TOR Air Defence system

Slow motion.

Nice promo.

LINK

And I hope they will eventually add S-300V4 to the list

Tor-M2U newest anti-aircraft missile systems to be shown in 2014


And speculation but still ....    

 

Those Olympic Tors are such a dumb PR move.

Viktor that plate is suspected to be for the 16 missile Tor?

So will the loading system be totally changed? Currently they slot in sealed tubes, no need for any plate like that IIRC.

TR1 wrote:Those Olympic Tors are such a dumb PR move.

Viktor that plate is suspected to be for the 16 missile Tor?

So will the loading system be totally changed? Currently they slot in sealed tubes, no need for any plate like that IIRC.

Im not sure. I found that pic on some Russian forum while lurking and the people there where discussing about that possibility

I cant wait for AESAs to be cheaper. Right now Tor sucks compared to Pantsir because of the limited turret space for missiles. Take an Armata/ Kurganets/Boomerang APC chassis, raise the dismount area roof, then put as many missiles there. Then cover the front and sides of the VLS housing with AESA. Also make the missiles way cheaper, and reduce crew to 3.

Those Olympic Tors are such a dumb PR move.

In this day and age a UCAV is a real threat... any idiot could build a remote control plane with a 50kg capacity and fly it over any fence or wall and into a crowd at a stadium... what are the armed guards on the ground going to do?

Sounds like a perfect job for TOR.

Then cover the front and sides of the VLS housing with AESA. Also make the missiles way cheaper, and reduce crew to 3.

And don't forget the full sized trailer with rather more missiles mounted all ready to fire...

TR1 wrote:Those Olympic Tors are such a dumb PR move.

Viktor that plate is suspected to be for the 16 missile Tor?

So will the loading system be totally changed? Currently they slot in sealed tubes, no need for any plate like that IIRC.

You say that - but then the Brits went to the trouble of bringing in a couple of Destroyers to the Thames in order to secure the 2012 Olympic Games against air threats.

Point is - neither of us are experts, we don't know the specifics of ensuring security for a massive, high-profile, 2-week long event such as this one.
As GazB pointed out - it's not inconceivable that Islamists can come up with some sort of primitive bomb-UCAV.
Crashing some sort of light aircraft such as an An-2 or even a small two-seater, laden with explosives - into Olympic venues or crowds is also not out of the realm of possibility. In fact if I was a terrorist that's probably what I would do - because the security on the ground is already so high. Such small, unassuming planes might be able to get fairly close before air defense realises that they're trouble and by then a short-range air defense system would be
Another danger are primitive MLRS systems like the sort that Hamas employs; actually if the Islamists got their hands or some or came up with their own system then it could bring devastation and SHORADs like the Tor-M1 would be the only thing that could prevent that.

Actually it is a good PR show of capabilities of a country. Greeks have Patriots around Athens and show them, Chinese have their own version of Crotale in Beijing, Brits show their Starstreaks, Eurofighters and navy ships in London and Russia will show Pantsir and Tor in Sochi.

Humpty Dumpty is back.

They should place this Tor-M2KM on BAZ or Kamaz truck instead of Tata. It will look far better.

medo wrote:They should place this Tor-M2KM on BAZ or Kamaz truck instead of Tata. It will look far better.

MAZ or even URAL would be nice ....

I don't remember where I got this picture from. It shows a Tor-M2U (Тор-М2У) launcher firing a missile from the 9M338 family.

It is interesting that the launcher covers open in a direction perpendicular to those of the Tor-M1 launchers. It seems the launchers shown during the practice runs for the victory day parade are just Tor-M2 launchers, and similarly those that were at Sochi.

By the way, 10 different new missile types have already been publicized as destined for the Tor-M2U. They are 9М338, 9М338ГН, 9М338Д, 9М338К, 9М338КУД, 9М339, 9М339УД, 9М339К, 9М339КУ, and РЗВ-МД (export model of 9М338К). Many more to be made public in the future.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:It is interesting that the launcher covers open in a direction perpendicular to those of the Tor-M1 (or Tor-M2) launchers. It seems the launchers shown during the practice runs for the victory day parade are just Tor-M2 launchers, and similarly those that were at Sochi.

Does anybody have any technical views on this? Have they started "renaming" the "victory day parade" launchers from Tor-M2U launchers to Tor-M2 launchers, or there is some other story to that?

After seeing the Sochi Tor launchers, I rationalized the situation by conjecturing that a Tor-M2U launcher could be made to look just like a Tor-M2 launcher, i.e. with the same launcher cover arrangement but with a capacity for 16 of the smaller missiles inside.

Now after seeing the picture above, it seems to me that there is more to the story than as portrayed by my rationalization of the Sochi launcher situation.

I don't understand the issue - what's the reason for assuming the Tor-M2U that are going to be at the Victory Parade aren't in fact Tor-M2Us like they say?

Vympel wrote:I don't understand the issue - what's the reason for assuming the Tor-M2U that are going to be at the Victory Parade aren't in fact Tor-M2Us like they say?

Thanks, Vympel.

Please take a look at the first picture that I had posted and see how the covers of the launcher are opened. Compare that with the launcher covers of the launchers shown in the pictures from the parade rehearsal.

As it can be seen, the direction the covers are opening between these two styles of vehicles are different and are indeed perpendicular to each other.

In the picture I posted it opens to the right and left, but in the "older" models they open to the front and back.

Interesting observation- why would they switch the cover mechanism in the first place?

That is still the standard 8 missile load correct?

TR1 wrote:Interesting observation- why would they switch the cover mechanism in the first place?

It should be related to some detail of switching from 8 larger missiles to the capability for carrying 16 smaller missile.

In, let's say, Tor-M1 launchers (i.e. an "earlier" version), there was a relatively big distance between the two wells for the four-round TLCs. To cater for missiles of the 9M338/9M339 family, there could have been a requirement to make some use of that space between the two wells, but why that would "lead" into the rotation of the cover hinge-lines, I don't know.

One interesting question is whether they can mix the small and the large missiles together. My answer would be that I am certain that the new launchers would be able to launch the larger ones also.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Vympel wrote:I don't understand the issue - what's the reason for assuming the Tor-M2U that are going to be at the Victory Parade aren't in fact Tor-M2Us like they say?

Thanks, Vympel.

Please take a look at the first picture that I had posted and see how the covers of the launcher are opened. Compare that with the launcher covers of the launchers shown in the pictures from the parade rehearsal.

As it can be seen, the direction the covers are opening between these two styles of vehicles are different and are indeed perpendicular to each other.

In the picture I posted it opens to the right and left, but in the "older" models they open to the front and back.

Ah I see it now. Curious.

It seems the following three pictures that, I think, have been on my computer since 2008 (from pilot.strizhi.info) have the new cover arrangement.

As one would expect, they have a different optical sensor configuration also.

Photographic evidence that the launchers for the "earlier" systems in the Tor family, e.g., Tor (sans suffixe) and Tor-M (I am assuming -M existed), use single-missile TLCs:

Those Olympic Tors are such a dumb PR move.

Nope, it seemed a close-range AA cover for long-range S-300s. Actually, I think it is a standard disposition of AA in case of massive cruise missle attack. "Pantsir" is a more common close AA system for PVO battalions, but nevertheless.

Asf wrote:

Those Olympic Tors are such a dumb PR move.

Nope, it seemed a close-range AA cover for long-range S-300s. Actually, I think it is a standard disposition of AA in case of massive cruise missle attack. "Pantsir" is a more common close AA system for PVO battalions, but nevertheless.

Oh there was supposed to be a massive cruise missile attack on Sochi?