Russian Army/Ground Forces Discussion and Updates

[Feanor]

Land Forces SHORAD

I've wanted to put this out for a while but I haven't had time. Currently Land Forces have 3 general types of air defense units.

ORBAT

They have an air defense artillery btln which is 3 batteries of 4 or 6 systems depending on whether they are part of a Land Forces Regiment or Brigade. One battery is AAA, usually Tunguska or Shilka, though in some cases ZU-23-2s are still used. One battery is a completely passive SAM system. Currently it's the Strela-10. One is a MANPADS unit, currently a mix of Igla and Verba.

They have an air-defense missile btln/rgt. While these sound like completely different units, in this case the btln is a 3-battery 4 TELAR per of either Osa or Tor SAMs. The rgt is just one battery bigger. The btln is for brigades, the rgt is for divisions, so 12 TELARs in bdes, 16 TELARs in divisions.

They have an air defense missile brigade which can come in two varieties. Either it's an S-300V (or V4), or it's a Buk-M1/2/3 unit. I'm not completely up to speed on their ORBAT.

News

A whole bunch of things are happening this year with Russian Land Forces SHORAD. The simplest and least contentious part is that Tor-M2 deliveries will continue, with a particularly large contract signed for GPV-2027. With the transition back to the division structure and each division having a single 4-battery regiment of 16 TELARs, it should be possible to practically eliminate the older Osa systems by the end of this GPV.

Russian troops are also getting the Gibka-S. Gibka is an Igla-S MANPADS mount for ships, the Gibka-S is a ground variant. It's a Tigr-M armored car with a 4-MANPADS launcher on the roof. It's unclear where this goes in the ORBAT or even if this is Igla or the newer Verba missile (presumably it can use either one). It might seem like a logical replacement for the Strela-10 but it's not. It's a smaller and shorter range missile, and the replacement planned for the Strela-10 is the Sosna-R, a more comparable system. It's tempting to suppose that the Gibka-S is meant for the VDV, and there are some indications that this might be the case, but the VDV is also getting a Sosna-R variant on a BMD-4 chassis as part of OKR Ptitselov. Another possibility though a troubling one, is that Russia continuing the trend of forming light units, like the 55th Motor-Rifles, where wheeled armored cars/trucks are their primary vehicle, and the Gibka-S is meant for them. But this would mean those units are significantly less capable, and I'm not sure why a Sosna variant can't be mounted on a Tayfun 6X6 MRAP for example. The Belarussians have managed to mount entire Osa SAMs on truck chassis. Final option, they want to replace infantry with MANPADS with vehicles with MANPADS. However, this doesn't fit either because they've also completed development of a Tayfun-PVO MRAP variant specifically meant to transport MANPADS teams, and it's meant to start deliveries in 2022 (technically some have already made it to the troops as part of experimental exploitation). And of course there is a new MANPADS called Metka being developed.

Next we have information of an air defense regiment of Pantsyr systems being created in Hakasiya. Remember the above ORBAT. The only context of air defense regiments that exists within land forces is a 16 TELAR 4 battery division air defense regiment. It's possible this formation is being stood up as part of the VKS air defense forces but they don't normally form regiments of SHORAD in any form. They instead attach a Pantsyr battery to an S-300/400 btln. You might think the Land Forces don't use the Pantsyr and you'd be correct, however.... a Land Forces Pantsyr-SV is being developed to be deployed in 2022. Technically a Pantsyr-SV already exists, and was exported to Algeria some years ago, so this is probably an updated version of it. Given the similar ranges and capabilities of the new Pantsyr-SM and the Tor-M2, it's possible the Land Forces will take to using the Pantsyr in place of the Tor in some units. Of course the timing is rather compressed, I wouldn't be surprised. It's also possible the Pantsyr-SV is taking the place of the Tunguska. However, recall the ORBAT, the AAA battery already has a replacement coming, the 2S38 Derivatsiya.

On a related note, a remote control set up is being developed for Pantsyrs, making it possible for the system to operate from its position, while the crew operates remotely from a concealed entrenchment.

