of flight, while radio command would allow a slightly lofted trajectory to ensure the missile flys clear of ground obstructions like trees but as the main booster burns out the radio command link would allow the launcher to command the missile to climb or descend so the laser beam is not seen by the missile through the smoke trail the main booster has just left.

    It has similar tactical purpose

    And cheaper and light weight without all those CM and MMW radar systems of Pantsir-S1.

    I always thought Sosna is laser-guided

    Yes... laser beam riding, but for the first part of its flight it has a solid rocket booster and a large rocket plume between it and the launcher, so for that part of flight it uses radio command guidance to fly to the optimum point to engage the target.

    GarryB wrote:
    There are two reasons for that conclusion: the MT-LB based chassis and the radio control for the first stage of the missile. It seems that the non-export versions of Sosna don't need the radio control for the first stage control.

    I would suggest all versions of SOSNA-R would require radio command guidance for the initial portion of flight to get it heading in the right direction... the laser beam riding guidance wont be able to see through the booster stage in the first second or two of flight, while radio command would allow a slightly lofted trajectory to ensure the missile flys clear of ground obstructions like trees but as the main booster burns out the radio command link would allow the launcher to command the missile to climb or descend so the laser beam is not seen by the missile through the smoke trail the main booster has just left.

    I will try to do a "proper" post on the technical and tactical aspects of Sosna, but for the time being, let me expediently clarify something here before it gets too late:

    When I mentioned that the first stage of the nonexportable versions of the "laser navigational guided" versions of Sosna-R don't use radio command guidance, I wasn't implying that their first stage guidance used laser beam-riding guidance or were unguided.

    The first stage of the nonexportable versions of the "laser navigational guided" versions of Sosna-R are, of course, guided. I'll talk about this more when I attempt to write a "proper" post on this subject.

    Also, even the second stages of the laser guided Sosna-R variants most probably don't use laser beam-riding but use the more complicated "laser navigational guidance".

    Here is the second part of my appraisal of Sosna which is based on whatever data that is available to me.

    Sosna is, of course, related to the non-exportable Palash and the exportable Pal'ma. All of the exportable systems that I have seen, e.g., the Vietnamese ones, have the radio command guidance package. The non-exportable ones don't have that package.

    My explanation is that the non-exportable missiles have a very fast-burning and high-impulse motor that is not exportable. This motor would provide for a 400 g (4000 m/s^2) acceleration of the missile and would burn for, let's say, half a second, giving the missile a burnout speed of 2000 m/s. The burnout would occur at a distance of only 500 m.

    The first stage burn would be a guided one; in this kind of design and for these level of performance requirements you need that. Some versions of the non-exportable missiles would only be guided using an inexpensive MEMS-based INS during the first stage burn, so the first stage guidance would not be a terminal form of guidance, which is all nice and good for such a high performance design.

    One aspect that may corroborate all of this is the interstages used in the missile designs; they look strange. I think those interstages have special features that allow speedy and clean separation of the stages; this aspect is very important for the high-performance design that we are talking about. Due to all these features, the minimum range would be short.

    The exportable missiles, like 9M340Eh, don't have the very fast-burning, high-impulse motors; so not only they are not of as high a performance level but they also "need" terminal guidance during their first stage burn, hence the use of radio command for that.

    The remaining parts of this story may follow.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:59 pm

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Asf wrote:
    The fact that some versions of Sosna can be mounted on an MT-LB based chasis doesn't mean that it is a Strela-10 follow-on.
    It has similar tactical purpose
    I think Sosna is primarily a ZU-23-2 follow-on.
    What do you mean? ZU-23-2 is a towed AA autocannon
    the radio control for the first stage of the missile
    I always thought Sosna is laser-guided

    GarryB wrote:
    The fact that some versions of Sosna can be mounted on an MT-LB based chasis doesn't mean that it is a Strela-10 follow-on. There are other systems developed as Strela-10 follow-ons.

    I think Sosna is primarily a ZU-23-2 follow-on.

    The VDV announced the Strela-10 was a temporary replacement for the ZU-23-2, but that a new system was going to replace it in the near future. I suspect the SOSNA-R is that replacement because figures given match SOSNA-R better than Morfei or other systems known to be in development. 10km range and laser beam riding guidance were two parameters that seem to rule out the IIR guided Morfei.

    There are two reasons for that conclusion: the MT-LB based chassis and the radio control for the first stage of the missile. It seems that the non-export versions of Sosna don't need the radio control for the first stage control.

