Russian VSHORADS Thread

Hole wrote:Sosna on BMP-3

They should develop it like they developed Kornet-M, where the body of the vehicle has spare missiles and a loading mechanism, and because it is VSHORAD it needs persistence to defeat oncoming threats to compensate for it's short range. 12 missiles are cool but 48 (12 loaded, 36 missiles in the cabin) are better. The only way to justify the lack of this measure is if they decided to use the cabin to store a very large fuel tank. The standard BMP-3 chassis has a 600km range, and if they decide to use the cabin for extra fuel, it should have no less than 1500-2000km range.

There is no reason to not add more missiles on the launcher

Why not have 18 ready to go? Chassis should have no problem handling it.

The missiles in their launch tubes are not that heavy... they are very similar in weight to Kornet-EM... about 36kgs for missiles in tubes, so reloading those tubes wont be that big a deal really.

When they set up in the field reload vehicles sitting nearby could reload a vehicle in 5 minutes or so most likely.

For a high threat environment they could probably have a fixed system with more ready to fire missiles, but these vehicles will be operating as part of a network, so not having enormous numbers of ready to fire missiles make the turret lighter and faster and more practical.

If you have one of these vehicles operating with a BMP-3 unit then you enjoy vehicle commonality and simplified logistics, compared with Tunguska which uses a different vehicle base that is unrelated to other vehicles in a unit.

I wonder if they will make mini missiles for this weapon like they did for the Pantsir where four small missiles with rocket boosters were used to increase capacity against close in manouvering targets...

Or the similarity in weight of missile tubes between Kornet-EM and this SOSNA-R missile might allow missiles to be carried in mixed loads so the air defence vehicle and the air defence vehicle could be combined depending upon the situation.

For instance in Syria or when the Soviets were in Afghanistan there was little to no need for anti aircraft missiles... perhaps an option for making this system more potent would be to add a 20 shot 80mm unguided rocket pod as developed for new aircraft with the laser homing heads to enable air and ground targets to be engaged more cheaply... 6 SOSNA-R missiles on one side and 20 x 80mm rockets on the other...

According to some rumours there is also a HEAT warhead for the missile.

9P157-2 Krizantema and 9P162 Kornet vehicles can launch two missiles and then have to reload from there magazines (fitted with 12 Missiles). Sosna has 12 ready to fire missiles, it can fire much faster then the two anti-tank vehicles.

There will be also reloads at the back of the vehicle which means 12 + 12 missiles. A battery will have 48 + 48 missiles which is triple the amount of the current Strela-10 unit.

Shturm had something like 12 missiles in total ready to fire with a single tube launcher, while the Krisantema has two missile tubes and 15 further reloads, though it normally travels with the missiles stowed so it might only carry 15 in total.

The Sosna-R being primarily an air defence unit I would expect a battery would not be operating on its own... it might have a few IFVs with it that might have MANPADS gripstocks too.

The very high speed of the missiles means rather short engagement times would be needed so one vehicle could fire at most targets and when it is empty it could reload while the other vehicles cover it... and it can actually fire while on the move so it would be a tricky target to defeat as it wont have radar emissions...

The missiles of Shturm and Krisantema are not ready to fire, the launcher has to be (automatically) reloaded first. Sosna can fire all 12 missiles in fast succession without reloading between the shots.

Sorry, I didn't mean they were all ready to fire, but in practical terms the time it takes to engage each target means by the time the missile has been launched and hit a target there is plenty of time to reload the single and twin arm launcher in each case.

The Shturm can fire Shturm and Ataka missiles (AT-6 and AT-9), and has a single launch position because generally one missile is fired at each target at about 400-450m/s (the Ataka is 400m/s because it travels an extra km to the target at 6km vs the 5km of the Shturm missile... firing at targets at the same range means the same average speed but the Ataka has a more powerful warhead to penetrate more armour).
Krisantema has a twin arm launcher (like the Kornet system) and can fire two missiles at each target, but again while the missile is engaging the target there is plenty of time to load two more missiles automatically and the system can't engage another target till the first engagement is over.

