Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Share
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Viktor on Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:52 am

    Great this will be great SA-13 replacement. Excellent find TR1.
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 1938
    Points : 2103
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Cyberspec on Sun Jun 09, 2013 12:03 pm

    Zivo wrote:What's their reasoning behind developing both Boomerang, and the Kamaz 63969?

    They seem very similar. I doubt the Kamaz is amphibious, but what advantage does it have over Boomerang that warrants its service?

    The Kamaz should be a MRAP type vehicle

    Viktor wrote:Great this will be great SA-13 replacement. Excellent find TR1.

    Should be popular with Strela-10 (SA-13) users assuming it's reasonably priced. I wonder if the Rus. Army would be interested considering they use large number of Strela-10's
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Viktor on Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:57 pm

    Cyberspec wrote:Should be popular with Strela-10 (SA-13) users assuming it's reasonably priced. I wonder if the Rus. Army would be interested considering they use large number of Strela-10's

    This system is good for winged missiles, helicopters, attack planes and protection of command posts and radar.

    Fighter planes on the other hand can easily overfly it.

    It has its purpose and should be rather cheap in comparison. Many armies all over the world will find it useful and in need of such

    system. System is highly mobile and can be connected to AD network so it can receive info about the targets well in advance and

    command post like PPRU-M1-2 will distribute the targets between the SAMs.



    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16324
    Points : 16955
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    VSHORAD SAMs

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:50 am

    Should be popular with Strela-10 (SA-13) users assuming it's reasonably priced. I wonder if the Rus. Army would be interested considering they use large number of Strela-10's

    In many ways the Sosna-R is the land based version of Palma and is designed as the low cost version of Kashtan-M or Pantsir-S1.

    In the Army it would operate in the SAM missile platoons to compliment the gun/SAM platoons armed currently with Tunguska-M1.

    I believe Sosna-R is the export name for the system and the domestic name is Baikanuk or something similar and it is intended as a very low cost replacement for SA-13 that will operate with Pantsir-S1.

    In those roles both systems would be very capable with the Baikanuk being cheap to buy and operate while the Pantsir-S1 is cheap to operate but also very capable.. Pantsir-S1 can engage the high flyers but the very high flying targets would be dealt with at a higher level by BUK and Vityaz.


    Ceramic applique armor obviously not yet installed, but good photo showing hull.

    New ceramic tigr?


    _________________
    “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 : 3194
    Points : 3284
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  medo on Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:34 pm



    I find this picture interesting. It seems there is special thermal imager created to be installed in Tunguska complex. Considering, that army units receive modernized Tunguskas, maybe they also have those TI installed inside their optical sight, what will enable their missile and gun work in optical mode day and night and in all weather. I wonder, if they also modify tracking radar to guide missile in radar mode. Krizanthema could track target and guide missile all in one radar antenna, so maybe Tunguska could use the same princip.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16324
    Points : 16955
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:28 pm

    AFAIK both the Tunguska and the Krisantema use command guided missiles with the command guidance coming from the tracking radar that tracks both the target and the outgoing missile and sends course corrections to the outgoing missile to ensure a hit.

    If that is the case then the addition of a thermal imager should allow the vehicle to engage targets without the use of either the search or tracking function with the thermal sight with autotracker following the target and the outgoing missile with course guidance commands being transmitted by the tracking radar that is not tracking either the missile or the target and therefore not making itself much of an ARM target.

    Note the Krisantema also has a back up laser beam riding guidance option.


    _________________
    “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 : 3194
    Points : 3284
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  medo on Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:30 am

    Original Tunguska could use missiles only in optical mode using its tracking radar for radio missile guidance, while target was tracked with optical sight. Radar mode was used only for guns. Usual systems of that times use two antennas, one for tracking radar and second for radio missile guidance. Krizanthema was first to have one antenna for both operation to ensure ACLOS in radar mode. Of course, Krizanthema also have optical mode with laser guidance, but it is independent and could ensure the guidance of second missile simultaneously. I think same capabilities have Arbalet radar in Ka-52.

    Installing TI in Tunguska's optical sight will give to missile capabilities 24 hours operational capabilities and to guns full capabilities in both modes. Modernization of radar to ACLOS mode for missiles will give Tunguska full capabilities with both missiles and guns.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16324
    Points : 16955
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jul 21, 2013 12:27 pm

    Early model (8km range missiles) Tunguska used optical guidance for missiles, but the naval Kashtan version was changed to allow radar guidance with tracking of both missiles and target using the tracking radar with the tracking radar sending course commands to the outgoing missile.