Speculation

So I'm honestly at a loss as to what future Russian SHORAD ORBAT will look like for the Land Forces. It's possible that the Pantsyrs will either mirror the Tors, or will go to air defense brigades to partner with the bigger SAMs. The only real evidence against this is the West-2021 exercises where a Pantsyr system was used as part of regular combined arms mech formations. This suggests that the Pantsyr-SV is likelier to be meant for the air defense artillery btlns to replace Tungskas and Shilkas, except this leaves the Derivatsiya without a job. It's also possible that they will simply add a battery of Pantsyrs to the ORBAT, transitioning to a 4-battery btln, but this is purely speculation. I have no evidence for this.

A separate question on future of MANPADS remains. What is the Gibka-S meant for? I'm fuzzy on the structure of VDV air defense, I know they have MANPADS and ZU-23-2s. Presumably, eventually, they would get a 2S38 on a BMD-4 chassis. They also have regiments of Strela-10 systems at the division level (I don't think every division has one). Those would get replaced by the Sosna-R. So again on obvious slot for the Gibka. I suspect it getting used by some "light" motor-rifles units is the likeliest scenario.

"Тор" уместен: юг России прикрыли зенитными роботами-автоматами // АвиаПорт.Новости

Зенитные комплексы "Тор-М2" поступили на вооружение 20-й мотострелковой дивизии в Волгограде

www.aviaport.ru

Российская армия получит мобильные ракетные установки "Гибка-С"

Российские военные в 2022 году получат первые мобильные зенитно-ракетные комплексы "Гибка-С" сверхмалой дальности, передает РИА Новости со ссылкой на... Радио Sputnik, 06.01.2022

radiosputnik.ria.ru

VK.com | VK

vk.com

VK.com | VK

vk.com

VK.com | VK

vk.com

В 2022 году впервые поступят в войска комплекты ЗРК малой дальности "Гибка-С"

Взводные комплекты мобильного зенитного ракетного комплекса (ЗРК) противовоздушной обороны (ПВО) сверхмалой дальности

www.aex.ru

VK.com | VK

vk.com

Комплексы ПВО "Гибка-С" поступят в войска в 2022 году

В части ПВО в 2022 году впервые поступят комплекты боевых машин "Гибка-С". Они позволят вести круглосуточное дежурство по ПВО и управлять огнем в режиме реального времени

rg.ru

Небо над войсками надёжно защищено — "Красная звезда"

redstar.ru

В 2022 году завершатся работы над комплексом "Панцирь-СМ-СВ" с увеличенной зоной поражения

Комплекс будет иметь два типа зенитных управляемых ракет

tass.ru

В России испытывают "умные" снаряды для новейшего комплекса "Деривация-ПВО"

gurkhan.blogspot.com

 

[STURM]

One battery is a completely passive SAM system.

What do you mean by 'passive' in this context?

Gibka is an Igla-S MANPADS mount for ships

Isn't Verba intended to totally replace Igla in the coming years?

Igla slated to be phased out in the coming years; replaced by a new generation system?

and the Tor-M2

To the best of your knowledge is Tor the only system which can be fired on the move?

You might think the Land Forces don't use the Pantsyr and you'd be correct.

Sorry; so its operated by AD units but not by Land Forces per see?

instead attach a Pantsyr battery to an S-300/400 btln.

So it's attached but not organic to S-300/400 battalions? I was under the mistaken impression that S-300/400 battalion had Pantsirs or Tors which were organic to it; in addition to MANPADS.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

What do you mean by 'passive' in this context?

Passive systems are those that do not emit anything, making them immune to SIGINT tools and it gives them an inherent advantage in multiple stages of engagement. They are, however, short ranged.

For example, a system that instead of using a radar, uses optics.

