# Russian firm developing Arctic Anti-Aircraft Weapon



## CougarKing (23 Apr 2015)

To the moderators, PLEASE keep this separate from the Russian Military merged thread- Army for now.

International Business Times



> *Russian Firm To Develop Arctic Anti-Aircraft Weapon*
> By Dennis Lynch @neato_itsdennis on April 22 2015 9:45 PM EDT
> 
> *The makers of Russia’s Pantsir self-propelled anti-aircraft gun want to develop a tracked version of the gun for deployment in the Arctic*, according to a senior director at a subsidiary of one of Russia’s largest defense manufacturing firms.
> ...


----------



## MilEME09 (23 Apr 2015)

with a 20km range, a mobile platform like that is a threat, but with how large the arctic is, a aircraft could easily break through


----------



## Ostrozac (23 Apr 2015)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> with a 20km range, a mobile platform like that is a threat, but with how large the arctic is, a aircraft could easily break through



It's a short range system. It's not for blocking a wide area to prevent enemy aircraft from penetrating -- it's for defending point targets, like airfields, radar sites and communications installations.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (23 Apr 2015)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> with a 20km range, a mobile platform like that is a threat, but with how large the arctic is, a aircraft could easily break through



With a 20km range it would be a good SHORAD/HIMAD system (more on the "medium" side than the "high" side). But, the point of AD systems is to block aircraft (and realistically in the arctic its probably more for counter-surveillance/counter-UAS purposes) from a certain point vice just denying block access to the entire area.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Apr 2015)

The other way of looking at it is:

The Russians don't have confidence that their existing stock of SAM Systems will work in the "High Arctic".

And given their recent record in rocket and missile failures I don't blame them.

Failure Video 2015-1

Failure Video 2015-2 

Failure Video 2010

Failure Video 2000

6 Proton Failures in 3.5 years

Bulava SLBM Failure Article





> 'There are problems'
> 
> In the wake of the 2011 Soyuz booster failure, Roscosmos chief Vladimir Popovkin was blunt as to the reasons behind the spate of rocket failures.
> 
> ...



That was from an Al-Jazeera article of 2013.  Link

And the problem is not restricted to their missile programmes.  It encompasses their aircraft production system.  You can find references to Yak trainers crashing because they were rushed into production, to the Russians inability to produce a functioning domestic UAV, to "new" aircraft using 30 year old components produced under Brezhnev.

The Russians don't have a modern defence industry.  That is why they were so eager to have French show them how to build ships, the Italians show them how to build helicopters and the Swedes show them how to build APCs.  None of which are happening now.

Their transport aircraft are built in Ukraine. Their electronics are made in China.

And the Kazakhs have forced them to open up a new launching site in Eastern Siberia because the threat of Russian rockets falling out of the sky at Baikonur has periodically encouraged Kazakhstan to ban launches (1999, 2007, 2011)

Baikonur is drying up. Link

I believe that Vladimir is using "little green men" because he has nothing else.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (23 Apr 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The other way of looking at it is:
> 
> The Russians don't have confidence that their existing stock of SAM Systems will work in the "High Arctic".
> 
> ...



Perhaps. The basis for the system is the Pantsyr, which is a highly effective anti air and counter ballistic missile system acting like both SHORAD and C-RAM. The system itself is "generally" truck mounted, and the article discusses the requirement to go to a more tracked approach (though there is a variant). 

To fight in the arctic, speed/maneuverability, logistical sustainability, and survivability are a premium so I read this as a means of the Russians exploring their options for force generating an AD component in the high arctic vice not having reliance on their current systems. The S-200 to S-400 series aren't mobile so require a static deployment (with a range of 400km they're not particularly mobile anywhere to be fair) so the Pantsyr generally is used to protect these assets and provide SOME forward AD shield, with the S-300/S-400 designed to knock out high level aircraft or missiles at a great distance. Having S-400's able to be deployed in the Russian high artic to cover Russian aircraft to NATO bases in the high arctic (Alert, Thule, etc) provide a shield for those assets while essentially providing an extremely solid deterrent for NATO fighters in those climates. The Pantsyr, if deployed in the arctic, significantly reduces NATOs ability to do anything as they can destroy BMs, CMs, and PGMs while the Russian radar systems can detect ANY NATO aircraft that would deliver them (including the F-35 or F-22).

Food for thought.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Apr 2015)

Plus their venerable MTLB offers excellent mobility in a variety of terrain and could be the basis of a family of new arctic oriented armour.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Apr 2015)

Perhaps indeed 



> Back in 2007 all the SAM brigades armed with the S-300V (SA-12) SAM
> systems, and some brigades armed with the Buk (SA-11 and SA-17) SAM
> were transferred from the Army to the Air Force. During the later rounds of
> reform seven of those brigades became SAM regiments, and another two were
> ...