    I would suggest all versions of SOSNA-R would require radio command guidance for the initial portion of flight to get it heading in the right direction... the laser beam riding guidance wont be able to see through the booster stage in the first second or two of flight, while radio command would allow a slightly lofted trajectory to ensure the missile flys clear of ground obstructions like trees but as the main booster burns out the radio command link would allow the launcher to command the missile to climb or descend so the laser beam is not seen by the missile through the smoke trail the main booster has just left.

    It has similar tactical purpose

    And cheaper and light weight without all those CM and MMW radar systems of Pantsir-S1.

    I always thought Sosna is laser-guided

    Yes... laser beam riding, but for the first part of its flight it has a solid rocket booster and a large rocket plume between it and the launcher, so for that part of flight it uses radio command guidance to fly to the optimum point to engage the target.

    GarryB wrote:
    There are two reasons for that conclusion: the MT-LB based chassis and the radio control for the first stage of the missile. It seems that the non-export versions of Sosna don't need the radio control for the first stage control.

    I would suggest all versions of SOSNA-R would require radio command guidance for the initial portion of flight to get it heading in the right direction... the laser beam riding guidance wont be able to see through the booster stage in the first second or two of flight, while radio command would allow a slightly lofted trajectory to ensure the missile flys clear of ground obstructions like trees but as the main booster burns out the radio command link would allow the launcher to command the missile to climb or descend so the laser beam is not seen by the missile through the smoke trail the main booster has just left.

    I will try to do a "proper" post on the technical and tactical aspects of Sosna, but for the time being, let me expediently clarify something here before it gets too late:

    When I mentioned that the first stage of the nonexportable versions of the "laser navigational guided" versions of Sosna-R don't use radio command guidance, I wasn't implying that their first stage guidance used laser beam-riding guidance or were unguided.

    The first stage of the nonexportable versions of the "laser navigational guided" versions of Sosna-R are, of course, guided. I'll talk about this more when I attempt to write a "proper" post on this subject.

    Also, even the second stages of the laser guided Sosna-R variants most probably don't use laser beam-riding but use the more complicated "laser navigational guidance".

    Here is the second part of my appraisal of Sosna which is based on whatever data that is available to me.

    Sosna is, of course, related to the non-exportable Palash and the exportable Pal'ma. All of the exportable systems that I have seen, e.g., the Vietnamese ones, have the radio command guidance package. The non-exportable ones don't have that package.

    My explanation is that the non-exportable missiles have a very fast-burning and high-impulse motor that is not exportable. This motor would provide for a 400 g (4000 m/s^2) acceleration of the missile and would burn for, let's say, half a second, giving the missile a burnout speed of 2000 m/s. The burnout would occur at a distance of only 500 m.

    The first stage burn would be a guided one; in this kind of design and for these level of performance requirements you need that. Some versions of the non-exportable missiles would only be guided using an inexpensive MEMS-based INS during the first stage burn, so the first stage guidance would not be a terminal form of guidance, which is all nice and good for such a high performance design.

    One aspect that may corroborate all of this is the interstages used in the missile designs; they look strange. I think those interstages have special features that allow speedy and clean separation of the stages; this aspect is very important for the high-performance design that we are talking about. Due to all these features, the minimum range would be short.

    The exportable missiles, like 9M340Eh, don't have the very fast-burning, high-impulse motors; so not only they are not of as high a performance level but they also "need" terminal guidance during their first stage burn, hence the use of radio command for that.

    The remaining parts of this story may follow.

    Here is the "third" part of my assessment of Sosna.

    Here is an image of 9M337 missile used by Sosna/Palash family. Please note the interstage I was referring to.



    The "fourth" part of this assessment may follow.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    V-SHORAD Systems Thread:

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:19 pm

    There has been a fair bit of discussion about Sosna and related air defense systems under the "Ground Forces Photos and News" thread. I thought it would be appropriate to move that discussion to a new thread started for the purpose of discussing these systems.

    While Sosna and related air defense systems are intended for use by various branches of the armed forces, I thought creating this topic under the "Russian Army" section would still be acceptable.

    To continue with this post I will incorporate my last post from the other thread here.

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Asf wrote:
    The fact that some versions of Sosna can be mounted on an MT-LB based chasis doesn't mean that it is a Strela-10 follow-on.
    It has similar tactical purpose
    I think Sosna is primarily a ZU-23-2 follow-on.
    What do you mean? ZU-23-2 is a towed AA autocannon
    the radio control for the first stage of the missile
    I always thought Sosna is laser-guided

    GarryB wrote:
    The fact that some versions of Sosna can be mounted on an MT-LB based chasis doesn't mean that it is a Strela-10 follow-on. There are other systems developed as Strela-10 follow-ons.

    I think Sosna is primarily a ZU-23-2 follow-on.

