Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Share
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Viktor on Fri Apr 02, 2010 11:05 pm

    Russia to have full gamut of air, outer space defenses by 2015

    Russia's space defense system will have a comprehensive network of air and outer space defense facilities, a leading missile manufacturer said on Friday.
    "By 2015, we will have Morfei short-range air-defense complexes, Vityaz, Favorit and S-500 medium-range systems, and something else," said Igor Ashurbeili, general director of the Almaz-Antei concern's design bureau.
    "In this way, Russia will have the complete array of military-space defense capabilities," he said.
    He said the 2015 deadline was linked to the fact that by that time S-300 PS antiaircraft complexes, the first in the S-300 series, would have been taken out of service.
    He also said Antei was currently developing six new types of air-defense/missile defense systems, of which he only named the Vityaz medium-range antiaircraft missile complex.
    Earlier in the day, he said Russia had just completed the delivery of a total of 15 batteries of S-300 surface-to-air missile systems to China, adding that there was a "huge line" of foreign clients waiting to buy S-300s and a more advanced version, the S-400, but that no new contracts would be signed for the time being.
    "First we have to arm the Russian military. If there are available production capacities and we fulfill our current contracts, then this process [the signing of new contracts] will resume," he said.
    Ashurbeili added that the situation regarding spare capacity would not become clear until after the Defense Ministry adopted a state arms procurement program through 2020.
    The advanced version of the S-300 missile system, called S-300PMU1 (SA-20 Gargoyle), has a range of over 150 kilometers (over 93 miles) and can intercept ballistic missiles and aircraft at low and high altitudes, making the system an effective tool for warding off possible airstrikes.
    First deployed by the Soviet Union in 1979, the S-300 is still considered to be one of the most potent antiaircraft missile systems available. It can simultaneously track up to 100 targets and engage up to 12.


    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100402/158414990.html
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Viktor on Fri Apr 02, 2010 11:07 pm

    Who ever heard about Morfei SAM??

    What is Favorit ... S-300PMU2 ? being developt wtf ??

    And those two other un_named even? ...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 03, 2010 4:34 am

    For information about Vityaz you can look at this pdf document:

    http://www.dtig.org/docs/MSAM-MRADS-Vityaz.pdf

    which is on this page:

    http://www.dtig.org/docs.asp

    I am guessing that the 9M100 is the Morfei missile, which will probably be the new AAM carried by the PAK FA to replace the R-73.

    Note the PAK FA requires a replacement because the R-73 is a lock on before launch missile that needs a lock before you can fire it.

    Obviously sitting inside a weapons bay it will not be able to see its target till after it has been launched so the PAK FA needs lock on after launch weapons.

    The R-77 flys the first portion of its mission using inertial navigation so it is already a lock on after launch weapon.

    This would make the 9M96 the Vityaz, which looking at the data table on the document above seems to me to be one of the two smaller missiles from the SA-20 system, where one has a range of 40km and the other a range of 120km and both can be loaded into an S-300 system with 4 missiles in the place of the older larger missiles.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 806
    Points : 888
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Stealthflanker on Wed Apr 07, 2010 3:02 pm

    Oh so They continue the Vityaz.. good news Very Happy
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:25 am

    OK now I am a little confused.

    From the article above they talk about a small IR or IIR guided SAM, which I assumed would be based on the new short range IR missile for the PAK FA, then they talked about two larger missiles, the 9M96E and M.
    I had assumed these two latter missiles were the smaller missiles shown with the S-300 series where one missile with a range 40km being the smallest and the slightly larger missile of 120km range that was still slim enough to fit four to a single S-300 missile tube.

    Looking at the sizes given in the pdf above the new short range IIR missile has a diameter of 125mm which makes it rather slimmer than the R-73 with a body diameter of 170mm.

    My confusion comes from another source that suggests that Vityaz is actually a ground launched model of the R-77M with a larger fatter rocket motor.

    The R-77 has a body diameter of 200mm and the R-77M has a larger body with a more powerful motor so the diameter in the pdf of 240mm might be about right.

