How optimal is the use of Tor and Gibka air defense systems against FPV drones of the Ukrainian Armed Forces?

25

The losses suffered by Russian troops from cheap Ukrainian kamikaze drones forced the Russian Ministry of Defense to come to grips with the issue of covering assault troops from entire swarms of enemy attack UAVs. But how good is the choice of antidote?

We are forced to talk about the problem Ukrainian FPV drones turned into strike drones pose for our troops with unenviable regularity. A compact high-speed quadcopter costing 50 thousand rubles with a homemade warhead installed on it can burn a tank worth several million dollars, at the same time killing its crew. Something needs to be done about this urgently.



Rocket shield


Today, almost every platoon of the Armed Forces of Ukraine has created squads of “kamikaze” drone operators, who use them in real mass and at the system level. On our side, the need for constant assaults on enemy fortified areas led to the evolution of assault groups into specialized reconnaissance and assault brigades. The most experienced and motivated fighters are forced to move forward, supported by artillery fire, tanks and their own attack UAVs.

And so, to protect them from air attacks from numerous FPV drones, the Ukrainian Armed Forces decided to use the Tor and Gibka anti-aircraft missile systems. What are they?

Thor is a short-range anti-aircraft missile system for solving air defense and missile defense tasks at the divisional level. It can shoot down cruise and anti-radar missiles, planes and helicopters, glide bombs, and unmanned aerial vehicles. The ammunition load consists of 8 anti-aircraft missiles.


"Tor-M2" is a modern modification of "Tor-M". An important feature of this air defense system is the ability to fire on the march, that is, it is truly capable of covering an advancing column of armored vehicles on the move. The complex is built on a tracked chassis and has high maneuverability. Ammunition increased to 16 anti-aircraft missiles with improved tacticaltechnical characteristics.

The second anti-aircraft complex “Gibka”, which, apparently, means “Gibka-S”, is an “infantry” version of the ship-based air defense system “Gibka”, used on some BODs and MRKs. They installed it on an all-terrain Tiger armored vehicle.


The 1L122 “Garmon” airborne radar carries out 40-degree monitoring of the airspace and provides automatic target tracking, which allows the air defense system to detect a target at a distance of up to 6 kilometers. Air targets are hit using standard Verba and Igla-S MANPADS ammunition at a distance of up to XNUMX kilometers.

In general, these air defense systems can really cover the assault troops of the Russian Armed Forces during an offensive or on the march. Just how rational is it to use such expensive anti-aircraft missiles against FPV drones of the Armed Forces of Ukraine costing 50 thousand rubles apiece?

Economy the war will no longer go in our favor when we depleted Ukrainian air defense with attacks from low-budget “kamikaze” drones of the “Geranium” type. And the next logical question arises: what to do when the ammunition load of these anti-aircraft missiles is exhausted, and in the conditions of massive attacks by enemy strike drones this will happen very quickly?

From guns at "sparrows"?


It seems that it would be more rational to rely on various anti-aircraft artillery and anti-aircraft missile and gun systems, more suitable for providing air defense against entire swarms of FPV drones. For example, the front is in dire need of a promising anti-aircraft complex "Derivation-PVO" , created on the basis of the BMP-3.


The ZU-23AE anti-aircraft self-propelled gun, created on the basis of the BTR-82 armored personnel carrier, with a module of two twin 23-mm guns with enlarged magazines, would also find use.


It seems advisable to modernize obsolete equipment such as the BMP-1 by installing on it a remotely controlled combat module 32V01 or BM-30-D, also known as Spitsa, armed with a 30-mm 2A42 automatic cannon with 300 rounds of ammunition, coaxial with a PKTM machine gun with no ammunition. less than 1000 rounds. This module allows you to observe, search and attack ground or air targets at a distance of up to 1-2 km.


Such light armored vehicles can be used to combat enemy UAVs and to suppress ground targets with dense fire during assault operations.

The need to cover columns on the march and assault operations raises the question of the feasibility of modernizing the 2K22M Tunguska-M1 air defense missile system. This complex is equipped with two anti-aircraft guns and eight anti-aircraft missiles, has excellent maneuverability and is capable of firing while moving.