Optics are passive because there are many sources of light (more like the sun reflecting on everything to some calculated extent) and so it doesn't need to emit anything.
Under the same principle, passive radars also exist - they rely on either an external emitter that bounces off the target and into the radar (called bistatic radar), or they try to analyze emissions from the target.
The latter is used in ELINT systems, analyzing a hostile emission and discovering things about it like its location and content of emission, but some commercial products have pitched the concept as a radar by itself. Not very reliable if the enemy goes radio-silent though.

 

[STURM]

Passive systems are those that do not emit anything, making them immune to SIGINT tools and it gives them an inherent advantage in multiple stages of engagement. They are, however, short ranged.

Yes but I was wondering what a 'passive; SAM system was.

or example, a system that instead of using a radar, uses optics.

A SAM system might be able to detect a target passively; either via optics or a radar feed linked from another sensor but the actual missile would either be radar, IR or laser guided.

The latter is used in ELINT systems, analyzing a hostile emission and discovering things about it like its location and content of emission

Like Kolchuga and VERA.

https://www.defenceiq.com/defence-technology/articles/passive-radar-technology-and-next-generation-air-defence-technology-interview-with-era

Ukrainian EW Radar Helped Israel Destroy Iranian Pantsir Air Defence in Syria

A Ukrainian-made Kolchuga-M passive radar system helped Israel locate and destroy Russian Pantsir air defence system deployed by Iran in Syria. The targeted defensive systems included Tor surface-to-air missile system, a Pantsir-S surface-to-air missile systems, an S-75 surface-to-air missile...

www.defenseworld.net

Not very reliable if the enemy goes radio-silent though

Passive surveillance or ELINT would be able to detect radios as well as data link; GPS, TACAN and SATCOM emissions if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Yes but I was wondering what a 'passive; SAM system was.

Feanor referred to the Strela-10, which has passive detection and guidance. Its missiles are optically guided.
They will be replaced, IIRC, by Derivatsiya which has a 57mm gun, which retains this fully passive operation.

Like Kolchuga and VERA

That story about Kolchuga might be false. Israel's Elta is a world leader in RF technology, it has products that fulfill the same role as the Kolchuga but more modern and with more modes of operation. Actually it has multiple such products, as we've discussed how today's radio systems can be very flexible and in a small package.
It also recently debuted the Scorpius family which is supposed to have a substantial advantage over legacy systems due to new tech introduced in its production (new gen transistors, and new gen amplifiers).

Knowing what it operates, Israel really doesn't need to buy from abroad, especially from Ukraine, if the goal is to employ the system in combat.

We do know, however, that Ukraine has been selling in the last few years, single samples of radars and RF systems to the US.
The highest probability is that they are bought to be studied due to their proximity in design to Soviet and Russian systems.
There have been unverified reports Iran acquired this system many years ago, when Ukraine was still Russia-oriented.

Such systems, as well as Soviet air defenses like the S-300 in Greece, are used for training, as close to a real scenario as possible.

Passive surveillance or ELINT would be able to detect radios as well as data link; GPS, TACAN and SATCOM emissions if I'm not mistaken.

Anything that emits an electromagnetic signal.

 

[Feanor]

Yes but I was wondering what a 'passive; SAM system was.

Feanor referred to the Strela-10, which has passive detection and guidance. Its missiles are optically guided.
They will be replaced, IIRC, by Derivatsiya which has a 57mm gun, which retains this fully passive operation.

Yes and no. The current iteration uses the Strela-10, the next one will be the Sosna. With the Derivatsiya things remain murky. In theory it replaces ZU-23-2s, ZSU-23-4s (if any are still used) and the 2S6.

Isn't Verba intended to totally replace Igla in the coming years?

Igla slated to be phased out in the coming years; replaced by a new generation system?

I believe the Verba missile can be used from an Igla launcher. It's also been getting purchased for some time now. Another new MANPADS is being developed, the Metka.

To the best of your knowledge is Tor the only system which can be fired on the move?

I think the Pantsyr can be as well, and possibly the Sosna.

Sorry; so its operated by AD units but not by Land Forces per see?