    Both the two small missiles of the S-300 series and the R-77M are supposed to be active radar homers.

    According to the Wiki page on the S-300 missiles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_%28missile%29

    The smaller missiles are of the S-400 series with the 40km range missile designated 9M96E1 weighing in at 330kgs with a 24kg warhead and the 9M96E2 with a range of 120km and a weight of 420kgs and a 24kg warhead with the full sized missile called 40N6 with a range of 400km, with all three having active radar homing seekers.

    So looking at the original post:

    "By 2015, we will have Morfei short-range air-defense complexes, Vityaz, Favorit and S-500 medium-range systems, and something else,"

    Wouldn't Favorit be replaced with Triumph?
    Isn't Vityaz the two smaller missiles of Triumph?
    Where does the RVV fit in?
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Viktor on Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:46 pm

    GarryB wrote:Wouldn't Favorit be replaced with Triumph?

    Well, S-400 is good to go, but they are still developing (or developt already)it (as on May,7 parade modernized verzion of S-400 will be shown) so thats one missile system that according to article is not mentioned meaning perhaps its already done.
    But Favorit is the name of S-300PMU2 meaning they are still developing it (witch does not make any sense as S-400 is here) or totaly new system.


    GarryB wrote:Isn't Vityaz the two smaller missiles of Triumph?

    Yes and the main contractor as I read it is South Korea (something similar as Pantsir-S1)


    GarryB wrote:Where does the RVV fit in?

    Im not really sure what are all those systems being developt mutch less where does RVV fit in.

    but take a look at this:

    "In this way, Russia will have the complete array of military-space defense capabilities," he said.

    He is speaking in plural while Im only aware of S-500 being space defence capability.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:09 am

    I guess we will find out for sure in 2015 perhaps?

    Very Happy

    Those slim missiles for South Korea must be serious down graded however if it is going to be used in a Pantsir type system. The smallest of the two has a range double that of Pantsir at 40km while the larger missile reaches 120km.

    Just looking at the designations of the smaller missiles they seem to match what that pdf is talking about.

    Austin

    Posts : 6441
    Points : 6842
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Austin on Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:23 pm

    The Vitaz SAM is an upgraded variant of Soko K-SAM and is a design from scratch system

    Details emerge about new Vityaz SAM system

    The state testing of the new medium-range missile system Vityaz will be over in 2013, said Igor Ashurbeili, the general director of the Head System Design Bureau of the Almaz-Antey concern.

    The project is now at the blue-prints stage. Next year will see the emergence of a trial model, and in 2013 we are expected to end testing,” Ashurbeili said in an interview with the daily Kommersant, published on Friday.

    The Russian leadership did not see sense in designing a new and modern medium-range missile system before 2000, he said in remarks about the history of the project. Meanwhile, more than 50 S-300PS missile system will cease to exist by 2015 when their service life expires and they will have to be scrapped, he said.

    “After 2000 we defeated the U.S. and France in a tender in South Korea, and we signed an export contract, not without problems, to develop a KM-SAM medium-range missile system for South Korea. We learned to handle imported components, and we have delivered two radars already and are delivering a third to the customer. South Korea conducts range practice already with their missiles at their targets,” Ashurbeili said.

    Before shipping the system to the customer the developers invited the Defense Ministry leaders and demonstrated an operating South Korean model, after which a research and development phase was opened for the Russian armed forces. It will be a modified version with improved technical and technical characteristics, he said.

    “This work started in 2007 and is proceeding at an accelerated pace. We were set the task to make a new system available in five years, starting from scratch,” Ashurbeili said.

    Austin

    Posts : 6441
    Points : 6842
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Austin on Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:39 am

    Войсковая ПВО получит в 2011 году модернизированную систему "Тор-М2У"

    According to him, this system can simultaneously fire up to four air targets.

    Cruz noted that the Tor-M2U "in 1,2-1,4 times enlarged strike zone height, speed and course setting. Work is being completed to increase two-fold (from 8 to 16 units) Ammunition for combat vehicle of anti-aircraft guided missiles, as well as distance and speed of the targeted goals.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:16 am

    That is excellent news about TOR getting an enlarged payload of ready to launch missiles. I always thought 8 ready to launch missiles was a bit limiting.

