Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 03, 2010 2:00 am

    The Tunguska is not that well armoured either, let alone the original Shilka and SA-13 vehicles.

    A wheeled TOR shouldn't be too out of place on the front lines... remember none of the vehicles in the Medium and light brigades will stand and fight an Abrams force head on.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  medo on Wed Nov 03, 2010 7:40 pm

    The Tunguska is not that well armoured either, let alone the original Shilka and SA-13 vehicles.

    A wheeled TOR shouldn't be too out of place on the front lines... remember none of the vehicles in the Medium and light brigades will stand and fight an Abrams force head on.
    [quote]

    Of course Tor, Tunguska, Osa, Shilka, ... are not armored enough to drive in same line as tanks. That is why they go behind tanks at least 1 km and that they have enough range to protect tanks. Tanks, ICVs and infantry protect SAMs against ground enemies. BMPT is actually a system, that could do air defense job and is armored enough, that it could go in the same line as tanks.

    Of course the role of heavy brigades with tanks is not the same as the role of light brigade with wheeled APCs.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:20 am

    BMPT lacks the gun power to do a decent job let alone the obvious lack of AD sensors.

    The 30mm guns it uses have too low a rate of fire to be a dedicated air defence vehicle... even replacing the two single barrel guns with a twin barrel 2A38M gun would be a better solution as its 2,500 rpm rate of fire would be 2.5 times higher than the two single guns combined rate.

    The BMP-3M has better armament than the BMPT and its high elevation guns would make it probably better overall except for the armour protection issues of course.

    Personally I think that the weapons in the BMP-3M but fitted in a low profile turret with external guns and a rear turret bustle autoloader to keep the HE rounds separate from the crew compartment should free up some space near the front where the existing hull mounted forward gun mounts (for 30mm grenade launchers or 7.62mm MGs) could be replaced with mini turrets able to fire over much wider fields of view... a return to the infantry support vehicle by the looks of it, yet oddly it is the replacement of infantry to support the tanks that we are really talking about.

    Of course the role of heavy brigades with tanks is not the same as the role of light brigade with wheeled APCs.

    Quite true, and the real problem is that we can probably guess that the light brigades will likely be all wheeled, but are we talking about BTR-90 and replacement or are we talking about M65 Iveco for troops and the BTR-90 and replacement is the medium brigade with the BMP-4M as the heavy brigade grunt mover.
    Is the light brigade heli mobile for instance?
    Or is the heavy brigade really going to be heavy with BTRT tank based IFVs, the medium BMPs, and the light wheeled BTRs?

    The T-95 was criticised as too heavy at about 55 ton so perhaps the heavy brigades will have T-90s and perhaps the medium brigades might get the Sprut and the light brigades get a wheeled vehicle... maybe with a 125mm gun or perhaps a reduced power 125mm gun?

    I guess this should be discussed in a different thread.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  medo on Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:04 pm

    BMPT is not an AD system as such, so it doesn't need AD sensors. What it need is data link to get external source of target info from air defense systems like Tor, Tunguska, Buk,... or their command posts. After receiving target data, BMPT could engage it optically day and night with guns and Attaka missiles. Talking about guns rate of fire with 1100 rounds/min for two 2A42 guns is the same rate as Gepard AD system have. It's not that bad, specially because BMPT will not engage bomb and missiles as AD systems will, but only bigger planes and helicopters and for that role, it is enough. For engaging ground targets too high rate of fire means you will be too quick out of ammo. This is actually good compromise for BMPT. Only what BMPT need to improve is higher elevation of guns. With BMPTs in first line together with tanks and other IFVs, Tors, Tunguskas, Buks,... could have even longer distance behind tanks and still effectively defend them and be less expose to enemy fire, because they have weak armor.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:06 am

    Well the main threat will certainly be from helos and even the 30mm on the BMP-2 is reportedly effective against such targets, so I guess two would be better.


    I still think the BMPT needs better HE firepower like the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3. This would replace the ATAKA missiles more effectively in my opinion as if you need accuracy at 6km then fire tube launched missiles with HE Frag warheads.
    The 100mm gun can elevate to 70 degrees in the BMP-3 so an external mounted gun raised a bit should manage that or even better, plus improved depression as a bonus.

    For engaging ground targets too high rate of fire means you will be too quick out of ammo.