    The VDV announced the Strela-10 was a temporary replacement for the ZU-23-2, but that a new system was going to replace it in the near future. I suspect the SOSNA-R is that replacement because figures given match SOSNA-R better than Morfei or other systems known to be in development. 10km range and laser beam riding guidance were two parameters that seem to rule out the IIR guided Morfei.

    There are two reasons for that conclusion: the MT-LB based chassis and the radio control for the first stage of the missile. It seems that the non-export versions of Sosna don't need the radio control for the first stage control.

    I would suggest all versions of SOSNA-R would require radio command guidance for the initial portion of flight to get it heading in the right direction... the laser beam riding guidance wont be able to see through the booster stage in the first second or two of flight, while radio command would allow a slightly lofted trajectory to ensure the missile flys clear of ground obstructions like trees but as the main booster burns out the radio command link would allow the launcher to command the missile to climb or descend so the laser beam is not seen by the missile through the smoke trail the main booster has just left.

    It has similar tactical purpose

    And cheaper and light weight without all those CM and MMW radar systems of Pantsir-S1.

    I always thought Sosna is laser-guided

    Yes... laser beam riding, but for the first part of its flight it has a solid rocket booster and a large rocket plume between it and the launcher, so for that part of flight it uses radio command guidance to fly to the optimum point to engage the target.

    GarryB wrote:
    There are two reasons for that conclusion: the MT-LB based chassis and the radio control for the first stage of the missile. It seems that the non-export versions of Sosna don't need the radio control for the first stage control.

    I would suggest all versions of SOSNA-R would require radio command guidance for the initial portion of flight to get it heading in the right direction... the laser beam riding guidance wont be able to see through the booster stage in the first second or two of flight, while radio command would allow a slightly lofted trajectory to ensure the missile flys clear of ground obstructions like trees but as the main booster burns out the radio command link would allow the launcher to command the missile to climb or descend so the laser beam is not seen by the missile through the smoke trail the main booster has just left.

    I will try to do a "proper" post on the technical and tactical aspects of Sosna, but for the time being, let me expediently clarify something here before it gets too late:

    When I mentioned that the first stage of the nonexportable versions of the "laser navigational guided" versions of Sosna-R don't use radio command guidance, I wasn't implying that their first stage guidance used laser beam-riding guidance or were unguided.

    The first stage of the nonexportable versions of the "laser navigational guided" versions of Sosna-R are, of course, guided. I'll talk about this more when I attempt to write a "proper" post on this subject.

    Also, even the second stages of the laser guided Sosna-R variants most probably don't use laser beam-riding but use the more complicated "laser navigational guidance".

    Here is the second part of my appraisal of Sosna which is based on whatever data that is available to me.

    Sosna is, of course, related to the non-exportable Palash and the exportable Pal'ma. All of the exportable systems that I have seen, e.g., the Vietnamese ones, have the radio command guidance package. The non-exportable ones don't have that package.

    My explanation is that the non-exportable missiles have a very fast-burning and high-impulse motor that is not exportable. This motor would provide for a 400 g (4000 m/s^2) acceleration of the missile and would burn for, let's say, half a second, giving the missile a burnout speed of 2000 m/s. The burnout would occur at a distance of only 500 m.

    The first stage burn would be a guided one; in this kind of design and for these level of performance requirements you need that. Some versions of the non-exportable missiles would only be guided using an inexpensive MEMS-based INS during the first stage burn, so the first stage guidance would not be a terminal form of guidance, which is all nice and good for such a high performance design.

    One aspect that may corroborate all of this is the interstages used in the missile designs; they look strange. I think those interstages have special features that allow speedy and clean separation of the stages; this aspect is very important for the high-performance design that we are talking about. Due to all these features, the minimum range would be short.

    The exportable missiles, like 9M340Eh, don't have the very fast-burning, high-impulse motors; so not only they are not of as high a performance level but they also "need" terminal guidance during their first stage burn, hence the use of radio command for that.

    The remaining parts of this story may follow.

    Here is the "third" part of my assessment of Sosna.

    Here is an image of 9M337 missile used by Sosna/Palash family. Please note the interstage I was referring to.



    The "fourth" part of this assessment would hopefully follow.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18340
    Points : 18900
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:47 pm

    First thing, Pantsir isn't a vehicle for ground forces. Ground forces near equivalent is Tunguska.

    Pantsir is based on Tunguska and was intended to be a cheap simple containerised version for the air force to defend fixed locations like air fields were the expensive and heavy 34 ton tracked chassis of the tunguska was not needed.

    With UAE money however the Pantsir-S1 was developed... why look a gift horse in the mouth. The Tunguska replacement will be Pantsir-S1 based though for mobility it will need a tracked chassis through there will likely be wheeled versions.