    I think I have mentioned a few times here and elsewhere that a good upgrade for the standard TOR system would be a trailer with more ready to launch missiles on it.
    The missile pallets themselves are rather compact and each hold one line of 4 missiles.
    On a fairly tall trailer you could stack 6-8 of these pallets easily, so with 8 you would have 32 missiles that are vertical launch and always ready to be fired at a target coming from any direction. With a trailer you would need a simple way of determining the angle of the trailer so when the missile is launched upwards it is turned in the correct direction towards the target so it can effectively engage it.

    This would mean each standard TOR system could carry 40 missiles that are ready to launch... considering it can engage incoming missiles this is not too many.
    A flight of Apaches for example might fire several Hellfires from a range of 8km so having lots of missiles to engage them is important, though obviously you want to hit the helo rather than engage all its missiles.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 534
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  nightcrawler on Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:10 pm

    GarryB wrote:That is excellent news about TOR getting an enlarged payload of ready to launch missiles. I always thought 8 ready to launch missiles was a bit limiting.

    I think I have mentioned a few times here and elsewhere that a good upgrade for the standard TOR system would be a trailer with more ready to launch missiles on it.
    The missile pallets themselves are rather compact and each hold one line of 4 missiles.
    On a fairly tall trailer you could stack 6-8 of these pallets easily, so with 8 you would have 32 missiles that are vertical launch and always ready to be fired at a target coming from any direction. With a trailer you would need a simple way of determining the angle of the trailer so when the missile is launched upwards it is turned in the correct direction towards the target so it can effectively engage it.


    This would mean each standard TOR system could carry 40 missiles that are ready to launch... considering it can engage incoming missiles this is not too many.
    A flight of Apaches for example might fire several Hellfires from a range of 8km so having lots of missiles to engage them is important, though obviously you want to hit the helo rather than engage all its missiles.

    Increasing the no. of engagement opportunities can overload the computer hardware & Russia may not be capable to produce requires signal/data processing hardware.
    Do correct me if I am wrong
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Viktor on Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:40 am

    No picture of it ? ...

    Its goo to see Russia begin to pay at number of missiles attached to it. 9M96 missiles are designed to greatly increase numbers, Vytaz system and now TOR-M2U witch came to me as a welcome suprise.

    Hope to see navalized version of this systems.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:10 am

    Increasing the no. of engagement opportunities can overload the computer hardware & Russia may not be capable to produce requires signal/data processing hardware.
    Do correct me if I am wrong

    The TOR system is enormously expensive because it has a phased array tracking radar and a 3D air search radar.
    Even the first model could track 30 odd targets at once and pass target data to the tracking radar of the most threatening of those targets.
    The upgraded vehicle has new radars with presumably better performance and one assumes the computer hardware has been upgraded to meet the improved radar performance.

    Having said all that the missiles are directed in flight to intercept their target so having a larger supply of ready to launch missiles will not effect the system in any way except allow for more targets to be engaged before the system needs reloading.

    The target tracking radar has electronic scanning and can follow multiple targets nearly simultaneously so the previous load of 8 missiles could probably be used up very quickly.

    Of course they wont operate alone and a battery probably has 4-6 launch vehicles so that means 32-48 missiles per object being defended. With 12 missiles per launch vehicle that means an extra 16-24 missiles per battery or the equivelent of adding 2-4 more launch vehicles without the high cost of the extra radars and electronics etc.

    @Viktor, I would think the Vytaz system might a mix of small missiles that have IIR seekers based on the new short range AAM being developed for the PAK-FA and medium sized missiles with active homing radar seekers with much longer range that can be used together in vertical launchers and can be launched at targets in a fire and forget mode. Such systems would be more capable than TOR in a mass attack to overwhelm a target, but would also be much more expensive. The TOR system uses very cheap missiles with no seeker that are guided to the target by radar from the launch vehicle. This means that the missile themselves are cheap and can be bought and used in large numbers.
    I would think a mix of both systems would be useful in combination for different threat types.
    Lots of simple drones could be flown towards a ship to use up its SAMs and each drone could carry a small warhead so you just can't ignore the threat.
    In that case having a TOR system (ie Klinok) with 196 missiles ready to launch would be useful.
    Against a stealthy supersonic low flying target however a more sophisticated IIR homing SAM might be more use.
    Against the Harpoon, which is the most widespread US Navy AShM the active radar homing Vytaz can deal with as many as can be fired at the ship.

