Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Bronezhilet

Anti-air thread: Everything that goes up must come down, and we'll help you go down

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Compare those Pantsirs and Tor system on tracked and wheeled chassis:

jm7lY.jpg

   Not much different in height, unlike Pantsir vs Tunguska.

Should be the opposite. For a system like Tor, height shouldn't matter because of its longer range.

But then you can argue there is no place for Tor when you have the Pantsir, or vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Should be the opposite. For a system like Tor, height shouldn't matter because of its longer range.

But then you can argue there is no place for Tor when you have the Pantsir, or vice versa.

   My point was how badly wheeled Pantsir chassis was designed and i used wheeled version of Tor vs tracked Tor as an example that AA system can be done in ~similar sizes between tracked and wheeled versions. I wasn't arguing about why both systems exists or that one of then should be pushed out of service, which would be another topic requiring detailed knowledge of systems that i don't have.

   Also, height matter for Tor as much as for Pantsir - you need to fit those things into railroad system and into cargo plains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   My point was how badly wheeled Pantsir chassis was designed and i used wheeled version of Tor vs tracked Tor as an example that AA system can be done in ~similar sizes between tracked and wheeled versions. I wasn't arguing about why both systems exists or that one of then should be pushed out of service, which would be another topic requiring detailed knowledge of systems that i don't have.

   Also, height matter for Tor as much as for Pantsir - you need to fit those things into railroad system and into cargo plains.

Then I beg to differ. One of the Pantsir's key strengths over the Tunguska is the ability to leverage easily manufactured and abundant vehicles, perfect for attrition. 

No need to design from scratch a new vehicle for every little thing.

 

On transportability I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Then I beg to differ. One of the Pantsir's key strengths over the Tunguska is the ability to leverage easily manufactured and abundant vehicles, perfect for attrition. 

No need to design from scratch a new vehicle for every little thing.

 

On transportability I agree.

   Pantsir chassis is a mess of big amount of parts from all around the world, supply of which could be cut with sanctions. It is not "easily" manifactured as a lot of those parts we can't produce on our own with same characteristics and "production" of that chassis could be easily compromised by bunch of politicians outside of Russia. 

 

Quote

/.../

   Transmission is ZF (used in German military trucks by MAN and in Boxer APC), electronic "brains" of automatic transmission - Bosch, with "Made in Germany" inscription visible. Moreover, this model (KAMAZ-6560) have axles by Madara (Bulgarian company) and parts by German-Austrian ZF Steyr. 

 

   Also, kek

Quote

   One moment was nervous. Since the drive is full (8x8), the author moved from the road of concrete slabs directly on the field - frozen and with small clumps. But the instructor was nervous, "Look, don't get the wheel in the hole." It turned out that driver should be very careful because the center of gravity, if you do not calculate it right, you can roll over.

 

   Having learned that the author work for the motoring/cars magazine, "anti-aircrafters" themselves invited him to take pictures with the camera of the "shoals" [this is how we call fuck ups] of the KamAZ chassis.

   Firstly, in the front wheel arch - exposed tubes and other elements of the pneumatic system, which are collecting flying stones and dirt.

   Secondly, even earlier in the article about the author experiences with prototype of the KAMAZ-6560 he spoke about the fact that the wheels air pump tubes are almost touching the rear wheels, in serial KAMAZ-6560 these tubes are in a metal covers, but they don't just "almost touch", now they clearly do touch rear tires.

 

   KamAZ-6560 have another serious problem, which was discovered by accident. This problem exist on KamAZ-6560, 65224, 65221, 65222, with Madara-supplied axles, and during the operation of vehicles with them a significant number of complaints received - in 2014 and 2013, 45 and 74, respectively. Earlier, it was decided to organize the production of our own design of axles, and the estimated production volume was 16 thousand units per year, the beginning of the installation of equipment - third quarter of 2017. The project cost 1.7 billion rubles, the subsidy (from the Industrial Development Fund) - 228 million rubles. But, apparently, money were not given.
 
   However, for the production of 12-liter engines of the Liebherr design KamAZ need even more - 5 billion rubles, of which the grant was given - 1 billion rubles. Prospective KamAZ-6560M Tornado is planned to be equipped with those engines, as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Then I beg to differ. One of the Pantsir's key strengths over the Tunguska is the ability to leverage easily manufactured and abundant vehicles, perfect for attrition. 

No need to design from scratch a new vehicle for every little thing.

 

On transportability I agree.

 

How is producing a large truck a limiting factor in replacing an advanced AA system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Pantsir chassis is a mess of big amount of parts from all around the world, supply of which could be cut with sanctions. It is not "easily" manifactured as a lot of those parts we can't produce on our own with same characteristics and "production" of that chassis could be easily compromised by bunch of politicians outside of Russia.

 

That truck shouldn't even be considered a hinder of any sorts, even considering the supply chain.

 

Glonass-K balancing between cancelling and further production IMHO is a bigger problem than a truck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Pascal said:

 

That truck shouldn't even be considered a hinder of any sorts, even considering the supply chain.

 

Glonass-K balancing between cancelling and further production IMHO is a bigger problem than a truck.

   Glonass is not a problem, project is too big to be left without any substitute. That truck is a bigger problem as it is overlooked and KamAZ have pretty good lobby, kek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Xlucine said:

 

How is producing a large truck a limiting factor in replacing an advanced AA system?