    Second thing, ground forces AA troops use both tunguskas and strela-10M in mixed battaries.

    Yup... I know... Tunguskas for mixed gun/missile air defence batteries replacing Shilka and SA-9, with SA-13 also replacing SA-9. And also missile batteries replacing SA-8 with TOR. Lots of Strela-10M in service because they are relatively cheap... lots of OSA still in service because they are cheap and TOR is expensive but also very capable.

    Sosna's missiles were initially designed for new version for Tunguska, as I know, so there the vehicle on MT-LB chassic can be an export only vehicle and russian ground forces will recieve new tunguska-like vehicle with sosna missiles and strela-10M will be replaced with another type of vehicle with IR misslies. Or may be the armed forces will change the concept of close-range AA battalions, switching from Tunguska/Strela-10 mix to Sosna-only battaries, but as I said IR guidance do have it's advantages (if a missle is locked on target, there is no need of LoS to it). Or the ground forces may switch from SPAAG-missile systems like Tunguska to missile-only system like this MT-LB Sosna, but I don't think so because autocannons are useful things.

    Personally I think the main problem with Tunguska is weight and the upgrade with Pantsir-S1 missiles and sensors makes this worse not better.

    Personally I think the typhoon and possibly Boomerang units as well as VDV units will get SOSNA replacing Tunguska because it is lighter and cheaper... I think the ultimate replacement for Strela-10M will be Morfei. In heavier units the Tunguska will be replaced with a Pantsir-S1 based missile and gun vehicle, but to save weight the SOSNA-R might only have one gun or no gun at all.

    I think TOR will continue to be used in newer models too.

    The problem for the VDV is that no model of Tunguska or Pantsir-S1 would ever be light enough to be air mobile, so SOSNA-R will likely be used to replace Strela-10M with Morfei also possibly being used too in a light vehicle.

    It's not a rule, as Kornet and Sosna uses sophisticated multi-spectral lasers which is bery difficult to disrupt even by countermeasures, not a mere smoke

    ...no, I meant that quite literally... from launch to about 2 seconds after launch the missile will have a large booster strapped to its rear so the laser sensor in the rear of the missile will not be able to see the launcher till after the booster is jettisonned. Smoke can be an issue to when it is a column 2km long, but the old Tunguska used to aim slightly to one side before launching its missile so the smoke plume didn't hide the target and the missile from the guidance system and SOSNA could easily do that too.

    The exportable missiles, like 9M340Eh, don't have the very fast-burning, high-impulse motors; so not only they are not of as high a performance level but they also "need" terminal guidance during their first stage burn, hence the use of radio command for that.

    Interesting idea and I will not disagree, but terminal guidance is guidance during the last phase of flight, which means terminal guidance during the first stage is a contradiction.

    I am not understanding this interstage you are referring to...

    I would suggest that all these missiles... SA-19, SA-22, Palash, SOSNA etc... which are all clearly related to Hermes... all use initial guidance in the form of command guidance... it is cheap and simple and means to can direct the missile to a useful direction during the first phase of the engagement... even if it is to prevent the missile hitting obstructions on the ground when engaging close targets.

    the burnout range of most of these boosters is 1.5-2km so a target that is within 3kms needs to be aimed at fairly early on... a missile just launched in the general direction with no guidance till the booster falls clear might only have half a second to manouver if the target is flying very low 3km away... guiding the missile out of the tube means less manouvering when it changes guidance to its primary terminal guidance.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18340
    Points : 18900
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:50 pm

    As you can see here the SOSNA turret can be fairly light and compact for fitting to smaller vehicles:

    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Sosna-M SAM

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:17 pm

    Garry wrote:... but terminal guidance is guidance during the last phase of flight, which means terminal guidance during the first stage is a contradiction.

    My bad; I intended to say "terminally guided". Of course, for a missile to be terminally guided is different from having terminal guidance.

    A terminally guided missile is guided using real-time information of the target, like a homing missile or like most of the command guided missiles. A missile that is not terminally guided is exemplified by, let's say, an INS guided missile.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Sosna, Palash, Pal'ma, and Related Systems

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sat Jun 21, 2014 5:47 am

    I made an assertion to the effect that Sosna is primarily a ZU-23-2 follow-on.

    To clarify the situation, I am going to make a “partial” list of the “standard” role played by ZU-23-2 in the Russian armed forces. In general the “standard” role played by ZU-23-2 in the ground mechanized troops (tank and mechanized infantry) have consisted of AA defense in the artillery brigades and in the long-range SAM (e.g., Krug and S-300V) brigades.