    Austin

    Posts : 6441
    Points : 6842
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Austin on Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:12 am

    Vityaz is a medium range SAM that will replace the mobile S-300PS ,Morpheus is the short range SAM system that will replace the TOR's
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Viktor on Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:47 pm

    I like Vityaz concept with is basically "mini S-300" and will replace BUK/older S-300 system.

    It great to see even shorter time needed to prepare for launch but I wonder why did they not put those missile in some canister and on track/wheels like on TOR system.

    Shotting down a mobile targets will not be possible with efficiency in near future and having such capability while at the same time allowing your moving troops constant

    air protection in a ever mobile warfare is by my opinion much needed capability.

    Robert.V

    Posts : 43
    Points : 46
    Join date : 2010-07-15

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Robert.V on Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:14 am

    Vityaz won't replace the BUK. More like coexists with it.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:57 am

    The only models of Vityaz show a truck mount with a large pallet of missile tubes on the back that can be rotated back to allow vertical launch of the missiles.

    This might be OK for defending an airfield but for defending a mobile army unit you need something similar to what the army is using.

    Up until recently to keep up with tank formations you needed a tank chassis like the tracked BUK and TOR. Now with the emphasis seeming to change to speed and road mobility then I think road mobile versions of the BUK and TOR will make more sense but I think both will remain as air defence systems for a mobile army while Vityaz will be used in the airforce like the PVO used them.

    Robert.V

    Posts : 43
    Points : 46
    Join date : 2010-07-15

    Russian SAM Systmes

    Post  Robert.V on Tue Aug 24, 2010 4:07 am

    GarryB wrote:The only models of Vityaz show a truck mount with a large pallet of missile tubes on the back that can be rotated back to allow vertical launch of the missiles.

    This might be OK for defending an airfield but for defending a mobile army unit you need something similar to what the army is using.

    Up until recently to keep up with tank formations you needed a tank chassis like the tracked BUK and TOR. Now with the emphasis seeming to change to speed and road mobility then I think road mobile versions of the BUK and TOR will make more sense but I think both will remain as air defence systems for a mobile army while Vityaz will be used in the airforce like the PVO used them.

    Exactly.

    And man oh man I wanna see the new strela 10 and Igla successors.
    avatar
    Andy_Wiz

    Posts : 26
    Points : 36
    Join date : 2010-10-12
    Location : South-West Fringe of the Empire

    42S6 Morfey SAM system

    Post  Andy_Wiz on Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:13 am

    A guy on another forum found a pretty old video with new info on Morfeus, seekers etc!!!! Cool

    This was aired o TVC chanel more than year ago, about the comprehensive joint air defence system and S-500. Video is amateurish and not that interesting(the say for example:^ "The army awaits S-400" as if it wasn't delivered to the army by then etc.) watch in Russian

    There are the toys...

    The advanced X-band target seeker with digital diagram formation


    Unknown dome-shaped radar sphere (proably Morfeus related)


    A sample of dome lense of multirole radar  (Morfeus) Morfeus got AESA! Twisted Evil


    29Ya6 transmit-recieve module, and active phased communitcation line 43Ya6

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    A guy on another forum found a pretty old video with new info on Morfeus, seekers etc!!!!

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:13 am

    Nice find Andy... thanks for sharing.

    That second picture looks like something off a Bear bomber that is used to detect incoming missiles by their heat signature that is part of the defensive electronics suite.

    avatar
    Ogannisyan8887

    Posts : 62
    Points : 111
    Join date : 2011-01-07
    Age : 25

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Ogannisyan8887 on Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:09 am

    Which is more deadly TorM2 or Pantsir-S1
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:37 am

    Hard to say really.

