Russian VSHORADS Thread

Modernization package for Osa from Almaz-Antey. It got new electrooptical complex with thermal imaging camera and additional communication antenna in front of the vehicle for data link to exchange picture with others in IADS. This modernization enable Osa to work fully in pasive mode, receiving target information from outside source and engage it in optical mode day and night. Before Osa have to see the target with its own search radar.

I always thought it was a neat vehicle but I have been told it is not that great in terms of mobility... not like a BTR-60 or something...

Still it is a rather large vehicle and it is fully amphibious too...

With an all optical operational capability, It would be better if you could stack double the number of ready to fire missiles on there... 12 instead of 6 perhaps, though the original models only had four missiles with no box launchers.

I remember a South African upgrade of the SA-13 that added the capacity to fire SA-9 missiles so it could carry a mix of missiles and choose which missiles to use depending on the target at the time. The SA-9 missiles being simpler and cheaper but not as effective, so a slow cruise missile type target could be engaged with a slower lower performing missile while an enemy fighter could be engaged with the more capable SA-13.

With opticronic targeting day and night system for this vehicle then IR and laser beam riding missiles could also be carried for use against different targets...

Keep the 6 big missiles and add a row of 3 x SA-9s on one side and 3 x SA-13s on the other, so depending on the target you can select a suitable missile for the engagement...

Of course there is always the problem of taking something that works and try to do too much that ends up making it silly fan boy frankenstein crap...

I would think a decent upgrade could massively reduce the size and cost of the electronics needed for this system, and the extra space saved could be used to make more room inside or even reduce the crew size or perhaps add a station for controlling your own drone that could use the sensors of the vehicle and its own sensors to hunt drones using cover to sneak up on the system... perhaps orbiting the vehicle from a range of 4km or so at 2km altitude looking down at things trying to approach the position for instance...

In the networks of "Ptitselov": air defense will be armed with anti-aircraft complexes - "automatic"

Ground Forces and Airborne Forces will receive different versions of the latest technology

https://iz.ru/1095549/anton-lavrov-roman-kretcul/v-setiakh-ptitcelova-pvo-vooruzhat-zenitnymi-kompleksami-avtomatami

Excellent... so basically what they said is that Pine was going to be an Airborne system under the name Fowler to replace the SA-13 and similar SA-9 systems but also the ZU-23 I believe, but they have decided to expand it a bit and make it a ground forces system as well... presumably because its optical search and targeting system is cheaper and passive than radar based systems and the missiles are cheaper than IR or radar guided missiles being laser beam riding.

The system they talk about uses algorythms to automatically identify targets based on their 3D optical and IIR image so it will be set up to defend a location and altitude range and will automatically detect and track targets in that area and shoot them down.

Being linked in the the IADS (which the old SA-13 were not) it should be able to feed data about the air situation around it back into the system with passively gathered information so it might spot a B-2 flying overhead using IIR systems but while it might not be able to reach the 12km altitude the bomber is operating at it can pass on target data to the central air defence network for some other system to look for it to shoot it down.

These laser beam riding missiles are fast and relatively cheap so they can be used on drones and produced in enormous numbers and will fill the short range gap that has existed because most modern MANPADS are cheaper than S-400s they are not really cheap enough to fire at super cheap drones.

Says they will complete trials and work in 2021 and be deployed in 2022 in volume... which is excellent news.

True, old SA-13 (Strela-10) was not integrated in IADS, but modernized Strela-10MN for Russian Army and VDV is. Russia modernize 72 old Strela-10 to Strela 10MN.

medo wrote:

Modernization package for Osa from Almaz-Antey. It got new electrooptical complex with thermal imaging camera and additional communication antenna in front of the vehicle for data link to exchange picture with others in IADS. This modernization enable Osa to work fully in pasive mode, receiving target information from outside source and engage it in optical mode day and night. Before Osa have to see the target with its own search radar.

They also need a fucking multispectral camo, because once they were on, they were glowing like fuck in NK. Nakidka is a minimum here.

NK isn't an exemple. Total incompetence.

Not only did they not cover them but they also use them from position easy to spot from the air. A bit like the old s-125 position with roads created by the systems in the middle of a field.

Clean the area. Put lot of woods on them that cover them but also are a chea way to reduce rcs and put some dummy syqtems nearby that will be attacked and attract enemy air force.

True, old SA-13 (Strela-10) was not integrated in IADS, but modernized Strela-10MN for Russian Army and VDV is. Russia modernize 72 old Strela-10 to Strela 10MN.

Useless if they don't upgrade the missiles. Thry need to use verba technology on them to be usefull.

The 9M100 missiles are supposed to use a QWIP based IIR sensor similar to a CCD chip used in a video camera or cellphone that is sensitive to IR and UV frequencies. As production increases they should be able to stamp them out for a few dollars each... the applications are enormous... especially if they combine the new digital night vision technology to them... and applying these seekers to older missiles means improving their performance and increasing production volumes which should also make production cheaper...