    A battery of 8 X ZU-23-2 AA guns organic to 2S5 based SP gun brigades subordinated to the operational command, formerly subordinated to the armies and the fronts

    A battery of 8 X ZU-23-2 AA guns organic to 2A36 based gun brigades subordinated to the operational command, formerly subordinated to the armies and the artillery divisions

    A battery of 8 X ZU-23-2 AA guns organic to 2S7 based heavy SP gun brigades subordinated to the operational command, formerly subordinated to the fronts

    A battery of 8 X ZU-23-2 AA guns organic to 2S4 based heavy SP mortar brigades subordinated to the operational command, formerly subordinated to the fronts

    A battery of 6 X ZU-23-2 AA guns organic to Uragan based MRL brigades subordinated to the operational command, formerly subordinated to the artillery divisions and the fronts

    A battery of 6 X ZU-23-2 AA guns organic to Smerch based MRL brigades subordinated to the operational command, formerly subordinated to the artillery divisions and the fronts

    In general a battery of 8 X ZU-23-2 AA guns organic to artillery brigades

    A battery of 8 X ZU-23-2 AA guns organic to each of the three SAM battalions in each Krug based SAM brigade subordinated to the operational command, formerly subordinated to the armies, to the fronts, and to the air defense divisions

    A section of 2 X ZU-23-2 AA guns organic to the headquarters and each of the three SAM batteries of each of the three SAM battalions in each Krug based SAM brigade subordinated to the operational command, formerly subordinated to the armies, to the fronts, and to the air defense divisions

    A battery of 8 X ZU-23-2 AA guns organic to each of the three or four SAM battalions in each S-300V based SAM brigade subordinated to the operational command, formerly subordinated to the armies and the fronts

    A section of 2 X ZU-23-2 AA guns organic to the headquarters and each of the three SAM batteries of each of the three or four SAM battalions in each Krug based SAM brigade subordinated to the operational command, formerly subordinated to the armies and the fronts

    A battery of 8 X ZU-23-2 AA guns organic to some of the early warning battalions subordinated to the operational command, formerly subordinated to the armies, to the fronts, and to the early warning regiments/brigades

    A battery of 6 X ZU-23-2 AA guns organic to separate light airborne infantry brigades

    A battery of 6 X ZU-23-2 AA guns organic to each of the three BMD based airborne infantry brigades of a BMD based airborne infantry division with three additional batteries of 6 X ZU-23-2 AA guns, each, organic to the air defense battalion of the division

    A battery of 6 X ZU-23-2 AA guns organic to the air assault brigade of a naval infantry division

    The "fifth" part of this assessment will hopefully follow.


    Last edited by Morpheus Eberhardt on Sun Jun 22, 2014 7:32 am; edited 1 time in total

    Asf

    Posts : 472
    Points : 491
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Asf on Sat Jun 21, 2014 11:03 am

     naval airborne infantry division

    What?  Smile  There is no such a thing

    I doubt ZU-23-2 were in AA troops outside VDV units for a long time, and in VDV it were more on fire support role than for real AA defence. May be your source isn't correct (or very outdated as Krug is very old AA complex) and it should be ZSU-23-4 instead ZU-23-2? ZSU-23-4 battaries is replaced with Tunguslka in the Ground Forces, for example. And I'm pretty sure there are no ZU-23-2 in the ground forces brigades (regiments, divisions) at all - only manpads, shilkas and self-propelled stelas for close-range AA defence - for at least 40 years
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18340
    Points : 18900
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:05 pm

    The SA-13 has replaced the ZU-23-2 in VDV units, which they said was a temporary measure because the MTLB chassis cannot be air dropped properly, so the final replacement vehicle/SAM system will be different and I would assume SOSNA-R based.

    Of course it could be Morfei based too.

    Asf

    Posts : 472
    Points : 491
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Asf on Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:13 pm

    The SA-13 has replaced the ZU-23-2 in VDV units

    They still use it with BTR-D Skrezhet, for example, because VDV like it as an air-droppable infantry support gun, not in AA battaries may be.


    so the final replacement vehicle/SAM system will be different and I would assume SOSNA-R based.

    See no obstacles to put Sosna on BTR-D chassis, for example, as it very light.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3364
    Points : 3448
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  medo on Sat Jun 21, 2014 9:43 pm

    GarryB wrote:The SA-13 has replaced the ZU-23-2 in VDV units, which they said was a temporary measure because the MTLB chassis cannot be air dropped properly, so the final replacement vehicle/SAM system will be different and I would assume SOSNA-R based.

    Of course it could be Morfei based too.

