Russian "Verba" MANPADS

[BTR]

As of 2014, there were 2 brigade complexes (72 Launchers if memory serves me right) and 2 battalion complexes (24 launchers, as I recall) (source). That was fairly well covered in the media at the time so you can find more than one article about the Verba acquisition. Brigade complexes were assigned to the Army, while battalion complexes were assigned to the VDV. Allegedly the 98th Airborne Division got them (source), while it is unknown which Army formation had the luck to receive them first. Today the manufacturer reported that further 2 brigade complexes and 2 battalion complexes were delivered to the troops, so further 72+24 launchers in total (source). As you can already put together, a total of 192 launchers are in service as of 2015, most of them with the army. Therefore, adding them to CM:BS seems like an appropriate option.

Now, I am no MANPADS buff, and I do not know what variables are considered in CM. However, right off the bat Verba in comparison to Igla-S:

• has 400m more overall range;
• 1000m higher altitude ceiling;
• Can intercept targets with a 100m/s faster top speed. 
• The system comes with a small, independent radar station,
• CnC integration and some sort of guidance automation system (I'm not clear on what it does). 

(Source). 

[Kinophile]

Still feels like an incremental advance. Certainly,  it is definitely an upgrade,  although an extra 400/1000m  range doesn't seem very dramatic. The radar station is unusual,  definitely. 

 I'm personally not sure it's worth the effort to add to the game... (I assume that is your subtext?) 

Edited November 29, 2015 by kinophile

[kr0114]

how much verba missile is better than stinger?

[BTR]

Still feels like an incremental advance.

The main improvement is the automated target identification and tracking system wired between MANPADS holders which wasn't there for Igla. 

[Kinophile]

So multiple manpads can simultaneously track and engage multiple targets? Essentially turns a verba platoon into a low ceiling directed AAA  Battery.

The A10 wwouldn't stand a chance. Until more effective counter measures (eg small,  SBD style loitering ARM munitions)  are available  

[BTR]

So multiple manpads can simultaneously track and engage multiple targets?

From what I gathered, the radar station collects target data, after which the software analyzes and selects the best operator to track and engage appropriate targets. Another key difference from Igla that I'm reading is that the guidance is now triple spectrum like on the Strela-M3. Theoretically that should mean that it is harder to trick the missile, and that the aiming is more precise. 

Edited November 29, 2015 by BTR

[John Kettler]

BTR,

Regarding the first part, you're talking about now having an integrated MANPADS network as part of the overarching IADS (Integrated Air Defense System) to provide timely warning of aircraft approach, IFF status and, if needed, threat cuing and engagement authority, so the MANPADS operator knows where to look and is ready to shoot and knows what to shoot and what not to shoot (returning friendly with nonworking IFF, for example). This is a much better situation for the defense, in terms of effective resource utilization, than every MANPADS operator for himself, for, inter alia, it prevents, or at least minimizes, multiple shooters engaging the same threat, thus reducing missiie expenditure and preventing inadvertent local saturation of the defense. 

Regarding  spectral coverage, the more spectral regions into which the missile can "see," and the more aspects of the target which it can fasten upon (e.g. hot engine parts, skin friction heating, glint, engine noise, jamming, etc.), the vastly greater becomes the missile countermeasure problem. I was shocked, after the SU collapsed, to learn the last missile type (9M333) for the Strela 10 had three guidance modes, when my SECRET (with a bunch of other tickets) showed only two! In fairness to me, though, I left military aerospace, where I was a top Threat Analyst, in late June of 1989, the same year the missile type was introduced. Typically, there was a significant, sometimes extreme, lag between when a weapon went into service and when we had intel on it.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[BTR]

Here is a Verba training video from the Army. A surprisingly complete video, showing off inside a 9S932-1 SAM CnC vehicle from Barnaul-T AA automation complex.