One advantage of bad camouflage is that it makes your decoys stand out in war time, but you do need to take steps to camouflage the real thing much better and do a better job of hiding them and using them effectively.

Isos wrote:NK isn't an exemple. Total incompetence.

Not only did they not cover them but they also use them from position easy to spot from the air. A bit like the old s-125 position with roads created by the systems in the middle of a field.

Clean the area. Put lot of woods on them that cover them but also are a chea way to reduce rcs and put some dummy syqtems nearby that will be attacked and attract enemy air force.

True, old SA-13 (Strela-10) was not integrated in IADS, but modernized Strela-10MN for Russian Army and VDV is. Russia modernize 72 old Strela-10 to Strela 10MN.

Useless if they don't upgrade the missiles. Thry need to use verba technology on them to be usefull.

NK is not a question of incompetence, but betrayal on the highest level.

9M333 missile, which Strela-10MN use is still very effective missile. It have three channel homing head: photocontrast, IR and IRCCM.

medo wrote:This modernization enable Osa to work fully in pasive mode, receiving target information from outside source and engage it in optical mode day and night. Before Osa have to see the target with its own search radar.

Basically technologies that have already matured on the Pantsir and the Tor are now being incorporated on the Osa.

Isos wrote:Thry need to use verba technology on them to be usefull.

Won't make much of a difference. Verba is Igla with some minor upgrades. The tech incorporated in Verba is not vastly superior to Igla.

My understanding is that Igla-S is very good anyway, but Verba has a better seeker with IR and UV band seekers as well as normal visible light capacity... much like the upgrades to the SA-13s...

Makes sense to switch to making the best sensors because larger volume production makes them cheaper and improves the performance of older systems.

Most cruise missile type targets don't need super SAMs to intercept and most drones are less self aware than most aircraft so the drone wont know it is under attack until boom... a bit like that drone in the 8 8 8 conflict that was shot down with an AAM from a MiG-29.

Some targets do manouver and are also very small which makes them much more tricky targets, but often the best solution there is laser beam riding missiles rather than high tech seekers... high tech seekers are expensive but laser beam riding systems use expensive seekers in the aiming system rather than in the missile so you make a big sensor that is reused with every engagement using simple cheap dumb missiles.

I suspect over time they will replace solid fuelled rocket missiles with cheaper smaller ramjet powered weapons that use cheap kerosene or even petrol or diesel for propulsion...

Isos wrote:NK isn't an exemple. Total incompetence.

Not only did they not cover them but they also use them from position easy to spot from the air. A bit like the old s-125 position with roads created by the systems in the middle of a field.

Clean the area. Put lot of woods on them that cover them but also are a chea way to reduce rcs and put some dummy syqtems nearby that will be attacked and attract enemy air force.

True, old SA-13 (Strela-10) was not integrated in IADS, but modernized Strela-10MN for Russian Army and VDV is. Russia modernize 72 old Strela-10 to Strela 10MN.

Useless if they don't upgrade the missiles. Thry need to use verba technology on them to be usefull.

Again, it's less a question of incompetence than limitations.

The OSA's have limitations, period. They were exploited by a better organized foe. Armenia has its faults but the systems are old and predictable.

I would expect most modern countries would struggle defending itself from drones in a coordinated and planned attack... Saudi Arabia on paper has some of the best western systems yet it didn't even notice an attack... the design and location and direction they were looking was exploited to get total surprise... I suspect most countries who have not had real combat experience against heavy enemy drone use would struggle.

I mean Russia has TOR and Pantsir which are expensive systems but have affordable missiles that can be used in enormous volumes, and Pine and Kornet-EM will reduce the costs further while adding passive detection and tracking nodes to their IADS network...

They also have direct experience in Syria and the Ukraine...

Many other countries couldn't even reliably stop a subsonic cruise missile attack, let alone what Russia could unleash...

The SA-13 is a nice weapon but its IR seeker makes it more expensive than a missile that does not have such a thing like Pine or TOR or Tunguska.

The SA-13 is excellent against a range of threats, but its performance against defended targets like helicopters and manned aircraft will be reduced by decoys jammers and DIRCMs.

It is a capable weapon but compared to Pine it is starting to show its age.

Pine takes about 10-12 seconds to get to a target 10km away, so the fact that it is not fire and forget is not really important.

It uses expensive EO equipment but that is part of the launcher not the missile, so firing missiles is not as expensive as with missiles with sensors that are destroyed when the system is used.

Having said that, an IR guided weapon can be directed at a target and the you can engage the next target in theory, though most of the time you would monitor the interception to ensure a kill before engaging the next target.