    I'm very skeptical about air dropping of vertical missile launcher of Morphei. Also it will be difficult to place it inside BMD vehicle. Sosna will be more acceptable for air dropping and easier to install on BMD. But they will have to make strong missile arms / launchers, that missiles will not be damaged in case of hard landing. Other option is to modify naval Gibka complex to install it on BMD and armed it with Verba missiles.

    But even ZU-23-2 could be still useful for VDV if they modernize it to ZU-23M1 with thermal imager, laser range finder, ballistic computer, stabilization and missile launcher for Igla-S missiles. Integrated in VDV C4I they could be still effective.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sun Jun 22, 2014 7:38 am

    Asf wrote:
     naval airborne infantry division

    What?  Smile  There is no such a thing

    Of course, "assult" was a typo, and "airborne" was a C&P error; I have already corrected my last post.

    I'll come back to this topic when I can, but I hope the readers get what I am trying to get at with respect to the tactical/technical requirements of a ZU-23-2 replacement, and also with respect to related topics.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18340
    Points : 18900
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 22, 2014 12:49 pm

    The VDV certainly liked the fire power of the ZU-23-2, and I think westerners don't appreciate the Soviet/Russian use of such weapons in the ground support role as well as anti aircraft use.

    Part of the role of the BMPT was to prevent Shilkas and Tunguskas getting shot up while supporting infantry against ground targets...

    The BTR-40 with its 14.5mm HMGs was a fully multirole ground to air and ground to ground vehicle... but later models like ZSU-23-4 and Tunguska have become very expensive with lots of fragile bits on them... I would imagine a return to a 57mm autocannon with guided shells might be useful in the ground support role again.

    See no obstacles to put Sosna on BTR-D chassis, for example, as it very light.

    Also cheap and should be effective and more capable than the systems it replaces...

    I'm very skeptical about air dropping of vertical missile launcher of Morphei.

    Morfei is a relatively small missile... and packed in a vertical launch tube should be fairly robust. A roof mounted optical detection system with laser rangefinder... a driver and commander and gunner... an engine... and a block of ready to launch tubes. It wouldn't even need a turret... no search or tracking radar... the missile is lock after launch so you launch it and direct it towards the target given to you by another platform or detected by onboard optics and it looks for targets as it flys towards and interception point... a two way datalink would allow the operator to change targets if a higher threat appeared or if it was having trouble finding its target.

    Other option is to modify naval Gibka complex to install it on BMD and armed it with Verba missiles.

    That is what makes linebacker weak... most attack helos can attack from outside 6km range... with SOSNA-R the attack helo needs missiles that can reach more than 10km to kill it. from a safe distance...

    But even ZU-23-2 could be still useful for VDV if they modernize it to ZU-23M1 with thermal imager, laser range finder, ballistic computer, stabilization and missile launcher for Igla-S missiles. Integrated in VDV C4I they could be still effective.

    They were handy because they were cheap and light and could be used against ground forces...

    Mount the above photo of the SOSNA-R launcher on an MLTB on a BTR-D and add a 23mm gatling for short range defence from air and ground targets. AFAIK SOSNA-R can be used against ground targets... though it is not an anti tank weapon.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3364
    Points : 3448
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  medo on Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:01 pm

    GarryB wrote:Morfei is a relatively small missile... and packed in a vertical launch tube should be fairly robust. A roof mounted optical detection system with laser rangefinder... a driver and commander and gunner... an engine... and a block of ready to launch tubes. It wouldn't even need a turret... no search or tracking radar... the missile is lock after launch so you launch it and direct it towards the target given to you by another platform or detected by onboard optics and it looks for targets as it flys towards and interception point... a two way datalink would allow the operator to change targets if a higher threat appeared or if it was having trouble finding its target.

    The problem with vertically launched missiles is, that their rocket engines are bottom and with hard landing they could be damaged or even ignited, what could be quite dangerous for the crew inside.


    GarryB wrote:Mount the above photo of the SOSNA-R launcher on an MLTB on a BTR-D and add a 23mm gatling for short range defence from air and ground targets. AFAIK SOSNA-R can be used against ground targets... though it is not an anti tank weapon.

    Agree, they could replace a pack of 6 Sosna-R missiles on one side with a gun to get an effective gun-missile complex. FCS is the same as in Palash, so there will be no problem to operate a gun.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18340
    Points : 18900
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 23, 2014 12:53 pm

    The problem with vertically launched missiles is, that their rocket engines are bottom and with hard landing they could be damaged or even ignited, what could be quite dangerous for the crew inside.

    I would expect these missiles to be rather smaller than R-73 sized (ie 110kgs)... in fact I would suspect they will be R-60MK sized or even smaller (43kgs or less).