Currently yes. Russian GBAD units come in two main varieties. There's the PVO SV, land forces air defense, and the PVO VKS, which the air defense that's under the air force umbrella. The PVO VKS uses S-300PM/S-400/S-350 and Pantsyrs as companion SHORAD. The PVO SV for it's larger formations uses S-300V4 and Buk-M1/2/3, currently with no companion SHORAD. It would be very logical that the Pantsyr-SV is going to those units, but in the West-2021 exercises it was used as a front-line air defense system for mechanized formations.

So it's attached but not organic to S-300/400 battalions? I was under the mistaken impression that S-300/400 battalion had Pantsirs or Tors which were organic to it; in addition to MANPADS.

I'm fuzzy on this. I believe an Pantsyr battery work with every S-300/400 btln (well, eventually every). However whether it's a Pantsyr btln part of the regiment, and the batteries are parcelled out, or an organic battery in each btln I'm unclear.

 

[STURM]

Looking at the Derivatsiya and the Stryker SHORAD variant it's interesting to see the different approach both armies have taken. The Russians have gone for a 57mm gun [I'm assuming the extra range the calibre provides was a reason] whilst the Americans have gone for a 30mm supplemented by Hellfires and Stingers to enable different targets to be hit under different operational circumstances.

 

[Feanor]

Looking at the Derivatsiya and the Stryker SHORAD variant it's interesting to see the different approach both armies have taken. The Russians have gone for a 57mm gun [I'm assuming the extra range the calibre provides was a reason] whilst the Americans have gone for a 30mm supplemented by Hellfires and Stingers to enable different targets to be hit under different operational circumstances.

Remember, Russia deploys two btlns of air defense to each brigade. So Russia has missile systems guide passively, missile systems guided actively, gun systems, MANAPDS, etc. 4 different systems just at the brigade-division level. The US has far fewer systems and hasn't worked on SHORAD for a while, so they're working with the munitions they have and are having to squeeze every option on the only platform. The US also has a very different threat profile to deal with.

 

[STURM]

In your opinion what was the main driver behind the longstanding Soviet/Russian practice of having a very extensive ground based AD network? Was it due to the early realisation that in the event of a war with NATO that NATO would initially have air superiority and that ground attack aircraft would be a major problem? Or could it have been due to experiences in WW2 where despite Soviet superiority in numbers and other areas; Luftwaffe aircraft were able to operate quite effectively [despite lacking in numbers and fuel] right up to the closing days of the war? I suspect it's a combination of both; in addition to seeing how effectively the Allies deployed tactical and strategic air power.

 

[STURM]

The US has far fewer systems and hasn't worked on SHORAD for a while

You raised a good point. For quite a long period the U.S. had Hawks, Chaparral, Vulcan and Redeye/Stinger; joined by Patriot later on. In contrast the Soviets had a much more extensive and wider range of AD systems which were distributed in a manner in which U.S. system weren't.

The US also has a very different threat profile to deal with.

Yes that is something I didn't take into account. The U.S. takes it for granted that it will always have air superiority if not outright supremacy in any war it's involved in. The Soviets/Russians were realistic in that taking into account that a war with NATO would see NATO airpower enjoying the initial advantage and that it would take a while for friendly air power to gain the initiative.

 

[Feanor]

Russian and Belarusian military is gearing up for network-centric warfare, connecting a range of weapon platforms and soldiers with a device.

The unified tactical control system, developed by the state-backed Sozvezdie concern, creates a single information network, enabling data exchange between different components of the military in near real-time. It allows the command to receive “maximum information about the battlefield as a whole and about the state of individual combat units.”

The kit “combine the command of the formation, reconnaissance equipment, armored vehicles, artillery, air defense systems, drones, as well as personnel units in the reconnaissance and strike system.”

The military has equipped the Vistula division with the system, putting it on a range of platforms such as the T-14 Armata and T-90M tanks, MSTA-C self-propelled artillery, the Tosochka flame-thrower, and Orlan drones.