    That is a good point... apparantly several Su-25 pilots complained there was no lower rate of fire option for the twin barrel 30mm cannon the aircraft uses because targets like trucks needed very short bursts to take out and they felt many rounds were being wasted. Perhaps a burst option and single shot option might be a solution. Note however that the GSh-30 twin barrel gun fitted to the Frogfoot fires at 3,000 rpm or 50 shells per second, while the 2A38M gun used on the Tunguska that is based on the GSh-30 fires at a lower rate of 2,000-2,500rpm. It would still be hard to fire a 5-10 round burst with both weapons I guess.

    Actually probably the best solution might be the GSh-301 cannon fitted to most modern Russian fighter aircraft. It has a firing rate of about 1,800 rpm, or about 30 shells a second, but in the Mig-29 the gun is computer controlled. It is linked to several computer systems and the laser range finder and IRST. Basically the pilot locks the target with his helmet mounted sight and either uses the IRST or radar to track the target. If he uses the IRST the laser is periodically used to determine distance.
    Then the pilot pulls the trigger and manouvers the aiming mark over the enemy aircraft. When the computer calculates a hit it fires the gun. The Mig Officials stated that after 5-7 rounds had been fired the gun kept getting shut off by the computer but the targets were still being destroyed. They stated if they knew the system was going to be that effective they would have halved the number of shells carried by the aircraft.

    To put such a gun in the BMPT requires solving a few problems. First the shell it fires is the same as the army uses but it uses electrical ignition rather than percussion like the army weapons so it will need modification. Weight was an issue for an aircraft gun so it was made as light as possible so its operational lifetime is actually very short... in the BMPT its weight doesn't matter but being able to fire more than 1,000 rounds is very important so it needs beefing up a lot. Some sort of burst control system would be useful too. As it is externally mounted there is no issue with fume evacuation or any such problem though barrel length could be increased to improve muzzle velocity.

    Another option might be the twin 23mm cannon fitted to the last model Hinds.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  medo on Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:30 am

    Any more news about Tor-M2? I hope army could get them in the beginning of 2011 and show them in May 9th parade the same as Pantsir this year.

    Ogannisyan8887
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 62
    Points : 111
    Join date : 2011-01-07
    Age : 24

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

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

    Which is more deadly TorM2 or Pantsir-S1

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    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.

    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 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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    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.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 28, 2011 9:08 am

    Some photos of wheeled TOR in Russian Army paint colours:

    http://www.missiles.ru/MAKS-2011_1_news.htm







    Regarding the TOR vs Pantsir-S1 the Pantsir-S1 can fire guns and missiles on the move, which I don't think TOR can do, however TOR can engage closer targets as they are single stage missiles and don't have a booster rocket motor.

    Operationally the TOR and the Tunguska would work together to defend armoured units from air threats and the Pantsir-S1 basically replaces the Tunguska so it is possible they might remain in service together till perhaps Vityaz replaces both TOR and BUK.

    TOR is an expensive system, though the wheeled version should be very cheap to operate and to actually use because the missiles are very simple and don't contain expensive seekers like active radar homing or IIR sensors.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 28, 2011 9:18 am

    Of course looking at this poster:




    We can see the same truck vehicle base with Pantsir-S1 in the top left, S-400 missiles top right, the vehicle chassis in the centre, long wave low frequency radar middle right, phased array radar (folded down in this pic) for the S-500 bottom left and Buk-M3 on the vehicle bottom right. This version of BUK clearly uses the vertical launch version of the naval system with the missile tubes presumably rotated 90 degrees to vertical for launch.

    Based on this I don't see why the wheeled version of the latest TOR system could not be fitted to this chassis like the Pantsir-S1 system has... perhaps that is the future of mobile light brigade SAMs?

    The idea of adopting a range of SAM types on one unified platform makes a lot of sense as you can use the same modular SAM system on a range of different base vehicles to achieve the cost and mobility and protection you desire. Once you have one system in service and the logistics to support that vehicle then buying another SAM type becomes much cheaper and easier... and there is no reason for an exported system to use a Russian vehicle base if the customer makes their own chassis they can adapt the SAM missile launcher and radar vehicle and command and maintainence vehicles to any suitable base vehicle.

    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  Cyberspec on Sun Aug 28, 2011 10:34 am

    Garry,

    a small correction, the pics above are of the wheeled Buk-M2 variant.

