
Interesting detail with Arctic version Tor-M2DT. It is made in two versions. 9A331MDT-1 have a living compartment modul in the frontal unit and 9A331MDT-2 have a crane and additional missiles in the frontal unit.


LMFS, Hole and Begome like this post
Tor-M2 will receive an inexpensive small-sized missile to combat drones
The Tor-M2 anti-aircraft missile system will receive an inexpensive small-sized missile to combat unmanned aerial vehicles. The Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, General of the Army Oleg Salyukov, told about this in an exclusive interview with the "RG" correspondent .
Speaking about combat and reconnaissance drones, he noted that the Tor-M2 anti-aircraft missile system is the most effective in the fight against them. But the cost of its anti-aircraft guided missiles significantly exceeds the price of small drones.
Therefore, work is currently underway to create a relatively cheap small-sized rocket for this complex. They can be used against drones.
Recall that at the forum "Army-2019" a wheeled version of the "Tor-M2" air defense system was presented
RG has already written that the Tor-M2 complex detects targets at a distance of up to 32 thousand meters. The maximum range of destruction is 16 kilometers, the minimum is one kilometer. The reaction time from target detection to missile launch is five to ten seconds.
https://rg.ru/2020/10/01/tor-m2-poluchit-nedoroguiu-malogabaritnuiu-raketu-dlia-borby-s-dronami.html
thegopnik likes this post
magnumcromagnon wrote:
Ideally this new miniature missile is 50% the diameter of the standard Tor-M2 missile, allowing the tube to be quad packed. With 16 standard launch tubes that are quad packed, you get 64 mini missiles to combat drones. Realistically speaking it will likely be a mix of missiles, and I could definitely see 6 tubes that are quad packed giving 24 missiles to engage drones, and 10 standard missiles to engage aircraft, PGMs, and everything else.
lyle6 wrote:magnumcromagnon wrote:
Ideally this new miniature missile is 50% the diameter of the standard Tor-M2 missile, allowing the tube to be quad packed. With 16 standard launch tubes that are quad packed, you get 64 mini missiles to combat drones. Realistically speaking it will likely be a mix of missiles, and I could definitely see 6 tubes that are quad packed giving 24 missiles to engage drones, and 10 standard missiles to engage aircraft, PGMs, and everything else.
I always thought the Tor system was quite inefficient in its arrangement. By confining all the missiles within a turret ring, they've artificially limited the quantity of missiles they could fit with each TELAR. If I had a go at it, I'd have a fixed superstructure occupying the space where the turret ring sits to house the missiles. I'd then have the sensors atop a folding mast on a rotating turntable just above where the control cabin is located. This should significantly increase the amount of missiles per TELAR (your working area is now a square with sides equal to the diameter of the turret ring instead of a rectangle within that same ring) while making the sensor tower a lot more responsive during training. If you require space for electronics you could mount them as overhangs around the superstructure which is great for servicing as well.
GarryB likes this post
I always thought the Tor system was quite inefficient in its arrangement.
By confining all the missiles within a turret ring, they've artificially limited the quantity of missiles they could fit with each TELAR. If I had a go at it, I'd have a fixed superstructure occupying the space where the turret ring sits to house the missiles. I'd then have the sensors atop a folding mast on a rotating turntable just above where the control cabin is located. This should significantly increase the amount of missiles per TELAR (your working area is now a square with sides equal to the diameter of the turret ring instead of a rectangle within that same ring) while making the sensor tower a lot more responsive during training. If you require space for electronics you could mount them as overhangs around the superstructure which is great for servicing as well.
GarryB, George1, LMFS and lyle6 like this post
dino00, Isos and zardof like this post
Isos wrote:That's exactly the launcher they need to put on ships. Even karakurt type ships could hold 32 missiles this way.
And ships don't need the search radar since they have their own radars.
Their small size can allow to put them on unused spaces on the side of the ships. Most VLS are put at the center.
Tor proved to be better than pantsir too.
magnumcromagnon wrote:Isos wrote:That's exactly the launcher they need to put on ships. Even karakurt type ships could hold 32 missiles this way.
And ships don't need the search radar since they have their own radars.
Their small size can allow to put them on unused spaces on the side of the ships. Most VLS are put at the center.
Tor proved to be better than pantsir too.
They both have their strengths and weaknesses, but most importantly it depends on the personnel working behind the machines. A 'drunk driver' can still crash a Rolls Royce.
Isos wrote:They went from S1 to S2 to SM. S1 and S2 were clearly not good for them. SM is yet to be tested in Syria.
Tor had the M1 modernization back in the soviet times and now the M2. And thry use even the M1 greatly.
That suggests Tor is a much better system.
The experience in Syria also showed that Tor was send after they used the pantsir. If pantsir was good enough they wouldn't have used the Tor there.
miketheterrible and nero like this post
They went from S1 to S2 to SM. S1 and S2 were clearly not good for them. SM is yet to be tested in Syria.
medo, kvs, thegopnik and LMFS like this post
medo wrote:Pantsir work perfectly, when used in right way. It have problems with very small drones, but this probles is solved with new air burst munition for its guns.