GarryB wrote:The SA-13 is a nice weapon but its IR seeker makes it more expensive than a missile that does not have such a thing like Pine or TOR or Tunguska.

The SA-13 is excellent against a range of threats, but its performance against defended targets like helicopters and manned aircraft will be reduced by decoys jammers and DIRCMs.

It is a capable weapon but compared to Pine it is starting to show its age.

Pine takes about 10-12 seconds to get to a target 10km away, so the fact that it is not fire and forget is not really important.

It uses expensive EO equipment but that is part of the launcher not the missile, so firing missiles is not as expensive as with missiles with sensors that are destroyed when the system is used.

Having said that, an IR guided weapon can be directed at a target and the you can engage the next target in theory, though most of the time you would monitor the interception to ensure a kill before engaging the next target.

I agree, the system is simply an interim solution until Сосна and another air defense system now in advanced development stage, will be mass produced.

Стрела-10МН has been introduced mostly for ВДВ ,in wait of the mass production of Сосна, its aim was to produce an air droppable air defense system that ,toghether with ЗРК Верба, would aim and destroy the tactical surveillance UAVs that would likely used by the enemy to gain fundamental informations on ВДВ's units position and direction of motion, in the high tempo operations before the ВДВ would arrive at ranges useful at employ theirs artillery and БМД-4M indirect fire on the intended target before closing and taking control of it.  

Naturally Сосна will immensely increase the performance in this role: its aggregated technical-military value is about 4,5 times greater than the Стрела-10МН and moreover each vehicle carry 3 times the ready to fire ammunition of Стрела.

They have hundreds of Strela-10. It's worth modernizing them. Simple and effective system.

IR systems are also very good for passive strikes. If the enemy has bad MAWS then it won't detect the missile on time. Turkish helicopter was easily destroyed by an Igla-S which wasn't even detected.

Radar missiles will always be detected by RWR and are affected by stealth.

IR missiles seems to have better results in recent conflicts.

IR guided missiles are all "fire and forget". It make sense to produce new missiles for Strela-10MN. It have three channel homing head and heavier warhead, capable to deal with drones, cruise missiles, etc. Russian army modernize some 72 Strela-10 to Strela-10MN and they will serve for some time and also there are many of them in foreign countries and they could produce many missiles for export. Yes, IR guided missile is more expensive than laser or radio guided one. But it doesn't need to guide the missile until it hit the target, so when operater launch this missile, it could immidiately go to next target, so it could engage more targets in shorter period of time than Sosna. In that sense Gibka-S with Verba missiles is actual replacement for Strela-10. Sosna and Gibka-S have to work together to protect each other against larger number drone attacks. Sosna have longer range, but Gibka-S can fire faster.

Modernized Strela-10MN with new missiles give good protection to Osa-AKM, when working together. Those missiles for Strela-10 will be quite important for armies of DNR and LNR to protect their Osas, when they will have to engage Ukrainian Bayraktars and other drones.

Sosna will be more expensive since they need to build it entirely. Strela 10 will just switch missiles. Sosna also has a targeting system that is expensive. Tor is tens of million a piece just like pantsir.

Isos wrote:Sosna will be more expensive since they need to build it entirely. Strela 10 will just switch missiles. Sosna also has a targeting system that is expensive. Tor is tens of million a piece just like pantsir.

This is a patently false information, some dozen of millions is not for a single launcher but for a whole battery both of Панцирь and Тор.

This appear like the question of the price of пр. 885 Ясень, that foreign and fifth column internal media named at 3,5 billion each when the figure was for five subamrines.

In substance Рособоронэкспорт report the deal for a "complex" Тор, that is a battery (usually of 6 vehicles) including service and tansloader vehicles, surveillance radars and several restock of missiles.

All of that cost less than a late model F-16 !!!

Lately Minister of Defence of self-proclaimed Artsakh Republic ,defending the acquisition by part of Armenia of ex Jordanian 35 Оса-АКМs for 27 ml dollars (a part of which they received) saying that a latest export Тор launcher was priced a bit more than 5 ml dollar each and ,therefore, Armenia do not had necessary resources for they mass acquisition and possible sharing of a a part of them for Artsakh's defense.


Naturally Azerbaijan had no problem in paying 8 ml dollar each of its TB2 Bayraktar UCAVs or over 10 ml dollars for each Harop suicide drone …….several of both of them they have lost against the few 770 thousands dollars Оса-АКМs present in nothern Artsakh and that would have been massacrated if it weas present even only a single working battery of Тор in the same area…..

Those false informations about prices of domestic air defenses are absolutely necessary for western disinformation campaign because otherwise the crushing difference in cost efficiency would render injustifiable the costs of theirs aircraft, UAVs and airborne weapons.

Please provide some sources. Just a t-90MS is 2-3 million. How a tor vehicle with radars and missile could be at the same price ?