    If their parachute fail and or there rocket landing system fails then there might be some damage, but these missiles will be high acceleration weapons packed in vertical launch protective cases with cold launch packages below them in the tube.

    If it is not safe to drop them by parachute then the BMD-1s with 73mm ammo would be very dangerous too. And the BMP-4 with a 100mm gun would also be a serious risk.

    Agree, they could replace a pack of 6 Sosna-R missiles on one side with a gun to get an effective gun-missile complex. FCS is the same as in Palash, so there will be no problem to operate a gun.

    A gatling gun on one side would be unbalanced... perhaps two twin barrel 23mm gun like those fitted to late model Hinds in chin turrets... one on each side and 6 missiles outside of that on each side... Smile
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:52 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The problem with vertically launched missiles is, that their rocket engines are bottom and with hard landing they could be damaged or even ignited, what could be quite dangerous for the crew inside.

    I would expect these missiles to be rather smaller than R-73 sized (ie 110kgs)... in fact I would suspect they will be R-60MK sized or even smaller (43kgs or less).

    If their parachute fail and or there rocket landing system fails then there might be some damage, but these missiles will be high acceleration weapons packed in vertical launch protective cases with cold launch packages below them in the tube.

    If it is not safe to drop them by parachute then the BMD-1s with 73mm ammo would be very dangerous too. And the BMP-4 with a 100mm gun would also be a serious risk.

    Agree, they could replace a pack of 6 Sosna-R missiles on one side with a gun to get an effective gun-missile complex. FCS is the same as in Palash, so there will be no problem to operate a gun.

    A gatling gun on one side would be unbalanced... perhaps two twin barrel 23mm gun like those fitted to late model Hinds in chin turrets... one on each side and 6 missiles outside of that on each side...  Smile

    The picture of the towed Sosna-R that I had attached above is a version of Sosna with a twin-barrel 30 mm gun and 4 missiles which is a direct replacement for ZU-23-2.

    Another direct replacement for ZU-23-2 is the original towed gun-only Sosna-A (with only a twin barrel 30 mm gun and no missiles).

    I know I am not continuing with my posts in an organized manner, but for whatever it's worth, I should mention that Russia is obviously not going to introduce any new systems that use the 23X152B rounds used by ZSU-23-4 and ZU-23-2. This round is going to get retired.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3364
    Points : 3448
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  medo on Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:15 pm

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:The picture of the towed Sosna-R that I had attached above is a version of Sosna with a twin-barrel 30 mm gun and 4 missiles which is a direct replacement for ZU-23-2.

    Another direct replacement for ZU-23-2 is the original towed gun-only Sosna-A (with only a twin barrel 30 mm gun and no missiles).

    I think they talk about this towed Sosna gun/missile complex in nineties, but there are no words about it for very long time, so it is well possible, that this complex is canceled.



    GarryB wrote:A gatling gun on one side would be unbalanced... perhaps two twin barrel 23mm gun like those fitted to late model Hinds in chin turrets... one on each side and 6 missiles outside of that on each side... Smile

    With 2 twin barrel GSh-23 and 2 x 6 missiles, it could be too heavy for VDV use, but maybe 2 GSH-23 + 4 or 8 ( 2 x 2 or 2 x 4) missiles. It will be still very potent complex for VDV as well as for naval infantry.

    I think Sosna-M could look great on Kamaz-63969 Typhoon for light brigades.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18340
    Points : 18900
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:23 am

    The picture of the towed Sosna-R that I had attached above is a version of Sosna with a twin-barrel 30 mm gun and 4 missiles which is a direct replacement for ZU-23-2.

    It has been marketed as a replacement, which is not to say it will be selected.

    They have upgraded the trailer...:

    I know I am not continuing with my posts in an organized manner, but for whatever it's worth, I should mention that Russia is obviously not going to introduce any new systems that use the 23X152B rounds used by ZSU-23-4 and ZU-23-2. This round is going to get retired.

    I agree, but what are they going to do with the 14.5m HMGs?

    One option would be to keep them for APCs and light vehicles, but another option could be to rebarrel them to 23mm calibre and use the 23 x 115mm round used on the Mi-35M, which is a similar length to the 14.5mm HMG round but has a larger calibre for more HE weight.

    A dual belt feed model of the KPV/KPB would allow HE rounds and AP rounds to be separated. With modern external mounts and aiming systems they could develop APFSDS rounds with rather decent if not exceptional performance in such a round so dual feed would offer compact powerful weapons with decent AP and HE performance in a low recoil compact weapon and compact ammo.

    I think they talk about this towed Sosna gun/missile complex in nineties, but there are no words about it for very long time, so it is well possible, that this complex is canceled.

