Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Share

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue May 04, 2010 2:21 am


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 05, 2010 4:48 am

    Impressive.

    The OSA is a small supersonic target and from the video it appears that both of the two missiles fired at each target actually hit something.

    Considering the cost of the TOR, with its sophisticated 3D search radar and phased array tracking radar, I always thought that 8 missiles would be a bit limiting in combat.

    Especially with the types of targets it would be used against warranting two missiles per target.

    I was thinking that some sort of trailer could be developed to be towed behind the standard TOR vehicle with the same vertical launch cannisters fitted.
    A decent sized trailer could probably carry 4 of the 8 round bins with no trouble, so a total ready to launch compliment of 40 missiles could make it a better point defence system.

    The latest model Pantsir has a range of 20km and ceiling of 15km, but the TOR is ready to fire in any direction with its vertical launcher and able to carry lots of missiles in trailers parked around the target area.

    Both missiles are command guided so they don't have expensive seekers and are therefore cheap enough to use in large numbers, in fact having both systems would compliment each other, with the Pantsir engaging targets out to longer range and higher altitudes, while the TOR handles the lose in difficult targets.

    brudawson
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 8
    Points : 8
    Join date : 2010-06-05

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  brudawson on Sat Jun 05, 2010 1:25 pm

    It's really amazing. The Tor-M2 is a low to medium-altitude, short-range surface-to-air missile system designed for intercepting aircraft, cruise missiles, precision guided munitions, unmanned aerial vehicles and ballistic targets. Differences compared with the Tor-M1 - increased fire performance with 10-12 targets a minute to 20. " 9M331 missiles can fly out of the containers in less than four seconds as it was before, but now it is not less than two
    Arrow

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  medo on Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:00 pm

    Tor-M2 will give to ground units good protection against aerial treats. Is it capable to shot down long range ATGMs fired from helicopters? In combination with tracked version of Pantsir-S1, tanks will have great protection against anything from the air.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:19 pm

    They said it would enter service last year... still hasn't happened yet.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:38 am

    It isn't a T-50 or Bulava it seems.. cry

    I guess they can't fix everything at the same time and for the moment the air defence SAMs are still pretty good.

    The focus seems to be more on aircraft and navy which is probably OK because an all weather day night capable airforce and a navy that has real global reach are probably more important than replacing TOR-M1 with TOR-M2. TOR-M1 is still an extremely capable system on land and at sea. (At sea it is called Klintok).

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:40 am

    It is OK for the Army to rot?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 26, 2010 7:27 am

    No, of course not.

    The Army needs to sort through everything it has and perhaps sell on the international market things it doesn't need or want or they could go into a pool of stuff to give away to allies that might find the material useful.
    The Army should also go through the stuff it wants to keep and then it needs to work out the stuff it wants in the future, from upgrades to new material.
    There is likely a lot of money to be made through selling to museums and collectors and legitimate sales to countries.
    Cuba might want some more Mig-29s for instance... even if just for parts.
    North Korea might want some stuff and you could use it to increase trade. There is a country that could use a friend.

    The budget is a finite thing and will not stretch to cover everything right now.

    At the current time the focus for the army it seems is the new command and control system.

    This is a structure that needs infrastructure to work so you need the upgraded communications systems and battle management systems all linked together.
    The need to upgrade the communications so that the Russian armed forces becomes a network where every component of that network can get and send information to every other part of the network.

    This structure will work better the more components are added, but before you start you need to establish rules and standards so that the radios used by your army can communicate with the radios of your air force and navy for instance. Is the data rate fast enough?
    The command structure needs to reach right down to individual soldiers.
    The first set of gear will be clumsy and cumbersome, but it will highlight areas that the armed forces can demand progress in.

    Look at that Barnaul system for the Igla is a good example where the introduction of newer radio communications, a netbook type computer and the right software could improve it and make it more portable.
    In practical terms it might not be more effective but it will be lighter and because parts can be standardised and reused in other kits (ie for Towed 23mm gun units you'd basically use the same stuff as an Igla operator, and SA-9 and SA-13 units could also do with night capability plus a laser rangefinder to make sure the target is within range before the weapon is launched, and advanced warning from the C4IR net would be generally useful all round... in the Barnaul case the implementation looks low tech and bulky.
    One of the Cs in C4 is computers, and with better computers in 10 years time the equivalent to Barnaul could be a net linked palmtop computer that communicated with the C4IR network and transmits target information directly into the thermal sight fitted to the launcher which will be a binocular system that includes a laser rangefinder and GLONASS receiver and ring laser gyro so that marking the target with a laser will determine range and angle to the target with the launchers coordinates the palm computer calculates the position of the target and transmits that data to the C4IR, while the IFF system built into the launcher marks the target as friend, foe, or unknown. An image database is used to analyse the thermal image to determine ID of the aircraft type and possible origin.