    The new TOR-M2K was reportedly shown on Maks but I still haven't come across any pics to see if there's any external difference....I'm guessing that externally it will look like the export TOR-M2E

    P.S.

    the vertical launch BUK-M3 looks interesting. Thanks for posting.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  medo on Sun Aug 28, 2011 10:51 am

    Great pictures of wheeled Buk-M2, I also notice it have different EO camera than older Buks.



    We can see the same truck vehicle base with Pantsir-S1 in the top left, S-400 missiles top right, the vehicle chassis in the centre, long wave low frequency radar middle right, phased array radar (folded down in this pic) for the S-500 bottom left and Buk-M3 on the vehicle bottom right. This version of BUK clearly uses the vertical launch version of the naval system with the missile tubes presumably rotated 90 degrees to vertical for launch.


    The systems based on those 8x8 trucks are actually SAM systems for air force air defense or now air and space defense, while Tor is created exactly for ground troops protection, what means it must be more compact and have good cross country capabilities.



    Regarding the TOR vs Pantsir-S1 the Pantsir-S1 can fire guns and missiles on the move, which I don't think TOR can do, however TOR can engage closer targets as they are single stage missiles and don't have a booster rocket motor.


    There were rumors, that Tor-M2 could also launch on the move, but for now there wasn't any prove of that rumors. Unfortunately there wasn't even any pictures of russian domestic version Tor-M2U, they only show export version Tor-M2E. Russian army claimed, that Tor-M2U will come in army units this year, but no informations about it up to now, all is quiet for a longer time. They keep it in secrecy, so I assume it is much more capable, that we think it is. After all the heart of SAM is in radars and Tor-M2 have larger tracking radar than Pantsir, so it could engage harder targets. Anyway both systems are excellent and same capable. For sure they could supplement each other in army units.



    Operationally the TOR and the Tunguska would work together to defend armoured units from air threats and the Pantsir-S1 basically replaces the Tunguska so it is possible they might remain in service together till perhaps Vityaz replaces both TOR and BUK.

    Tor, Pantsir and Tunguska are SHORADs, while Vityaz is medium to long range SAM to replace older versions of S-300 and Buks. Morfei is in class of Strela-10, but for now there is no replacement for Pantsir and Tor-M2, which are also new and enough capable.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Aug 28, 2011 11:26 am

    Some photos of wheeled TOR in Russian Army paint colours

    GarryB this in not a Tor-M2 ,but obviously a Buk-M2E system ,(don't let the "bulge" to deceive you); you can clearly distinguish it from the missile it carry ,in horizontal ,position above the launcher.
    That is a pic with the missiles raised up


    http://www.flickr.com/photos/49917410@N08/4582921796/


    Tor-M2/M2E is a completely different system , this is a video of the system ,included a 2009 test [from 4:52] at Kapustin Yar of the export version against salvo of small,very manoeuvrable,high supersonic targets (9K33M3 missiles from OSA-ASM); the result against this very difficult targets was "one shoot-one kill" 15 times on 16 also in the test with single interceptor against single menace !!


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJmpMCSI1qU


    Good vision . Very Happy


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:48 am

    Oops, yes... when I typed out the name I was looking at the thread title and put TOR instead of BUK. I knew it was BUK and wouldn't have posted it if I thought it was TOR because wheeled TOR has already been shown in this thread anyway... Smile



    Great pictures of wheeled Buk-M2, I also notice it have different EO camera than older Buks.

    I would assume it now includes thermals.

    The systems based on those 8x8 trucks are actually SAM systems for air force air defense or now air and space defense, while Tor is created exactly for ground troops protection, what means it must be more compact and have good cross country capabilities.

    Indeed, the purpose of the different weight class and protection class level vehicles as families for each unit type suggests that there will be TOR and BUK systems mounted on each family vehicle to match the protection and mobility of the other vehicles in the family.
    The whole point behind the concept of weight class family vehicle chassis is that the vast majority of vehicles in the unit use that family vehicle otherwise the advantage in terms of support and logistics is lost.

    I would expect BUK and TOR will operate with medium and heavy brigades and the light brigades will only have lighter air defence vehicles, perhaps including Morfei.

    They keep it in secrecy, so I assume it is much more capable, that we think it is.

    The level of secrecy of in service items not for export has always been high. We are now seeing a return to the Russian military getting higher standard of equipment compared to exported material except where a foreign country has paid for development like the Pantsir-S1.

