Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    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:



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1942
    Points : 2059
    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 : 1942
    Points : 2059
    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 : 476
    Points : 495
    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 : 16741
    Points : 17349
    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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Asf

    Posts : 476
    Points : 495
    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 : 3231
    Points : 3317
    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 : 1942
    Points : 2059
    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 : 16741
    Points : 17349
    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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3231
    Points : 3317
    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 : 16741
    Points : 17349
    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


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1942
    Points : 2059
    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 : 3231
    Points : 3317
    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 : 16741
    Points : 17349
    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...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    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 : 1942
    Points : 2059
    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 : 1942
    Points : 2059
    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 : 476
    Points : 495
    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 : 1942
    Points : 2059
    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?
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:05 am

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    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.

    Fair enough, but the question is relevant because the Pantsir's selling point (well, one of) is that the missiles are in comparison to similar or rough analgoues...are very cheap. Size is not very different, unless I am mistaken?
    The rest of the system can be different, due to roles and cost, but was there really no way to just use a common missile, instead of complicating an already nightmarish inventory diversity...not to mention a whole separate testing and production process.


    Asf

    Posts : 476
    Points : 495
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Asf on Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:00 am

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    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?

    May be i said it incorrectly. Originally missile we now know as Sosna-R was developed in a heavier class for new variant of Tunguska. So Tunguska/Pantsir and Sosna actually very similar but still has different tactical purpose

    If you don't believe me, look here. Or А.В. Карпенко, "Современные самоходные зенитные установки".


    Last edited by Asf on Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1942
    Points : 2059
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:46 am

    TR1 wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    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.

    Fair enough, but the question is relevant because the Pantsir's selling point (well, one of) is that the missiles are in comparison to similar or rough analgoues...are very cheap. Size is not very different, unless I am mistaken?
    The rest of the system can be different, due to roles and cost, but was there really no way to just use a common missile, instead of complicating an already nightmarish inventory diversity...not to mention a whole separate testing and production process.

    Russians love a "nightmarish" inventory diversity. The more the merrier. It is the most unmistakable sign of massive capability.

    The intention is to make sure that a common missile is not used. If there was missile commonality, I wouldn't even write this post; it wouldn't have been worth it.

    Actually in this thread I'll eventually talk about four other classes of missile systems that go with these missile; they would be the Tor follow-on class, the Strela-10 follow-on class (Bagul'nik class), a counterpart to Bagul'nik but at the Sosna tier (Vega missile system class), and MANPADS. In this thread, I don't plan to talk about the directed energy and other exotic air-defense systems that are counterparts of these more conventional systems..

    In term of size and many other characteristics these systems are very different.

    Pantsir' bi-caliber missiles are of 100 mm/170 mm, 100/210 mm, and ... caliber; they are follow-ons to Tunguska bi-caliber missiles of 90 mm/152 mm caliber.

    Sosna bi-caliber missiles are of 72 mm/130 mm caliber; they are a "new" class of missile. Note that the second stage caliber of 72 mm is chosen to make it developmentally compatible with seekers that could be shared with 72 mm caliber MANPADS (in some of it infinite variants).

    A small export 57Eh6-E missile for Pantsir' has a mass of 75.7 kg; an export 9M340Eh missile for Sosna has a mass of 30 kg. As you can see they are from very different classes.

    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1942
    Points : 2059
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:49 am

    Asf wrote:
    If you don't believe me, look here. Or А.В. Карпенко, "Современные самоходные зенитные установки".

    Actually, I suggest that you look at the link that you provided.

    Asf

    Posts : 476
    Points : 495
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Asf on Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:31 pm

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Asf wrote:
    If you don't believe me, look here. Or А.В. Карпенко, "Современные самоходные зенитные установки".

    Actually, I suggest that you look at the link that you provided.

    It says: "Originally (Sosna-R) missile was being created for Tunguska... blablabla... For Sosna complex it was minituarised... blablabla"
    It's exactly what I am saying.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3231
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  medo on Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:40 pm

    Sosna-R missile is smaller and use laser guidance, comparing to Tunguska and Pantsir missiles, which use radio guidance.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:00 am