Anton Lavrov, "Reform of the Russian Air Force" in Russia's New Army, published by the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, Moscow, Russia, 2011

You can find many other references to new "wunderwaffen" that are in development.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (24 Apr 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Perhaps indeed
> 
> Anton Lavrov, "Reform of the Russian Air Force" in Russia's New Army, published by the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, Moscow, Russia, 2011
> 
> You can find many other references to new "wunderwaffen" that are in development.



Interesting, but outdated piece. As an Air Defender I have some background in this area. The development of the S-300 to S-500 series is a key asset in the Russian arsenal. For sure, the capabilties of the system are very much exaggerated, but, fun fact, so are the capabilities of the Patriot missile and THAAD (actually Patriot is extremely exaggerated, particularly its accomplishments in the Gulf Wars). The fact is that the Russians have identified that it's easier and CHEAPER to simply counter US air power with Ground based systems than attempt to match them airframe for airframe. In reality, the F22 and F35 have significant limitations in the arctic that limit their ability to do much in the way of DCA and the Russians ability to force generate significant AD forces in the arctic (where I still attest would be their best and most likely course of action for economic or territorial expansion... why fiddle with eastern europe with it's poor economics and social issues when you can set yourself up in the arctic with a growing economy and an area poorly protected and generally uncared about) would have more strategic effect than anything in eastern europe? With the small numbers of F35/F22 that will be available for the north and the limited munitions stores the Russians simply have to knock out the munitions and wait for the aircraft to unmask from stealth by launching.

Further, the Russians and Chinese did their homework after the Gulf War of '91 and came to the conclusion that a C-PGM program was the best way to keep their higher level assets (AD, ISTAR, etc) protected due to the wests focus on precision and it's ability to knock out the Iraqi air defence system. That's where the Pantsyr program came from, so it's natural that they would want to see if it could be developed in the arctic (where, fun fact, NATO systems can't operate for the most part, including the ADATS when we still had it). As for radar, the Russians still maintain a relatively sophisticated radar system, though it is still largely emplaced in the west of the country facing NATO. If they were changing strategic vision from the west to the north than relocating assets wouldn't be a major issue, IMHO. 

The real question than, to me, is does the interest in developing arctic AD capabilities signal the start in a shift in Russian strategic vision? Russian doctrine would indicate that they will use their AD assets to negate or reduce the impact of NATO aircraft. If they develop a northern strategy I would expect to see high level AD be the first assets emplaced along with a minor air element to set the stage for later development by setting the conditions for them to move into it.  

Further, to simply write the Russians and their systems off as "wunderwaffen" is ignorant, and I would suggest extremely hypocritical for a strong supporter of the NATO "wunderwaffen" known as the F-35, which is overly expensive and not proven in any way, shape, or form.  :2c: You mention the Russians lack of factories and actual production, which is a limitation to be sure, but you have to understand that they dont NEED a huge number of these systems to create an effect SEAD in the arctic to support any economic aspirations they may have in the arctic.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Apr 2015)

If Russian made AD systems are wunderwaffen, why aren't people just cruising thru Syria's airspace   ^-^

BG, do you mean IADS vice SEAD?


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Apr 2015)

Bird_Gunner45:

I have no doubt you have more knowledge on the issue than myself.  

My point with respect to posting that 4 year old article (which was written as a Kremlin-friendly piece) and the preceding videos was to point out that the New Russia is not the Old Soviet Union.  Its soldiers do not stand 10 feet tall.  And there are not many of them.

Russia still has strengths, and it is wise to take note of them, but equally there are many weaknesses.  And frankly its weaknesses frighten me more than its strengths because I fear that their weaknesses will make their leadership more afraid and thus more unpredictable and likely to lash out.  Honestly I think that is what is driving Putin.

With respect to the quality of the arguments that the article I cite puts forward - is it likely that the situation will have changed so much between 2011 and 2015 as to invalidate the 2011 article?  This Swedish review from 2013 didn't seem to suggest different conclusions.

http://www.foi.se/ReportFiles/foir_3734.pdf

Russia has been struggling for a while now - and Ukraine, sanctions and falling oil prices, to my mind are unlikely to have made their defence industry much improved over the last little while.

As to "wunderwaffen" and the F-35 - Am I a strong supporter of the F-35?  Honestly, I don't know.  I like what is being offered and I don't see better long term options.  Having said that, I'll be happier when I see more of them flying and doing what is being promised.

In my mind, the difference between the Russian situation and the US situation is that the US has been actively maintaining and upgrading capabilities since the Cold War.  By contrast the Russians had a real "decade of darkness" - actually more like a couple of them, after The Wall came down and lost a lot of plant, a lot of talent and a lot of hardware (over using and not maintaining the equipment they had left).

The F-35 can indeed be accused of being a Wunderwaffe at this time.  The difference for me is that the Americans have solid existing and supported hardware, in large quantities, that they can rely on in the meantime.  The Russians seem to be standing down Corps and replacing them with Brigades equipped with whatever gear they can find that still runs.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (24 Apr 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If Russian made AD systems are wunderwaffen, why aren't people just cruising thru Syria's airspace   ^-^
> 
> BG, do you mean IADS vice SEAD?



Yes, IADS


----------