    Right now the Army has enough armour and armoured vehicles (Actually far too much of it in fact), though they all seriously need proper upgrades they have decided that there needs to be a finalisation of the C4IR kit that needs to be fitted to the upgrades before they go implementing upgrades willy nilly.

    My opinion is that they will have a break till 2011 and then from 2012-2015 they will be working on upgrades of existing models like the T-90 upgrade with German and French additions possibly, and BTR-82s and whatever they turn the BTR-90 into.
    From 2015 onwards they will have a replacement BTR-xx ready and also likely a new T-9x tank when it has matured and more of the content is Russian made and of course they have made it lighter.

    I know I know the T-95 is cancelled, but there is only one tank maker in Russia now and the T-95 was the best they could manage just the end of last year and early this year.
    Unless the Russian Army has made specific requests, like visibility and situational awareness requires a manned turret to fundamentally change the design back then I think 80% of what the T-95 is right now will be their future tank in 5 years time. They will add more capabilities and make it lighter perhaps or better protected but unless they fire everyone in the development department and destroy all the information stores and then hire all new people to start from scratch then I don't think a new tank design is going to change much in 5 years.
    They might go for an electric gun with liquid plasma propellent, and electric armour and electric drive... it could be like star trek where power is transferred from the shields to the cloaking device to the main photon torpedoes... Twisted Evil

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  medo on Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:32 pm

    There was informations, that Russian army will receive first Tor-M2U in 2011.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:15 pm

    medo wrote:There was informations, that Russian army will receive first Tor-M2U in 2011.

    Can't believe any of there disinformation anymore.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:15 am

    Can't believe any of there disinformation anymore.

    I prefer to assume that things were beyond their control and that they weren't lying as such, just being optimistic.

    For instance I have read a lot of reports on certain things that were based on interviews and when I saw the interviews the problem was really misreporting.

    I have read reports where the head of a tank making company states that the T-95 will be ready for service in 2005. I have then read the interview the report was based on and what the guy actually said was that with proper funding the T-95 could be ready for service as early as 2005.

    I think we should just take figures given as estimates, so instead of this system being in service in 2011 we should actually take this to mean: If we get proper funding and no problems occur we hope to get this system into service by 2011.

    Every program needs to be managed and estimates need to be made to plan all sorts of things. If they can't get a large enough skilled workforce in time, if certain components are found to be substandard and need to be reordered, if funding stops, if a machine tool fails... and a thousand other little things that could slow down production and prevent the deadline being achieved... that is just the fun of being manager.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:03 pm

    It's a lie if you tell something like that to a soldier and it doesn't happen.

    They might contemplate the situation a little deeper later, but when you tell them that such a magical system could be given to his guys some time later but it doesn't happen, then they feel wronged.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:48 am

    It's a lie if you tell something like that to a soldier and it doesn't happen.

    They might contemplate the situation a little deeper later, but when you tell them that such a magical system could be given to his guys some time later but it doesn't happen, then they feel wronged.

    But is it the manager of the plant that is lying or the reporter that misses out vital information that is lying?

    I have not ignored what Vlad has been saying about promises for the last two decades not being kept and I can understand him not believing them anymore.
    I think however that the person saying it will start entering service in 2011 really believes it is possible, so they are not lying... if it doesn't enter service till 2013 then they were just wrong... unless he knows there is something that will delay its service entry.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:24 am

    It is the federal government that is lying. The reporter works for the state, who is regurgitating an announcement from military staff that work for the state that is regurgitating state manufacturer's memo. We have tried the state rearmament plan twice now and have nothing to show for it except for a bunch of canceled projects and delayed systems. Not everything goes to plan in NATO countries either, but their delays are usually months for most projects... ours our several years. I am not interested in reports in the long-term as I know most will not pan out... eventually to be canceled for some kind of import. The recent success of Bulava has given me a hope and a prayer things will turn around. But one out of several hundred projects is not going to save the military. We need success every day and the money to follow it up. The state has lost faith in their own industry which is why the 3rd rearmament plan will include a huge amount of imports.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:26 am

    I just think they need more time.

    Even with all perfect new equipment the Russian armed forces will not be an up to date perfect force overnight either.

    I see a lot of progress and unlike previous attempts the money for the programs actually seems to be getting delivered.

    Things are and were never going to change overnight, but if everyone is a pessimist then look forward to all foreign material. It is the optimists that will be the innovators and the pessimists who complain that everyone elses stuff is better and if you can't have that then you shouldn't bother.

    Nobody has all the best stuff. The British Army often complained in Desert Storm that their radios were from the 1950s and that their rifles had to be fired in bursts because they jammed less often that way even though they were trained to fire single shot.