    This change was applied to both Pantsir (which didn't enter service) with 12km range missiles and the Tunguska-M1 which entered service in 2004 with 10km range missiles AFAIK.

    Current Pantsir-S1 uses tracking radar to track missiles and targets and send guidance commands.


    _________________
    “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 : 3194
    Points : 3284
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  medo on Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:43 pm

    Tunguska and Krizanthema don't have PESA radars, but mechanical ones. Pantsir also have additional guidance channel antenna on its tracking radar.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16324
    Points : 16955
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:32 pm

    Tunguska and Krizanthema don't have PESA radars, but mechanical ones.

    They don't need PESA or AESA radars to track targets... especially two targets they are trying to merge by controlling the flightpath of one.

    Pantsir also have additional guidance channel antenna on its tracking radar.

    Indeed they do and that is how they use their tracking radar to communicate with the missile... 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
    medo

    Posts : 3194
    Points : 3284
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  medo on Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:02 pm

    Indeed they do and that is how they use their tracking radar to communicate with the missile... Smile

    Tunguskas tracking radar track target when it use its guns or send guiding signals to missile. In usual SAM complex tracking radar does three functions, track target, track missile and sent guiding commands to missile. Usually they have additional antenny for missile guiding channel. Krizanthema use only one radar antenna for all three functions in ACLOS mode. Krizanthema radar is the way for Tunguska tracking radar modernization.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16324
    Points : 16955
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:58 pm

    Krizanthema radar is the way for Tunguska tracking radar modernization.

    Pantsir-S1 is the way for Tunguska modernisation...


    _________________
    “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 : 3194
    Points : 3284
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  medo on Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:07 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Krizanthema radar is the way for Tunguska tracking radar modernization.

    Pantsir-S1 is the way for Tunguska modernisation...

    Of course it is. But to keep modernization cheap and keep its original radar, they could just modernize its computers in the way of Krizanthema radar. It's better to build new Pantsirs than place Pantsir's radars on used Tunguskas.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16324
    Points : 16955
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:17 am

    Tunguskas tracking radar track target when it use its guns or send guiding signals to missile. In usual SAM complex tracking radar does three functions, track target, track missile and sent guiding commands to missile.

    [quote] Usually they have additional antenny for missile guiding channel.[quote]

    They usually use a different antenna for sending missile guidance commands because of the frequencies involved and the requirements of the signal.

    The current radars associated with Tunguska and Pantsir-S1 are optimised for very specific goals... high accuracy, good range in a range of weather conditions, and capability against very small targets at extended ranges. You can see the size of the antenna on the vehicles for good resolution returns. the simple cheap datalink antenna are in comparison direct links optimised for high speed.

    Krizanthema use only one radar antenna for all three functions in ACLOS mode. Krizanthema radar is the way for Tunguska tracking radar modernization.

    Krisantema is more like a fighter aircrafts radar that will scan specific areas looking for targets and then engage them... often in groups at a time. It will likely move from cover to cover and generally try to move to positions where it can see targets from max range... in many ways it is more of a long range anti tank gun platform than an air defence system... of course if they can upgrade its performance the way the Kornet-EM has been upgraded then it might become quite a formidible anti armour and anti aircraft system with cheap command guided/laser beam riding missiles.


    _________________
    “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 : 3194
    Points : 3284
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  medo on Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:29 pm

    http://www.sdelanounas.ru/blogs/50560/

    In September - October this year, tests of new Sosna-M will be finished. Considering, that Palash-Palma is already operational, I don't see much problems for Russian MoD to accept Sosna-M as replacement for Strela-10.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:45 pm

    medo wrote:http://www.sdelanounas.ru/blogs/50560/

    In September - October this year, tests of new Sosna-M will be finished. Considering, that Palash-Palma is already operational, I don't see much problems for Russian MoD to accept Sosna-M as replacement for Strela-10.

    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.

    Actually, the picture in the article most probably shows an export version of Sosna. 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.

    Asf

    Posts : 478
    Points : 501
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Asf on Wed Jun 18, 2014 1:40 pm

    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
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16324
    Points : 16955
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:29 am

    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.


    _________________
    “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 : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:03 am

    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".

    Asf

    Posts : 478
    Points : 501
    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 : 478
    Points : 501
    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 : 1945
    Points : 2066
    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 : 1945
    Points : 2066
    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 : 1945
    Points : 2066
    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 : 16324
    Points : 16955
    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.


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian VSHORADS Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:39 am