 

 

[John Kettler]

BTR,

A most interesting video, but I see more going on there than just Verba and the (am now deeper in the hole on Russian weapon system nomenclature than before)  9S932-1 SAM CnC vehicle from Barnaul-T AA automation complex I noted with interest the presence of a female crew member in that radar vehicle. That Verba part of things (including the Stinger type IFF antenna configuration) is interesting in and of itself, but I believe I'm also seeing a sort of threat cuing device for the Igla(?) operator, apparently via sort of electro-optical system akin to Private Eye, as well as some sort of connection being drawn to the 9K35 Strela 10, presumably as part of the low level part of the Russian IADS.

Regards,

John Kettler

[BTR]

I think the eye piece is also Verba, just with a different tracking configuration, perhaps radar-independent. Don't quote me on that though. In therms of women in the army, there are around 50 or so K serving. Used to be around 90K back in 2010's, but then re-organisations hit. I'm not sure what the connection to the Strela-10 is, I don't think it shows up on 9S932-1 monitors we see in this video. I'm not even sure they can interface properly. 

[John Kettler]

BTR,

If we're not seeing two different MANPADS, then we are seeing two different versions of Verba.  0:55 shows a dramatic difference in the smallish dewar (seeker cooling unit; can you read the legend on it at 1:07, looks like serial number, rocket and some other stuff) on the no IFF antenna MANPADS as compared to the known Verba at 1:44, which has a large, distinctive flat nosed dewar (image left at 0:01). The only way I could sort this out, given the radically different and distracting paint jobs and other items, was to put up two windows and work from there. I thought I noticed the known Verba had a longer muzzle trumpet assembly, but I've watched the video many times since, and I can't find the right frames. I suspect my tired brain may've conflated the known Verba with details from the other weapon.

When you see them side by side there can be no doubt there are significant differences between the two MANPADS, as in the kinds of things which send the imagery specialists haring off to consult with the missile experts. In turn, a university or defense firm may be contracted to sort out what it all means. If for the sake of argument both are Verba and the seekers are identical, then I can tell you, if coolant is the same, the Verba with the IFF on it will have much longer time in which it can be on and ready to fire, since the dewar has considerably greater capacity than that in the other Verba or UI MANPADS type. In turn, that has real tactical significance, as well as logistical impact. 

On a separate note, when I belatedly noticed the shoulder patches this time around, Thus, the parachute emblem, combined with crossed rockets (Russian parlance) was that of the Zenith Rocket Troops (SAMs in western parlance) of the VDV. Another thing that stood out was how tremendously subdued the Russian patches are compared to those of the US. Ours look like lit neon signs by comparison.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited December 11, 2015 by John Kettler

[John Kettler]

BTR,

In order to avoid muddying the missile analysis waters, I wanted to separately present the Igla S system, which looks to me to be a radical upgrade of the Strela 10. Strela 10 had four missiles and, being visual only in terms of target acquisition, no thermal sights, whereas the Igla S has twelve missiles and is fitted with thermal sights, as clearly evidenced in the White as Hot FLIR firing test imagery. What I'm seeing represents a huge jump in Russian SHORAD capability, but I don't know whether this thing is in development or operational. I see it as being applicable to homeland and FMS.

Regards,

John Kettler

[BTR]

From what I gathered, there are two different Verba Systems, battalion level and squad level integration. Latter one being lighter and more independent, thus being supplied only to the VDV. Perhaps they also got their hands on battalion level complexes. Again, I'm sure if the second system in the video is that though. Different launcher color doesn't have much to do with system difference here, they are simply different training tools. Yellow being a systems sim, silver being a procedural sim or something like that.  

Strela-10M3 and the system you presented are not in the same weight category. Strela-10 missiles are around twice more powerful then Igla or even Verba missiles. A more direct evolution of Strela short-range optical regimental/brigade SAM niche is this:

However, I've not heard anything about it. More than likely it never made it due to being redundant in light of Tunguska's versatility and capabilities. 

 

 

 

[akd]

Last information I saw (somewhat garbled as usual):

 

State Trials of Russia’s 'Sosna' Air Defense System to Begin in Summer

(Source: Sputnik news; published May 18, 2015))


The new short-range air defense system Sosna can eliminate all types of air threats including high-precision weapons like cruise missiles and guided aircraft missiles.