    After all the heart of SAM is in radars and Tor-M2 have larger tracking radar than Pantsir, so it could engage harder targets. Anyway both systems are excellent and same capable. For sure they could supplement each other in army units.

    TOR is optimised for engaging very small and very fast targets like HARM missiles and stealthy cruise missiles. Both are very capable systems.

    Tor, Pantsir and Tunguska are SHORADs, while Vityaz is medium to long range SAM to replace older versions of S-300 and Buks. Morfei is in class of Strela-10, but for now there is no replacement for Pantsir and Tor-M2, which are also new and enough capable.

    Pantsir was the shelterised version of Tunguska, so I would expect Pantsir-S1 will have a reduced size version that can operate on tracks and be used in heavy and medium and perhaps even light brigades in the appropriate family of chassis.

    A heavy tracked vehicle carrying the vertical launched BUKs would look like TOS... which might be a little impractical.

    Vityaz seems to offer smaller more capable missiles than BUK, but BUK will remain in service for some time yet.


    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  medo on Mon Aug 29, 2011 4:22 pm

    The level of secrecy of in service items not for export has always been high. We are now seeing a return to the Russian military getting higher standard of equipment compared to exported material except where a foreign country has paid for development like the Pantsir-S1.


    True, but secrecy about domestic Tor-M2U is still unusual high, same as about Hermes. They only show export Tor-M2E and there are differences between them, like domestic Tor will have 16 missiles comparing to 8 in export, domestic one will have new missiles with range of at least 15 km, export will have standard ones with 12 km range and we could assume it will have differences in radars and computers inside. I think Tor-M2 will also do the job of C-RAM (In my opinion Pantsir could do it also at least with guns) and engage very small targets, that they don't want to show it or discus about it.



    A heavy tracked vehicle carrying the vertical launched BUKs would look like TOS... which might be a little impractical.

    Vityaz seems to offer smaller more capable missiles than BUK, but BUK will remain in service for some time yet.


    Maybe Russian military will continue here with their tradition. Vityaz have same missiles as S-300 PMU or S-400, what means it will be only for air and space defense. On the other hand Buk-M3 is something like S-300V and compatible with other Buks, so it will be produced for ground troops only in divisional or army level.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Aug 29, 2011 5:36 pm

    Sincerely i beleve that ,at now, Pantsyr represent a significantly better solution for the same role covered by Tor-M2 (naturally if the ratio between the capabilities of the internal and export version of the two systems is similar).
    Pantsyr is vastly superior in almost any cardinal parameter; in fact even in its export version its missile are :

    1) Much faster, capable to intercept at maximum altitude/range a Mach 2,7 small manoeuvring target ,
    2) Have an heavier and most modern expanding rod warhead (even in its export 57E6-E and 95Ya6-E versions),capable to hit and destroy any aereial target 100% even with a miss of 6 meters
    3) Have avastly greater engagement footprint : 20 km of range and 15 Km of altitude

    Even its export version, Phazotron 1RS2-E "Shlem" radar,is a genuine two band tracking/engagement radar (an element truly crucial,togheter with the integrated optical system, for unavoidable decoy discrimination ,anti-jamming measure and to reduce chance of detection by part of RWR ) with a range of detection of 32 - 36 km and tracking range of 24-28 Km against a 2m RCS target (therefore about 18-21 Km detection range and 14-16 km tracking range against a typical 0.2 meters RCS staelth aircraft target as F-22).
    Its integrated IR/TV electro-optical tracking system with dedicated engagement channel has a tracking range,obviously toally passive, of 17-26 km (and one more time ,after Farnborough 2010 Air Show,we all get a solid proof that the supposed low visibility in the IR spectrum of VLO aircraft was a purposely construted and spreaded false information); anyone can realize as even a single Pantsyr unity could share any target's coordinates acquired also in full passive mode - included those identified and eventual decoys tracked-, with the whole IAD structure, so in matter of few seconds a group of aircraft in transition on an area hosting insulated Pantsyr could see coming a salvo of Mach 7,6 48N6E2 shooted by over 200 km of distance even without being exposed to the Gargoyle's detection systems !!
    Pantsyr at contrary of TOR-M2 can shoot on the move -both missile and gun- and carry 12 missile for TELAR ,moreover ,of course ,it has its twinned 30 mm 2A38 guns with 1400 rounds, a very important element to don't waste precious missiles against ,at example, subsonic and/or not-manoeuvring menaces (like BGM-109-like cruise missile and glide bombs).


    coolieno99
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 136
    Points : 159
    Join date : 2010-08-25

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  coolieno99 on Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:03 am

    What intrigues me the most is the 2A38 30mm cannon mounted on the Tunguska and the Pantsir (2A38M). It has a rate of fire between 1,950 and 2,500 rpm. This is a very high rate for a non-rotary cannon. Note the residual gun powder is still burning as the spent shells are being ejected from the gun ejection port in the following Tunguska video.