If equipped with a modern target designation system for high-speed UAVs, and also rearmed with mini-missiles that have already been developed for the Pantsir, the Tunguska is just what the doctor ordered against Ukrainian FPV drones and for providing fire support to our attack aircraft.
25 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. prior
    prior
    +2
    3 February 2024 11: 31
    The situation with Covid-19 is exactly the same at the front. Only a small drone plays the role of a microscopic virus.
    He put all the venerable “professors” and doctors on their ears. The epidemic is spreading at amazing speed.
    So maybe appropriate methods should be taken against the “drone epidemic”?
    I hope you haven't forgotten?
    Firstly, isolation. Isolation of the country of Ukraine from the import of spare parts for the manufacture of UAVs. And these are bridges, roads, airports and seaports.
    Secondly, mask mode. Declaring a terrorist's country a terrorist country. And all those who help her are accomplices of terrorism using appropriate “medicinal” drugs.
    Thirdly, intensive “treatment” of patients. The heads of the terrorist state must be destroyed. For each patient there is a mask. Let the rest wear it for preventive purposes.
    And then everything follows the medical method of combating a viral epidemic....
    Serious diseases are treated with serious medications, sometimes even very radioactive ones.
    If you don’t take serious measures to combat the pandemic, don’t complain about the possible dire consequences.
    Nothing and no one can be cured here with words.
    1. strange guest
      strange guest
      +1
      3 February 2024 13: 03
      All your points are impossible. If it were different, these solutions would have been used long ago. That's why it goes as it goes. The only way out of what is happening is mass mobilization and complete victory within the framework of the Northern Military District. Without any terrorist countries and their accomplices, as well as attacks on the leadership. No one will let you do this. And even worse - accomplices may begin to help for real, and not with all sorts of junk as part of recycling. We don’t need this from the word at all.
    2. horseradish
      horseradish
      0
      4 February 2024 16: 19
      Indeed, pitting expensive vehicles with crews of 3-4 people against a cheap drone. So we will have to carry out another mobilization. The entire scientific world needs to be given the task of developing backpack electronic warfare with an appropriate reward for successful development.
  2. Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev
    +1
    3 February 2024 12: 18
    Fantasies - fantasies.
    The problem is that there are a lot of cheap UAVs. Developed countries are churning out a lot of them. But air defense is not enough. And each car also costs millions. They will approach the LBS - they will hunt them too, and the 5th-10th will break through.
    For example, our Ministry of Defense does not say how many of ours are breaking through, but hints that it is much more than 50%.

    And there are a lot of “contractors”. There was a video in the media of someone being shot down with a club, a shotgun, etc.
    What, they don’t know that they need to be covered? know for sure. But they can’t see it.
    This means that until a cheap UAV is countered by everyone’s cheap air defense, things won’t go well.
  3. kriten
    kriten
    0
    3 February 2024 12: 22
    A sea of ​​stories about what exists, but is expensive, what we would like, but... And who will answer the question when fighters will receive means of effective protection from these drones instead of demagoguery??
  4. strange guest
    strange guest
    +4
    3 February 2024 12: 59
    Given the light armor, the crews of these expensive air defense vehicles are simply suicide bombers in the event of an attack by a swarm of drones.
  5. Beidodir
    Beidodir
    +1
    3 February 2024 13: 45
    Quote: Strange guest
    Given the light armor, the crews of these expensive air defense vehicles are simply suicide bombers in the event of an attack by a swarm of drones.

    Did the heavy armor of the tanks near Novomikhailovka help them? What kind of crazy counter-argument is this?
    Only a specialized mobile anti-drone air defense system gives a realistic chance. survive and complete the combat mission.
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. faiver
    faiver
    +2
    3 February 2024 14: 19
    The author in the article listed modern, technically complex, respectively expensive, weapon systems; on the contrary, I would consider simpler options. The same quadruple machine guns on trucks as fire weapons with control centers and detection of ftp drones.
    It’s easier, faster, cheaper, we have 7.62 rounds of ammunition, as well as Kalashnikov or Goryunov machine guns...
    Use the same Pokemon as a base
    1. faiver
      faiver
      0
      3 February 2024 15: 08
      By the way, the ZPU-4 may be lying around somewhere, the thousand one is different, although the caliber is large, but it’s a ready-made fire solution...
    2. Alexey Lan
      Alexey Lan
      0
      3 February 2024 15: 16
      Surely the Ministry of Defense together with the military-industrial complex are solving this problem. A simple solution to shoot down is manual aiming, with anything. One commander I know is fighting with a 2-barreled ZUshka mounted on a truck. Drones were shot down with both hand-held electronic warfare and anti-aircraft guns. If we do it manually, then it would probably be better for drones to have something like a 4-barreled heavy machine gun, which obviously hits further than 7.62. And it would be better, of course, a small-caliber rapid-fire gun with automatic guidance, with programmed detonation of shells, with the possibility of network interaction. It's hard to say what we have. It looks like there may not be shells with automatic programmable detonation.
      1. faiver
        faiver
        0
        3 February 2024 15: 37
        If we do it manually, then it would probably be better for drones to have something like a 4-barreled heavy machine gun, which obviously hits further than 7.62.