    The towed mount shown in the photo above is slightly different.. with a more solid base. It would certainly offer a serious improvement for air defence forces in the VDV as the 10km range for SOSNA-R would be a large improvement over Strela-10M and any MANPADS. The maiin question would be do you go with the 30mm twin barrel cannon or go for double the missile load instead?

    If 57mm guided shells can hit targets 16km away then the 2A38M twin barrel cannon might be a dead end... withdrawing it and the 23 x 152mm rounds from the ZU-23 weapons and replacing the 14.5 x 114mm HMG rounds with the 23 x 115m rounds used on helos (Hind) they might be able to replace the 30mm all together on the ground.. the Hokum and Havoc will use it of course, as will the Su-25SM3.

    Perhaps a smaller lighter 23mm twin barrel gun for the helos and a 57mm gun for the Frogfoot and 23mm guns replacing 14.5mm... both a single barrel for coaxial use with heavier guns like 125mm or 120mm, and twin barrel for short range firepower vehicles like BMPT, while single barrel for APCs and commanders cupola guns... with IFVs armed with high velocity 57mm guns and ATGMs and air defence vehicles with 57mm guns and anti aircraft missiles...

    With 2 twin barrel GSh-23 and 2 x 6 missiles, it could be too heavy for VDV use, but maybe 2 GSH-23 + 4 or 8 ( 2 x 2 or 2 x 4) missiles. It will be still very potent complex for VDV as well as for naval infantry.

    GSh-23L is lighter than the four barrel 50 cal on the Hind... at 50.5kg each you could fit two guns for the weight of the twin 30mm cannon on the Hind or Su-25... which are light guns too.

    Most importantly the low velocity means moderate recoil and larger ammo capacity.

    If you think 50kgs per gun is too heavy a modified 14.5mm KPV HMG called KPB has been adapted to 23 x 115mm AFAIK and would weigh half as much again...

    I think Sosna-M could look great on Kamaz-63969 Typhoon for light brigades.

    It would be a very cheap but very potent weapon...
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5567
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:32 am

    Why are they making separate two stage missiles for Pantsir and Sosna, is what I want to know.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:12 am

    Garry wrote:I agree, but what are they going to do with the 14.5m HMGs?

    One option would be to keep them for APCs and light vehicles, but another option could be to rebarrel them to 23mm calibre and use the 23 x 115mm round used on the Mi-35M, which is a similar length to the 14.5mm HMG round but has a larger calibre for more HE weight.

    A dual belt feed model of the KPV/KPB would allow HE rounds and AP rounds to be separated. With modern external mounts and aiming systems they could develop APFSDS rounds with rather decent if not exceptional performance in such a round so dual feed would offer compact powerful weapons with decent AP and HE performance in a low recoil compact weapon and compact ammo.

    The option that I would have always taken seems to be exactly the option that the Russians have taken, even in relatively "new" systems, a la BTR-82 and BTR-82A. There are lots of analytical studies that support that approach too. Also, the circumstantial evidence supports that the Russians still have plans for the 14.5X114, in spite of the fact that everybody else would happily be willing to settle with just the 12.7X108.

    A few other point:

    1- The 23X115 is a sub-optimal surface-based antiaircraft round, even though it's an optimal bomber defense weapon, a la in the AM-23 guns in Tu-95 aircraft; the 14.5X114 is a lot better as a surface-based AA round.

    2- A run-of-the-mill APFSDS version of 23X115 would not offer much of an improvement over a run-of-the-mill 14.5X114; after all, think about the relationship between these two rounds and their respective barrel diameters. It definitely wouldn't be worth the effort to deploy them when there are so many better options.

    3- I think the modifications using 23X115 based weapons on ground-based vehicles, shown in some arm shows, are just for export, for special niches (low probability), or for the heck of it.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:53 am

    TR1 wrote:Why are they making separate two stage missiles for Pantsir and Sosna, is what I want to know.

    The answer to your question should really incorporate the subject matter I am trying to develop in this thread.

    Pantsir' and Sosna are missile systems of two different tiers, like apples and oranges.

    Pantsir' is a component of the air defense organic to the maneuver brigades/regiments; Sosna is for use in support groupings, e.g., air defense of artillery brigades and long-range SAM brigades.

    Asf

    Posts : 472
    Points : 491
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Asf on Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:26 am

    Actually Sosna missiles was developed as a new generation missles for Tunguska, but now it's a different short-range complex with it's own tactical purpose
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:51 am

    Asf wrote:Actually Sosna missiles was developed as a new generation missles for Tunguska, but now it's a different short-range complex with it's own tactical purpose

    Considering that your statement can't be technically valid, do you have any evidence for your statement?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:34 pm