    Tunguska-M

    Pantsir-S1


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:59 am

    True, but secrecy about domestic Tor-M2U is still unusual high, same as about Hermes.

    Operational gear is normally secret... according to Max the AK-200 is already in use by some branches of the Russian FSB and other civilian agencies, yet still no photos I have come across.
    Very rare photos and video of the ADS yet it is probably already in service too.

    The secrecy either suggests to me that because it is not for export there is no hurry to reveal its use, or perhaps their might have been delays and it is not in service yet.

    Hard to tell either way.

    I think Tor-M2 will also do the job of C-RAM (In my opinion Pantsir could do it also at least with guns) and engage very small targets, that they don't want to show it or discus about it.

    I would suspect the single stage Tor missiles will be cheaper than Pantsirs two stage missiles and while they will be slower I think Tor will remain better suited to engaging small RCS targets.

    A good upgrade would be the four sided AESA radar revealed for the corvettes as it would offer 360 degree coverage and could operate as a search and tracking system with full 360 degree coverage. This should allow continuous tracking of targets from all angles and allow the Tor to take advantage of its vertical launch SAMs. The current advantage is lost by having to turn the turret to face the tracking array towards the target before firing.

    Having full 360 degree radar coverage along with vertical launch missiles means reduced engagement times... and better coverage.

    Another idea would be a powered trailer vehicle like the Vityaz (Knight) series of prime movers could be used instead of the current vehicle with the crew and radar in the front chassis and a large number of ready to launch missiles in the trailer. A wireless communication system between the front chassis and the towed trailer could allow one front chassis with AESA four faced radar array with the electronics to detect and track hundreds of targets to launch from several trailers at once at a fixed location.

    For example on an airfield you could have trailer launchers scattered all over the place with camouflage so they are not emitting and not disclosing their position till they start launching missiles. The one prime mover with its radar, perhaps tied in to the radar of the airfield and also the local air defence network grid could send launch commands to the closest launcher to the target and control the missile to impact. This would extend range and reduce intercept times and allow for saturation attacks.

    Maybe Russian military will continue here with their tradition. Vityaz have same missiles as S-300 PMU or S-400, what means it will be only for air and space defense. On the other hand Buk-M3 is something like S-300V and compatible with other Buks, so it will be produced for ground troops only in divisional or army level.

    True. It could also be that they might want to keep overlapping ability, so they can use some for export and keep some types to themselves. I rather suspect the vertical launch BUK in its naval form might export well... especially if it can be paired with other missiles in the same launcher to offer some of the flexibility of UKSK... or perhaps if they can be made shorter than UKSK so it can fit in smaller vessels or take less internal space than the UKSK system.

    The Russian Air Force needs SAMs, the Russian Army needs SAMs, and the Russian Space and Air Defence forces need SAMs, and the Russian Navy need SAMS.
    There seems to be a bit of scope for a few SAM systems... and the plan for a short range SAM Morfei, Vityaz, S-400, and S-500 sounds like an Air Force or Space and Air Defence force requirement. I rather expect the other forces might have niche requirements that lead to other systems remaining in service.


    I agree that Pantsir-S1 is a huge step forward, but I would expect the new TOR to also be an improvement. The old TOR system could detect 48 targets and track 10 at once, and with the missile load doubled to 16 ready to launch single stage missiles I think the on paper advantage of the Pantsir-S1 in practical terms will not make a huge difference.

    All the new SAMs will be part of the AD network so even a soldier with a Barnaul-T suite with an Igla-S missile can detect a target and pass that target info into the network for other platforms to engage.

    I think the vertical launch capacity of the Tor lends itself to multiple trailer launchers for each command and launch control vehicle, but likely the same would apply to Vityaz the S-400 based SAMs.

    Each different user will require different platforms because of different cost/protection/mobility requirements, and I suspect that some specific requirements might favour Pantsir-S1 or Tor... which could result in both being kept in service.