        - Yes, a large drone shoots further, and the gunner-gunner is able to see a small drone at this distance and shoot accurately at it? plus the issue of price, logistics and service
        1. Alexey Lan
          Alexey Lan
          0
          3 February 2024 19: 51
          The main issue here is the price. The larger, the more expensive and more accurate. Where is the golden mean? Yes, the lives of soldiers and equipment must be protected. Complex issue. However, a large-caliber installation could fire at both aircraft and large drones.
      2. horseradish
        horseradish
        0
        4 February 2024 16: 22
        Or a quadruple installation of shotguns with an automatic loader for buckshot.
    3. Vladimir Tuzakov
      Vladimir Tuzakov
      0
      3 February 2024 19: 16
      From a cannon to hit sparrows - why not, if the cannon is loaded with sufficient shot, not a cannonball. That's the whole answer, shrapnel for long-range targets, grapeshot for short-range targets - up to 200m. In World War II, every 76,2 mm gun (including tank ones) always had grape shots. When there was a lot of infantry nearby, grape shot was the most damaging. (from the memories of front-line soldiers). Next, just pick up buckshot, shrapnel and guns for the UAV. For UAVs on LBS, 57 mm guns are more suitable, the main thing is to create grapeshot and shrapnel shots. For UAVs that are too distant, there are no funds yet, only destroy the UAV control centers.
      1. faiver
        faiver
        0
        3 February 2024 20: 14
        57 mm guns are more suitable

        - why not 76mm? or for example not 73mm (BMP-1)
        1. Vladimir Tuzakov
          Vladimir Tuzakov
          0
          3 February 2024 20: 46
          Excessive power is not needed, sufficient power is needed. Yes, and cumbersome, clumsy, here you need a quick response, after all, fast air targets, aviation. The 30 mm caliber is too small for a sufficient cloud of grapeshot or shrapnel. Various statements about nets and others, apparently they haven’t been out in the field for a long time with kilometers of open space. The whole principle is that the faster you destroy the target, the best option is to shoot and cover the target with a cloud of buckshot with 100% defeat of the target.
          1. faiver
            faiver
            0
            3 February 2024 21: 03
            the BMP-1 gun does not look bulky and the cloud of damaging elements is clearly larger than that of a 57mm gun, plus the latter need to be produced, and anti-drone means are needed “yesterday”
            1. Vladimir Tuzakov
              Vladimir Tuzakov
              0
              3 February 2024 21: 42
              There is an understanding of what is optimal and what is applicable. Optimal 57 mm. , applicable without having another, 76,2 mm gun. With shots: shrapnel and grapeshot, there are also problems, how to solve them - the RF Ministry of Defense is nowhere worse, complete failures in terms of armament, and not only that. The main thing to solve the most pressing problem is to eliminate heavy losses from enemy UAVs.
              1. faiver
                faiver
                0
                4 February 2024 07: 20
                you strongly hint at “derivation”, but it doesn’t exist and hundreds of cars won’t instantly appear out of nowhere...
  8. 1_2
    1_2
    0
    3 February 2024 19: 24
    a compact FPV kamikaze drone in the air is easily leveled by sketching a net from another drone (or two drones lift a long, wide net into the air). This means we need to create an interceptor drone. a compact ground-based automatic radar with an ols should detect and guide interceptor drones,
  9. Owl
    Owl
    0
    3 February 2024 19: 43
    To compare the financial efficiency of air defense systems, we do not take the ratio

    cost of air defense ammunition - cost of attack ammunition

    and the cost of the attack means the cost (significance) of the object covered by the air defense system.
  10. bug120560
    bug120560
    0
    3 February 2024 19: 45
    If equipped with a modern target designation system for high-speed UAVs, and also rearmed with mini-missiles that have already been developed for the Pantsir, the Tunguska is just what the doctor ordered against Ukrainian FPV drones and for providing fire support to our attack aircraft.

    Bravo, author! You're right on target again.
  11. polar bear
    polar bear
    0
    4 February 2024 09: 35
    We should also have guns with quad 23 mm guns in our storage warehouses; they only need a more modern radar and that’s it.
    1. faiver
      faiver
      0
      4 February 2024 09: 42
      Shilkas were discontinued 40 years ago, the total production volume is relatively small, so request
  12. polar bear
    polar bear
    0
    16 March 2024 20: 46
    Surely there are hundreds of Shilka self-propelled guns with quadruple 23mm cannons in storage warehouses. Improve the radar and that's it. And this is a good thing for supporting infantry in assaults.