Valid question. I also thought about it - the mission control computers themselves are more complex than the truck. 

And yet, when the unit is deployed, the largest logistical footprint is left by the platform itself, closely trailed by munitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote

   At the Sary-Shagan test site (Republic of Kazakhstan), the combat crew of the air defense and anti-missile defense forces of the VKS successfully conducted a new test launch of the Russian missile defense system.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   Apperently Derivatsiya AA system is already on the way to export markets, in this particular example from UVZ annual report - for naval use.

Quote

/.../

   With the use of the scientific and technical reserve of the R&D "Derivatsiya-PVO" a 57-mm ship-mounted artillery gun was developed. Two of its samples are being manufactured for delivery in 2019 as part of an export contract.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Bundeswehr's Flickr.

 

pvyQlZD.jpg

dHlQQf7.jpg

9HuFNWe.jpg

 

 
Quote

Weapons carrier Ozelot of the anti-aircraft missile group 61 during the practice shooting at the rocket shooting range Ustka in the framework of the multinational exercise TOBRUQ LEGACY 2019 in Poland, on 18.06.2019.

© Bundeswehr / Alexander Feja

Quote
The reconnaissance, command and fire-fighting vehicle (AFF) of the anti-aircraft missile group 61 is deployed at the Ustka rocket shooting range in the framework of the multinational TOBRUQ LEGACY 2019 in Poland, on 08.06.2019.

© Bundeswehr / Christian Timmig
Quote

Weapon carrier Ozelot of the anti-aircraft missile group 61 is at the training shooting on the rocket shooting range Ustka in fire position in the framework of the multinational exercise TOBRUQ LEGACY 2019 in Poland, on 12.06.2019.

© Bundeswehr / Christian Timmig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.army.mil/article/224074/army_rebuilding_short_range_air_defense

Quote

A total of 72 Avengers were pulled out of mothballs last year from Letterkenny Army Depot in Pennsylvania, Holler said. Half are now with the 5-4 ADA and the others are ready for issue at a pre-positioned equipment depot in Germany.

Quote

The plan is to eventually have 10 SHORAD battalions again to defend maneuver units and other critical assets within each of the Army's divisions, Holler said. These will be stood up incrementally over time, he explained, with the next four between now and 2024.

Eventually these battalions will upgrade from Avengers to the new Maneuver SHORADs on a Stryker platform with two hellfire missiles, a 30mm chain gun, a 7.62 machine gun and four Stinger missiles. The first M-SHORAD prototypes are expected to roll off the assembly line in late July.

The Army is also planning to stand up Indirect Fire Protection Capability, or IFPC units, in both the active component and National Guard to defend fixed and semi-fixed assets at corps and division-level, Holler said.

These battalions, currently fielded with the Land-based Phalanx Weapons System, or LPWS, used to counter rockets, artillery and mortars -- also known as the C-RAM system -- will eventually transition to a new IFPC capability as well, he said.

Quote

The Avengers have multiple optics, range-finders and a forward-looking infrared receiver or FLIR monitor. It's difficult to see some of the smaller drones with the naked eye, Cook said, whereas radars can pick them up and direct the Avenger turret to lock onto them.

When the Avengers were pulled out of depot storage last year, some were modified with a new "Slew-to-Cue" Avenger Targeting Console. This enables the turret to automatically turn and lock onto targets provided by remote radars, Cook said.

The remainder of the Avengers that didn't get Slew-to-Cue last year will receive it as part of an ongoing two-phase Modification Service Life Extension Program known as SLEP, said Holler. All Avenger consoles should be upgraded by the end of September 2020, he said.

The second phase of the SLEP upgrade includes installation of a Mode 5 Identification Friend or Foe, a new fire-control computer, and converting analog communications equipment in the Avengers to digital communications. It also includes a new air-conditioning and heating unit and a new .50-caliber machine gun. The Phase II upgrades are scheduled to begin in the 4th quarter of FY 2020 and continue through FY 2023, Holler said.

In addition to Avenger upgrades, proximity fuses are being installed in some of the Stinger missiles, Holler said. Stingers with proximity-fuse warheads will have greater lethality against small drones and unmanned aerial vehicles, he explained.

eI3YEDX.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5332063_5e1864eb6bac52946db6649084dd2920.jpg

   Probably the worst kind of weapon sale we had in last years. NATO member with jihadists-supporting political establishment got our most advanced long range AA/SAM system that is in active service. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 4:25 PM, LoooSeR said:

 Probably the worst kind of weapon sale we had in last years. NATO member with jihadists-supporting political establishment got our most advanced long range AA/SAM system that is in active service. 

The situation might not be that bad. I talked to some knowledgeable guys on a local forum who said that this is not the same system as the one in service with V-PVO. Software may be degraded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

The situation might not be that bad. I talked to some knowledgeable guys on a local forum who said that this is not the same system as the one in service with V-PVO. Software may be degraded.

   Still, nothing good about it other than some additonal cash. 

 

   Rumored to be emblem of this unit.

z2uko5i.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the system , sale is a master stroke . Prying away from NATO one its strongest members , doesn't matter if things pan out ,but sure is one heck of a wrench thrown into the Nato machine inards. At the same time it will weaken not only NATO but Turkey as well as its own partners will start sanctioning it. If Russia is smart it will harnes some of the Turk tech as in some fields they are quite advanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...