What I am saying is that even if they were separate launch tubes exposed on the turret the rate of fire would not change so in effect they are all ready to fire without requiring manual reloading is what I meant to say.

SOSNA launches missiles over greater ranges but at a much higher speed so while it also fires one at each target at a time it can launch missiles much faster but it would never have more than one missile in the air at any one time either.

For those thinking 12 missiles ready to fire is not good enough, this system is replacing ZU-23-2 towed guns and SA-13 Strela-10 missile systems with half that number of ready to fire missiles with half the engagement range with much slower missiles.

dino00 wrote:The newest air defense system "Pine"(Sosna) will go to the Russian army in 2022

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201962453-XzhXK.html

In addition, it was reported on the development of an improved modification of the complex "Pine-M".

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6583398

There is interesting thermin "примет на вооружение" or accept in armament. Now it is question, what they mean with it. In one way it could mean taking deliveries of new complexes, on the other way it could mean, that in 2022 first unit will be trained and combat capable and with that accepted in armament. In this case deliveries have to start this year, that the first unit could start training and to do needed exercises before it become combat capable. It take time and in Russia it take winter and summer trainings.

Normally the first items of new kit go to training units that develop tactics and user manuals and therefore have to test in a variety of regions in Russia against a variety of target types... then the documentation goes out with the new system to be deployed widely to units...

Or they might be producing and introducing the system this year and in 2022 the upgraded version Pine-M might be ready for production and deployment...

i am actually surprised they are waiting that long, the system is pretty simple and it seems its already ready, so why wait, it cant be that expensive they could at least get 24-50 systems in place for training regiments to iron out any problems, seems pretty bad to me.

In the past, soviet ground forces have mixed batteries with a platoon of 4 ZSU-23-4 Shilka and a platoon of 4 Strela-1 or Strela-10 SAMs. It looks like Russian PVO-SV could made again such mixed batteries with Sosna-R and Derivatsia-PVO. They are both on BMP-3 chassis as well as battery command post with radar.







Both Sosna and Derivatsia could fire on the move and using BMP-3 chassis give them both the same armor protection and swimming capabilities. This is actually very important for army when crossing the river. They could engage targets when swimming in the middle of river and they could protect both river banks, when ponton bridge is building. Other SAMs, which could not swim, have to wait for bridge to cross the river.

I would suspect these systems are modular and can be placed on other chassis types like Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon....

Of course, because the russian army uses standard that are kept. Not like in some western countries where they develop a transport aircraft that should be able to transport a also newly developed armored vehicle that turns out to be a little bit larger and heavier and doesn´t fit anymore unless it is striped of most of it´s armor.

GarryB wrote:I would suspect these systems are modular and can be placed on other chassis types like Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon....  

Of course they could. But BMP-3 chassis is well proven with lower weight and good armor and with excellent swimming capabilities. Engine in the back is not really good for IFV, but it is excellent for specialized vehicles like Kornet and Khrizantema ATGMs, Vena mortar and Sosna and Derivatsia air defense vehicles. It is fast enough to follow modern tanks and tracked armor vehicles.

Anyone got any footage of Derivatsia-PVO firing

Kurganets and Boomerang are amphibious and well armoured too... likely better armoured than a BMP-3.

In a current armoured force in Russia not all of them already have BMP-3s, so in some cases it will be adding a new vehicle to the force which will require new tracks and new wheels and new engine parts etc etc.

Replacing Shilkas and SA-13s with these vehicles means replacing two older vehicles with a newer model with a serious improvement in protection... Shilkas were used in frontline combat as direct fire ground to ground systems but their thin armour made them vulnerable despite their enormous fire power being devastating.