    Pantsir-S1 was greatly improved with money from the UAE, but at the end of the day its purpose is to defend SAMs from HARM like attacks.

    The TOR, which in the latest model has increased missile numbers and 20km range is designed to operate with tanks to defend them from incoming threats like A-10s, AH-64s, Mavericks, Hellfires, and other threats.

    Both use sophisticated sensors and expensive vehicles (though both have cheaper less mobile wheeled and more expensive but more mobile tracked options) and cheap relatively dumb missiles that are guided to targets like SACLOS ATGMs, except the targets are tracked and guided automatically which makes them much more effective.

    It also means they can mass produce the missiles in enormous numbers and actually use them more often for practise.
    Missiles with expensive IR seekers like the soon to be revealed Morfei will use simulators to save money.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:41 am

    Personally, I view the Pantsir as a far more advanced and versatile system. It might as well protect Tanks too. The main difference between the two is that the Pantsir is very modern compared to the TOR which even when "Modernized" isn't as modern as the Pantsir in terms of Electronics and the like. Another great advantage with the Pantsir is it's FLIR allows it to engage targets Passively, so HARMs would have no where to go. With Search n Track/Engagement radar and FLIR working in tandem, you can expect a Pantsir to engage up to 4 targets at once. The TOR has similar performance but Passive mode weaponry isn't available or in use yet.

    Not to mention that the 4 x 30 mm guns could be used to persecute Attack aircraft while leaving the Missiles for Counter-Missile warfare or against faster planes. A-10 is heavily armored, and is basically a flying tank, but it can't withstand 30 mm autocannon fire. Same with Apache.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:01 am

    Well the Pantsir-S1 is a two stage rocket that can't engage targets closer than 1.5km with missiles while the boosters are operating, though of course they could use their guns in that range bracket easily.

    The TOR is vertically launched and has a very sophisticated 3D primary radar and phased array tracking radar. I am pretty sure TOR could engage at least two targets and the upgraded version should be able to handle a few more.

    To be brutally honest I think TOR is pretty good as it was let alone the upgrade that supposedly doubled the number of ready to launch missiles and increased their range. A hit from a TOR missile will ruin any pilots day no matter how well their aircraft is armoured. I think it warhead is something like 15-20kgs of HE and metal. The Pantsir-S1 has a 15-20kg warhead too, its Hermes air to ground relative has a warhead closer to 30kgs.


    But now that you point out Pantsir-s1s guns I realise there is no problem at all.

    The TOR operates with Tunguska and SA-13 with armoured forces with BUK at longer range.
    Pantsir is optimised for defending missile units and HQs.

    Tor will be replaced with upgraded TOR, Tunguska will get upgraded and SA-13 will be replaced with Morfei, Buk will be replaced with Vityaz, S-300 will be replaced by S-400 and the Moscow ABM system will be replaced with S-400 and S-500.
    Igla-S will also be replaced with a new shoulder launched SAM too.

    This is all from 2015 onwards of course.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3245
    Points : 3331
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  medo on Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:37 pm

    Which is more deadly TorM2 or Pantsir-S1

    Good question, but difficult to answer. They are both at this moment between the best SHORADs in the World if not the best. They both have PESA search and tracking radar, data links, EO day/night channels to work in passive mode, missiles with range 15 to 20 km, both can engage 4 targets simultaneously, both could engage HARMs, missiles and bomb from airplanes, cruise missiles, UAVs, etc. Tor-M2U have 16 missiles, Pantsir-S1 have 12 missiles and two twin 30 mm guns, so they are equally armed. And finally both have pluses comparing to each other. Pantsir-S1 have guns, which Tor-M2 doesn't have and Tor-M2 have cold vertical missile launch, which Pantsir-S1 doesn't have. What is better? Depends on strategy, tactics and most importantly on environment in which they work. In some environments guns are more important, in other cold vertical launch is more important. They are both very deadly systems, differences are in details.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian SAMs: Types, Comparisons, Questions

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:20 am