Various communication vehicles and mobile command posts, including the Tor and Buk-M3 anti-aircraft missile systems, have also been equipped with it.

Hi Petergoldenberg. Welcome to Defence Talk. I've moved your post to the appropriate forum thread.

 

[STURM]

Feanor,

Would I be right in assuming that most
T-72s and T-90s are still fitted with Kontakt-5? If so how effective do you think Kontskt-5 is against the likes of Javelin and MBT LAW?

From footage shown on various news outlets the impression one gets is that the bulk of Russian MBTs are still lacking a APS. Is this due to financial or other reasons?

After decades of relying largely on ERA modules as the primary means to defend MBTs [together with smoke discharges and stuff like Shtora] the Russians have adopted a whole new approach with the Armata which relies less on ERA modules and more on appliique/ceramic armour supplemented by a APS. Is this driven by the realisation that ERA modules are unable to deal with future threats and the vehicle itself requires a higher level of armoured protection?

 

[Feanor]

Feanor,

Would I be right in assuming that most
T-72s and T-90s are still fitted with Kontakt-5? If so how effective do you think Kontskt-5 is against the likes of Javelin and MBT LAW?

I honestly have no idea. And keep in mind these are top attack munitions. Roof ERA coverage isn't great for either type. On a side note I have seen claims that the side skirts armor and rear turret ERA on the B3M and T-90M is actually Relikt. The T-80BVM definitely has Relikt (visually distinct). I would consider the roof slat umbrellas Russia has built for its tanks as a good indicator of what Russian planners think. They don't think the ERA is enough.

From footage shown on various news outlets the impression one gets is that the bulk of Russian MBTs are still lacking a APS. Is this due to financial or other reasons?

Likely a combination of financial and technical reasons. A T-72B3M with Arena-M is undergoing trials, so it's likely that whatever the next T-72 iteration is, it will have an APS.

After decades of relying largely on ERA modules as the primary means to defend MBTs [together with smoke discharges and stuff like Shtora] the Russians have adopted a whole new approach with the Armata which relies less on ERA modules and more on appliique/ceramic armour supplemented by a APS. Is this driven by the realisation that ERA modules are unable to deal with future threats and the vehicle itself requires a higher level of armoured protection?

The T-14 has plenty of ERA on the hull, and the T-15 has even more. I think the differences can be accounted for by the drastically different tank layout.

 

[danonz]

I have seen photos of t72's with make shift roof (armor) to help mitigate the damage from the top attack missiles looks like they are cheap and simple way to provide some protection by forcing the warhead to detonate above the turret.

Russian T-72B3 finally protected from the Javelin and Spike ATGMs hitting the roof"

Last week, a photo report appeared on the website of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation from the Kadamovsky training ground (Rostov Region), where shooting was carried out with the participation of commanders of combined-arms units of the Southern Military District....

vpk.name

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Would I be right in assuming that most
T-72s and T-90s are still fitted with Kontakt-5? If so how effective do you think Kontskt-5 is against the likes of Javelin and MBT LAW?

They are mostly fitted with Kontakt 5 and a minority with Relikt. But even Relikt is a decades old design.
They are not going to be effective against a Javelin's tandem warhead, and the NLAW's warhead is a bit of a mystery to me but is claimed to be able to deal with ERA. Russia still uses a single layer of ERA on its tanks' top section, so they are vulnerable to modern missiles.

From footage shown on various news outlets the impression one gets is that the bulk of Russian MBTs are still lacking a APS. Is this due to financial or other reasons?

Not only financial, but also technological.
If we look at other APS designs, like the AMAP ADS, Iron Fist etc, they are all decades of work in, and no operational status yet.
We can see Russia is abandoning, financially and practically, its Armata, Kurganets, and Bumerang families of AFVs, for now at least, and prioritizes "modernization" of its older equipment. An APS is definitely an item that's up there as a high end solution, which would be atypical for Russia to finance considering much of its modernized equipment does not even really meet current criteria for being classified as modern. Very old BMPs for example will only get refurbished and very light modifications.
This means Russia perceives readiness rates and sustainability as more important than the share of modern equipment at the moment.