A BMP-3 based vehicle will be better protected and in the case of the SA-13 it replaces an MTLB based vehicle, so if the Kornet carrying BMP-3 is also adopted in the anti armour battalion replacing the MTLB based Shturm-S system then that would be a good thing.

Future models of armata, kurganets, boomerang, typhoon, and perhaps Tigr-2 would be interesting though.

d_taddei2 wrote:Anyone got any footage of Derivatsia-PVO firing

An old video from tests.

GarryB wrote:Kurganets and Boomerang are amphibious and well armoured too... likely better armoured than a BMP-3.

In a current armoured force in Russia not all of them already have BMP-3s, so in some cases it will be adding a new vehicle to the force which will require new tracks and new wheels and new engine parts etc etc.

Replacing Shilkas and SA-13s with these vehicles means replacing two older vehicles with a newer model with a serious improvement in protection... Shilkas were used in frontline combat as direct fire ground to ground systems but their thin armour made them vulnerable despite their enormous fire power being devastating.

A BMP-3 based vehicle will be better protected and in the case of the SA-13 it replaces an MTLB based vehicle, so if the Kornet carrying BMP-3 is also adopted in the anti armour battalion replacing the MTLB based Shturm-S system then that would be a good thing.

Future models of armata, kurganets, boomerang, typhoon, and perhaps Tigr-2 would be interesting though.

If Russian army decide to equip their IFVs with new RCWS turret with 57 mm gun, than T-15 and Kurganets will already have capabilities of Derivatsia-PVO. They developed laser guided rounds and AHEAD rounds for this gun, which will be excellent even for IFVs. AHEAD rounds are very useful against infantry as well, not only against flying targets. I'm not sure about wheeled vehicles, if they could use such big gun. Maybe Boomerang could, but Typhoon definitively not. Of course, they could place Sosna on T-15, Kurganets and Boomerang as well. More logical is placement on Boomerang vehicle for protection of wheeled units. Tigr and Thyphoon are more suited for lighter Gibka-S complex with Igla-S or Verba missiles.

I'm not sure about wheeled vehicles, if they could use such big gun. Maybe Boomerang could, but Typhoon definitively not.

That is what I was thinking till I saw that drawing with Kurganets and Boomerang with Coalition turrets... we are only talking about a 57mm gun rather than a 125mm or bigger... on a 6 wheeled Typhoon that should be OK... it could be the gun platform vehicle in the family, but I think Sprut is in the same weight class as the Typhoon... 18-20 tons...

Tigr and Thyphoon are more suited for lighter Gibka-S complex with Igla-S or Verba missiles.

Why would you think your lighter vehicles need less protection from air attack?

The missiles for Pine are about 30-35kgs so the same as a Kornet ATGM... fitting them to Tigr or Typhoon shouldn't be any problem at all... and they are fast and cheap and have a decent range of 10km.

GarryB wrote:Why would you think your lighter vehicles need less protection from air attack?

Tigr and Typhoon vehicles could not carry turrets weighting more than 3 tons. They are meant for lighter armament. Tigr already went through testings with Gibka-S and it could be placed on Typhoon as well. I don't think Verba mean less protection. Gibka-S is only better suited for lighter vehicles.

Verba means you are firing at Hellfires at 6km range while the Apache sits 8kms away launching them at you.

Pine is only three times heavier than Verba or Igla-S, but has almost twice the range and is much faster... and wont be stopped by DIRCMs.

GarryB wrote:Verba means you are firing at Hellfires at 6km range while the Apache sits 8kms away launching them at you.

Pine is only three times heavier than Verba or Igla-S, but has almost twice the range and is much faster... and wont be stopped by DIRCMs.

Considering that Ataka and Kornet ATGM have the same 10 km max range and are also laser guided missiles as Sosna, that they will not be so much unprotected against helicopters. Problem is, that Sosna turret weight more than 3 tons and you could not put it on Tigr armored car. It is for heavier armored vehicles, which could carry such turrets.