R-77 (Aka AA-12 Adder) thread

Yes, thats the disadvantage, but the ARM will have a very hard time in doing so because the system will be just moving and would not have to deploy or undeploy constantly.

You can think of this system like the Pantsir S1, fully autonomous, single vehicle and such and does never have to deploy and such to fire.

As for TOR M1, imho its a nice SHORAD, but a system like the Pantsir S1 has a much higher range and ceiling, yet being much cheaper and a single system.

The advantage of having a separate radar, though, is that if the ARM takes it out you only have one component to replace. And the Tor system is a TELAR, and can operate autonomously.

Exactly, but not with seperate radar and TEL(AR)s. Think about it, it would’ve been large obviously, but 1)there would be no need for so many different pieces of equipment, ie in a MSAM, like 1 radar and 2 TELARs when a single larger vehicle could accomodate all 3 in one, with less maintenance issues, less crews, etc, it would’ve been crazy mobile and would not need to deploy at all, making it a lot less vulnerable to ARMs and such. It could’ve been easily deployed for Air Defense of Army.

That’s not a bad idea, it’s kinda like a medium-range equivalent to the Tor (SA-15 GAUNTLET).

BTW SOC what do you think of this idea.

Take a large chassis like the MAZ-543M truck, which is used as a platform for various Russian Ballistic missiles, Smerch MLRS, S300/400 SAM series and etc and put something like TWO MSAM TELs of 12 9M96E missiles and place them on the MAZ-543M truck in the back. These would be placed vertically, would stay that way except when they would be reloading. Then you can place the radar system on the front of the truck, and higher then the TELs so it can comfortably look over it. So you have the radar system, TEL 1 and then TEL 2.

Now whats the advantage of this. You would have everytbing combined in a single vehicle AND on top of all the MAZ-543M chassis is rather large, there would be no need for deploying and the missiles could be fired vertically and the chassis would not have to deploy to fire them. This type of mobility would let it be used by the Army for tactical air defense and in support of armoured columns, and not only this but this type of mobility would ensure greater survivability against ARM type weapons, which would have a hard time targeting and chasing down a vehicle going down the road at some 60km/h and which can eventually turn off it’s radar and then once the threat of ARM is gone it could turn it back on in seconds without having to deploy.

Now I am sure, there would be problems with reloading of missiles and such, but these could be fixed I am sure easily.

Not SAM system, but the mobile radars of course. BTW the Pantsir S1 and Tanguska and few other SHORADS can fire on the move. The Pantsir is a SHORAD but it has a ceiling of 10kms and a range of 20kms.

Which SAM systems can fire on the move, other than MANPADS of course?

Thats true, because they had a rather easy time taking out the radars, today good mobile radars that are always on the move will be very hard to take out.

Buk-M1 can engage HARMs as well as Lance-style TBMs, according to Rosoboronexport.

BTW when it comes to BUK-M2 and such, wouldnt it be just a lot easier if the teh whole radar system was just in one seperate vehicle?

The SA-11 system was a development of the SA-6. After watching the Israelis take out the SA-6’s single radar and then fly in fighter bombers to take out the now defenceless missile launch vehicles they decided that it wasn’t a good idea to have one radar controlling a lot of missiles for that type of SAM. Makes the system much more expensive but also more survivable… if they are linked one radar can direct the missiles and if destroyed the next radar can start directing missiles. It also means that ARMs will have multiple source targets over very short periods of time which may lead them to miss (Though with the SA-17 it can detect and engage HARM type weapons).

Placing the engagement radars on the TELs (and making them TELARs) gives you better coverage, and enhances your engagement capability. If you are running them on different frequencies, and your target jams one of them, you can still blast him with impunity.

Yes, but I am just talking about the launchers. A single MSAM TELAR would have 3 times more missiles and would be easier to service. Therefore a single MSAM battery would require 3 times less launchers for the same number of missiles as a BUK-M2 battery.

BTW when it comes to BUK-M2 and such, wouldnt it be just a lot easier if the teh whole radar system was just in one seperate vehicle?

THe separate radar vehicle for the Buk-M2, if that’s wht you’re referring to, is the acquisition radar. It has nothing to do with missile guidance and doesn’t factor in to the battery’s engagement capability.

Yes, but you’re excluding it’s seperate radar vehicle right? Lets say there are 4 TELARs in each battery. The BUK-M2 system will have 16 ready to launch missiles, while an MSAM battery will have what 48 ready to launch missiles

A single MSAM TELAR will have a similar number of missiles as 3 BUK-M2 TELARs.

So therefore, in a MSAM battery, you could have fewer TELARs than a BUK-M2 battery. A single MSAM battery could consist of a single TELAR of 12 9M96E missiles while a single BUK-M2 battery will have to have 3 TELARS for the same number of missiles.

Much cheaper to buy, and the 10km less range is not such a big deal. It will also be easier to service since you will need fewer TELARs and the MSAM is a VL system. The VL system is little less complex, little better reaction time and such.

One Buk-M2 TELAR has four missiles, and can fire two missiles at one target at a time. Now, if your battery has four TELARs, you can engage four targets with 8 missiles simultaneously.

Yahh I agree, in the future they will put the R-77-PD in service, but for R-77-ZRK they will have to use R-77M which is not gona go into production, this will be rather unconventional.

I think they will eventually pick the MRADS with 9M96E+9M100 or MSAM with only 9M96E. The MRADS configuration with 9M100 only will not be so great, I mean this missile only has 8km range, who’d want to buy it when there are a lot of SHORADS out there. Now, what is the real need in the 9M100 to complement the 9M96E? For destroying UAVs and Cruise missiles? Is there a real need for this since there is a lot of cheaper AAA out there and such. MSAM seems to be the best option, but with 40km range, and some ATBM capability, it’s only a little less capable than the BUK-M2 with 50km range. Though their ceiling is similar, the MSAM will probably be much cheaper considering it’s VL therefore less capable and on top of all of that the MSAM holds 12 ready to launch 9M96E missiles, while the BUK-M2 holds, what 5-6 ready to launch 9M317s?

Okay, so the Russians don’t seem to want the R-77, they’re waiting for the ramjet. Wouldn’t that drive costs up?

Furthermore what’s the envelope that it can engage targets at, the lesser range Mica has a high off-boresight and snap-up/down capabilities, something that exceeds the better range AMRAAM

Imaging IR seeker and control systems designed in the Ukraine.

That will probably stop its service entry into the Russian forces… unless one of the factories making its seeker and control systems is on Russian soil. I had heard that Cyclone institute were working on imaging IR seekers as well… perhaps that will be the source of the IIR seeker for their new IR guided AAMs.

so is the K-30 better than the R-73M2? if so, why?

A full imaging IR seeker, and proper thrust vectoring. The R-73M2 uses metal plates thrust into the rocket exhaust to deflect the thrust… that is only effective for 15 degrees or so in each direction.

The three images he posted are of the MSAM.

I’ve seen that, but the actual launchers and radars vehicles like that of MRADS or MSAM?