    What intrigues me the most is the 2A38 30mm cannon mounted on the Tunguska and the Pantsir (2A38M). It has a rate of fire between 1,950 and 2,500 rpm. This is a very high rate for a non-rotary cannon. Note the residual gun powder is still burning as the spent shells are being ejected from the gun ejection port in the following Tunguska video.

    Its rate of fire is actually lower than the GSh-30 it is based on which has a rate of fire of 3,000 to 3,500 rpm... which sounds a lot... and it is but for a twin barrel gun it hasn't got twice the rate of fire of the GSh-301 single barrel cannon firing at 1,800rpm.

    Th GSh-30K has longer barrels with a higher muzzle velocity but a lower rate of fire to 2,000-2,600 rpm for the Hind in the Mi-24P model.

    BTW the Tunguska uses the 2A38M gun as well... it has improved design that reduces wear and an improved water cooling system.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  medo on Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:26 pm

    A good upgrade would be the four sided AESA radar revealed for the corvettes as it would offer 360 degree coverage and could operate as a search and tracking system with full 360 degree coverage. This should allow continuous tracking of targets from all angles and allow the Tor to take advantage of its vertical launch SAMs. The current advantage is lost by having to turn the turret to face the tracking array towards the target before firing.


    Four side AESA radar is excellent, but I doubt Tor will have it. Tor is meant for ground units, so it have to be compact and I doubt it could have enough big and powerful power generator to supply four radars, electronics and other systems in the vehicle. It will be more suited for SAMs for air force or air and space defense, because they have larger trucks, which could carry larger and more powerful electro generators. Maybe Pantsir based on larger BAZ truck could use it, because with larger truck it could have enough powerful generator.




    Another idea would be a powered trailer vehicle like the Vityaz (Knight) series of prime movers could be used instead of the current vehicle with the crew and radar in the front chassis and a large number of ready to launch missiles in the trailer. A wireless communication system between the front chassis and the towed trailer could allow one front chassis with AESA four faced radar array with the electronics to detect and track hundreds of targets to launch from several trailers at once at a fixed location.

    For example on an airfield you could have trailer launchers scattered all over the place with camouflage so they are not emitting and not disclosing their position till they start launching missiles. The one prime mover with its radar, perhaps tied in to the radar of the airfield and also the local air defence network grid could send launch commands to the closest launcher to the target and control the missile to impact. This would extend range and reduce intercept times and allow for saturation attacks.


    This concept work fine for point defense air defense, which is behind front line. Ground units need for protection self propelled SAMs for which is fine, that every launcher have its own radar. From experiences with Kub, they see, that when radar vehicle is destroyed, whole battery is out of action and radar vehicle could be also destroyed from ground attacks and is capital target for ground units.




    I agree that Pantsir-S1 is a huge step forward, but I would expect the new TOR to also be an improvement. The old TOR system could detect 48 targets and track 10 at once, and with the missile load doubled to 16 ready to launch single stage missiles I think the on paper advantage of the Pantsir-S1 in practical terms will not make a huge difference.


    I always said, that Tor-M2 and Pantsir-S1 are equal, one have guns, other have cold vertical missile launch. Which system suits you more depend on situation and environment. If you have Tor-M2 or Pantsir-S1, you have the same excellent SHORAD.




    All the new SAMs will be part of the AD network so even a soldier with a Barnaul-T suite with an Igla-S missile can detect a target and pass that target info into the network for other platforms to engage.


    This is now standard, that every SAM system have to work integrated in network and to work independently alone if needed. I doubt you could now sell SAM which doesn't reach that standard.




    E
    ach different user will require different platforms because of different cost/protection/mobility requirements, and I suspect that some specific requirements might favour Pantsir-S1 or Tor... which could result in both being kept in service.


    I Soviet times Red army accept both, Tor and Tunguska and they excellently supplement each other. I have no doubt they would do the same with Pantsir-S1 and Tor-M2U and they will also excellently supplement each other.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:23 am

    The biggest problem would be cost I would think.

    The four faced AESA shown with the EO ball on top is designed to be fitted on masts of ships and is not that big or bulky... just look at the size of the existing tracking radar on the TOR, they are not even that big.

    By design the TOR system has large slab sided turret ideal to fit ESA antennas on all four sides to perform search and track functions. It doesn't have to be a AESA, PESA would do, the point is electronic scanning for 360 degree continuous coverage in both search and tracking.