    New Zealand soldiers are notorious on exercise as being magpies (A black and white australian bird that "collects" bright shiny objects it comes across). They don't steal stuff but they will ask if they can have it and it will disappear into a pouch or pocket if the owner says yes... mostly because they were generally under equipped compared to the forces they operate with.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  nightcrawler on Sat Oct 30, 2010 10:13 pm

    @ Post n°8
    Thats correct
    Want to give Pakistan S-300. We really will appreciate it »>
    By the way Russians SAMs are enough for the westerners to be busied for a next 5years or so... Time today is to develop appropriate planes equivalent to F-22 & its export variant F-35..only then Russians can make huge profits.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  medo on Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:38 am

    Russian air force receive first Pantsirs in 2010 and army also receive Buk-M2, so I don't see any reason, why army could not receive Tor-M2 in 2011. Tor-M2 is tested and effective. I only wonder if Tor will be build only tracked version for army or there will be also wheeled version for air force?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:12 am

    It is very likely that the Airforce model will be wheeled as this would improve strategic mobility and greatly reduce purchase and operating costs.
    Obviously tactical mobility will be lower than a tracked model so it would not be able to keep up with tanks, but for the Air Force that is not really a consideration as much of their other stuff is wheeled so moving it around your defence district will likely be quicker by road/rail/aircraft.
    I would imagine that the lack of roads in the district that covers much of siberia would still be better to have wheels as landed from an aircraft they could patrol an airfield and still run cheaper than a tracked model.

    It basically comes down to what it is supposed to be operating with... if it operates with tanks or S-300V batteries then there will be support and fuel for track layers and the mobility of a track layer would be needed to keep up.
    If it operates with S-300 then a wheeled model would be cheaper to buy and operate.
    If it operates with a light armour unit with mostly wheeled vehicles then obviously wheeled SAMs will be used here too.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  nightcrawler on Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:45 am

    Provided that the roads & other communication patterns prone to firstly attacked in any warfare; if you have got a system comprising of ~6 missile battery than its more logical to go for a tracked version

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 02, 2010 3:27 am

    Well you have to remember from the point of view of the SAM system itself all it needs to do is match the mobility of what it is defending.

    If the enemy take out the roads it is no advantage to have tracked SAM vehicles if the material they are protecting include a lot of wheeled vehicles. The SAMs still might be able to move, but if the vehicles they are protecting can't then having tracks is no advantage with regards to mobility and is a huge disadvantage in terms of road range and operating costs etc.

    Communications centres and railroad hubs are not mobile at all so trailer version of SAM systems used together with wheeled models could be used to defend such a target. Mobility will mean that weapons that destroy fixed targets like JDAMS couldn't be reliably used against a wheeled SAM that was moved ever few hours or so.
    The trailer models will be tied into the local AD network and might fire some missiles but will operate in radar silent mode to avoid revealing their position electronically.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:32 am

    nightcrawler wrote:Provided that the roads & other communication patterns prone to firstly attacked in any warfare; if you have got a system comprising of ~6 missile battery than its more logical to go for a tracked version

    The whole debate of track vs wheels is going the route of wheeled vehicles. The world is largely covered in roads and wheeled vehicles have much less of a logistical train than tracks. The reduction in weight also makes wheeled air mobile while tracks largely are not.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:57 am

    Which is a good thing, because these wheeled vehicles will trade protection for speed and firepower and in the BMP-3M turret the Russians have a significant advantage in firepower in my opinion.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  medo on Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:35 pm

    I think this talking about tracks and wheels is going in wrong way. SAMs like Tor-M2, which have to protect tank units in front line, have to have tracks just to go with tanks, which usually in war don't go on roads. On the other hand SAMs for air force are better on wheels, because they are cheaper and lighter and they are far behind front lines, so they move on roads. Tor-M2 for Russian army have to have tracks to work with armor units, but is air force will also buy Tor, it for sure be wheeled one.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:53 pm

    But the Russian Army is talking about heavy, medium, and light armoured brigades, and it is likely that the light armoured brigades will be mostly wheeled, so they will also need wheeled models to support them. Nothing really radical really as the SA-8 and SA-9 were both wheeled and seemed to cope. If it gets stuck then there are plenty of tanks to pull them out...

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  medo on Tue Nov 02, 2010 5:46 pm

    I agree with you. Heavy armored brigades with tanks and ICVs will need protection of SAMs on tracked vehicles. Lighter brigades, which operate on wheeled APCs for sure need wheeled version of SAMs,which are lighter and faster. Tor-M2 on wheeled armored vehicle could be right here, but not version on truck like Pantsir for air force, which role is different in protecting airfields, larger SAMs or strategic objects far behind front lines.

    Sponsored content

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:37 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 5:37 pm