After decades of relying largely on ERA modules as the primary means to defend MBTs [together with smoke discharges and stuff like Shtora] the Russians have adopted a whole new approach with the Armata which relies less on ERA modules and more on appliique/ceramic armour supplemented by a APS. Is this driven by the realisation that ERA modules are unable to deal with future threats and the vehicle itself requires a higher level of armoured protection?

All AFVs today that use more than just sheets of steel or ceramic, are using some form of reactive armor.
ERA is on one end of the spectrum - very high effect per hit, but can only take one hit.
The other hand of the spectrum is NERA - low effect per hit but can take many hits.
One is filled with explosives, the other with rubber. Both rely on having two plates sandwich some reactive material that will move these plates to more actively defeat a projectile.

Today we have SLERA and NxRA as intermediate terms, and even with them it's very much insufficient. So many different approaches. ERA certainly has not been made obsolete. If anything, it was revitalized by advances in insensitive munitions technology.

 

[Soldier25]

"Tor-M2" is a representative of a new generation of short-range air defense systems. Thanks to the improved arsenal, the complex is able to cover a front-line strip with a length of 20 km from the enemy's means of attack. The SAM works on the third line of defense. The first frontier is the area of responsibility of the S—300 and S-400 systems, the range of which exceeds 100 km. Buk complexes capable of hitting targets at a range of 50-70 km are operating at the middle boundary. The targets that break through this boundary are in the range of our short-range Tor-M2 complexes. The Tor-M2 air defense system is capable of capturing and destroying a target, even if it came within a distance of 1 km. The complex is equipped with 16 9M338 missiles and underwent a successful baptism of fire in Syria, destroying more than 45 drones. In 2020, it was reported that a small-sized, cheap missile for the Tor-M2 air defense system, designed to combat drones, was being created.

MOD: This post reads oddly and does not meet the quality standards of Defencetalk. Spam promoting a youtube channel or website is not tolerated. Please use a variety of sources. Usually a post includes some valuation or view and either is a reply to another user or a question to other users. Warning given.

 

[swerve]

I have seen photos of t72's with make shift roof (armor) to help mitigate the damage from the top attack missiles looks like they are cheap and simple way to provide some protection by forcing the warhead to detonate above the turret.

Russian T-72B3 finally protected from the Javelin and Spike ATGMs hitting the roof"

Last week, a photo report appeared on the website of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation from the Kadamovsky training ground (Rostov Region), where shooting was carried out with the participation of commanders of combined-arms units of the Southern Military District....

vpk.name

View attachment 48933

Reports of tests by Ukrainians suggest that they're ineffective against NLAW & Javelin.

 

[STURM]

Russian ultra predictable movement routes enable Ukrainians to very easily ambush them

I would assume that at times Russian routes are predictable because there are only so many roads available; making easier for the Ukraniains to plan ambushes.

Syria saw the use of many ATGM types, many of whom without a tandem warhead

The only tandem warhead systems there I can think of is TOW2, Korner and Konkurs.

Even with proper kit, all tanks would be vulnerable to even decades old ATGMs on their sides.

That's what I thought; not just Soviet era designed ones.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

That's what I thought; not just Soviet era designed ones.

Of course. But Soviet tanks have horrible post-penetration protection. Situations where 1-2 crewmen would be killed in a western tank, turn into a catastrophic kill of all crewmen and probably anyone close enough nearby, in a Soviet tank.

 

[STURM]

Of course. But Soviet tanks have horrible post-penetration protection. Situations where 1-2 crewmen would be killed in a western tank, turn into a catastrophic kill of all crewmen and probably anyone close enough nearby, in a Soviet tank.

Largely due to unprotected ammo and charges stored in the turret and hull; as well as a low baseline protection level. The Armata I believe is intended to rectify various shortcomings; for one it has a bustle loader and if I'm not mistaken ammo and charges aren't placed unprotected.