    The weakness of the system in my opinion is that while the vertical launch missiles are ready all the time to be fired in any direction without needing to turn the launcher to face the target the tracking radar does need to turn to face the target. Now with 6 vehicles operating together it shouldn't be a huge problem but I think it would be much better to take the missiles out of the main vehicle, give it a four face radar and put launch bins in a trailer.

    A powered trailer actually improves cross country performance and makes the vehicle less likely to become stuck in deep mud or snow.

    The Vityaz (Knight) prime mover can actually drive out of sea water onto floating ice using its articulated connector and powered trailer by itself.

    The existing 3D radar of the TOR uses a lot of power already... gas turbine generators are compact and relatively straight forward to design and fit. I rather suspect the generator used for the 1980s electronics on the old TOR probably used as much power as a new AESA radar.

    Remember we are not talking about 400km range AESA radars as fitted to stealth fighters, it could be based on the simple AESAs being developed for helicopters right now.

    From experiences with Kub, they see, that when radar vehicle is destroyed, whole battery is out of action and radar vehicle could be also destroyed from ground attacks and is capital target for ground units.

    Just because every vehicle has a radar doesn't mean they will all drive around blasing out radar waves 24/7. Every battery will have command vehicles and battery radar vehicles and they will also be tied into the AD network and receive target data from all sorts of local assets and any scans they do with their own radars will add to that network picture of the air space around them.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  medo on Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:37 pm

    I'm sorry, Now I know which Vityaz you mean. Not SAM system, but arctic all terrain tracked vehicle. This vehicle is excellent and would be perfect to mount on them Pantsir-S1 or Tor-M2 for using in arctic environment, because it could carry additional fuel and missiles and also food and water for crew in its second part.




    Just because every vehicle has a radar doesn't mean they will all drive around blasing out radar waves 24/7. Every battery will have command vehicles and battery radar vehicles and they will also be tied into the AD network and receive target data from all sorts of local assets and any scans they do with their own radars will add to that network picture of the air space around them.

    Of course not. It only means that protecting ground units on the front line is exposing radar vehicle to enemy attacks from the air and from the ground. If battery have only one radar vehicle, it means, when they lost it, they are blind and battery could not operate. If every vehicle have radars, anytime one vehicle from battery become master and other are slaves and silent and battery is still operational. Otherwise battery structure is still the same.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:46 am

    Of course not. It only means that protecting ground units on the front line is exposing radar vehicle to enemy attacks from the air and from the ground. If battery have only one radar vehicle, it means, when they lost it, they are blind and battery could not operate. If every vehicle have radars, anytime one vehicle from battery become master and other are slaves and silent and battery is still operational. Otherwise battery structure is still the same.

    Exactly... it was a lesson the Soviets learned from Arab experience against Israel.
    SA-6s were a serious threat, but the Israelis sent UAVs and when the Arabs tracked the UAVs with the SA-6s radar vehicle the israelis attacked and destroyed the radar vehicle with ARMs.

    Once the single radar vehicle was taken out F-16s with bombs could fly in safely and take out the TELs with all the missiles because without the radar vehicle they could not engage any targets.

    The extra radars make the battery much more expensive, but also much more survivable.

    Having said that of course an AESA would have very low sidelobes (meaning even planes carrying ARMs would need to be targeted directly by the radar to get a signal to lock onto) and could operate in LPI like modes and in conjunction with EO systems too.

    Regarding Vityaz, remember that the current TOR has all its missiles in its turret, so filling the Vityaz's trailer module with vertical launch containers could allow 28-32 missiles ready to launch in the trailer of each vehicle.

    The advantage there is that if the trailer is designed so it can be released and left parked a single airfield could have two or four tractor vehicles with 8-12 trailers each trailer with 28-32 ready to launch missiles. One tractor could have direct datalinks with trailers located all over the airfield or perhaps a more permanent setup could use fibre optic connections so the tractor vehicle with radar and electronics could launch missiles from trailers nearest the incoming target, so an attack on the airfield from several directions could lead to launchers at each end of the airfield launching missiles with reduced interception times because the missiles are 1km closer to the incoming target than the radar tractor vehicle.

    To save money and improve readiness you could buy 2-3 trailers for each tractor, and use ready to launch missiles in trailers instead of reload vehicles, which means missiles are ready to use all the time with no need to reload.

    Sponsored content

    Re: TOR-M2 Air Defence system

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 12:54 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:54 am