MOSCOW --- State trials of Russia’s new short-range air defense missile system will begin in summer 2015, Tochmash design bureau told RIA Novosti on Tuesday.

The system, dubbed Sosna, is expected to replace Strela-10M air defense systems in service with the Russian armed forces.

“Last year, we successfully completed the preliminary tests of this system. In summer, the state trials of the system at testing grounds of the Land forces will begin,” Tochmash Managing Director Vladimir Slobodchikov said.

“The outcome of the trials will determine whether this system will be put in service with the Russian Army,” Slobodchikov said.

According to Tochmash, the Sosna system “is intended to protect against all types of air threats including high-precision weapons like cruise missiles and guided aircraft missiles in the area of the system responsibility: in range – up to 10 km, in altitude – up to 5 km.”

Russia’s Tochmash design bureau will take part in the development of a new short-range air defense system together with Belarus, the Tochmash Managing Director said.

“We are planning a joint project in the framework of the Union State of Russia and Belarus to develop a new short-range air defense system,” Slobodchikov said, adding that the work is expected to start in 2016.

-ends-

[John Kettler]

BTR,

I believe there's a lot more going on here than you think regarding this Verba discussion. At 0:00 you can get a pretty good look at the size and  dewar assembly as compared to the previously cited silver MANPADS. The one on the known Verba isn't more or less spherical on the black part but is elongated relative to the other item under consideration, which has a smaller one which is spherical. As I noted above, this is distinctive enough all by itself to get the intel types wound up over it. Further digging shows that Igla-S is the second system, with any doubt being disposed of by the line drawing, which clearly shows the configuration differences I noted.  Additionally, Igla-S outranges the Strela-10M by  a full km (6 vs 5), so the second vid's system is indeed a radical improvement over the Strela-10M--apparently across the board: range, firepower, adverse WX and battlefield obscuration, as well as apparent sensor netting. There are also huge (factor of over 4) differences in weight and cube.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_heavy_weapons_uk/sa-24_grinch_9k338_igla-s_portable_air_defense_missile_system_technical_data_sheet_specifications_uk.html

Now, just when matters appear resolved, I find this, which very much skews toward the Igla-S in terms of visual appearance. I suspect, therefore, that the Verba in the vid represents a much fuller expression of the design than what's shown below. In other words, I think the Verba shown in Jane's is Gen One Verba, if you will, whereas the one in the training vid is the all-up production model. 

http://www.janes.com/article/52755/kbm-unveils-decoy-resistant-verba-manpads

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

 

[akd]

Beware, a lot of pictures labeled Verba are Igla-S.

[BTR]

I think the picture from Janes is an Igla-S with thermal optics, at least Karpenko reports it so. In terms of Strela-10M3 vs Igla-S, the warhead is twice bigger (5 vs 2.5), which is why I mentioned they are not in the same category. Their hit probability is reported the same.

Latest Sosna news (as of 10.Dec.15) are that state trials have been shifted to Q1 of 2016 to make sure the MoD can have an assessment of them by Q3. Overall it looks like a beastly thing when compared to 10M3, but then nothing special versus a Tunguska-M1. 

 

[John Kettler]

akd,

Clearly, Sosna marks a huge improvement over the Strela-10M3, starting with a tripling of the missile loadout and going on from there into the missile and sensors, where I believe I'm seeing electro-optics to keep at least two missiles airborne simultaneously, together with an all but certain MMW radar (precise purpose and capabilities unknown, though at an absolute providing minimum range and lead angle computation, as per the radar on the Strela-10M3). Additionally, based combat need,  on form and positioning, as seen on the Strela-10M3, I preliminarily assess the wedge shape box atop the Sosna's radar to be an IFF system.

While the apparent lack of a gun is troubling from a tactical standpoint, on the positive side the chassis is thoroughly proven and far cheaper to operate and maintain than the T-72 chassis which forms the basis of the Tunguska-M1.  Also, Sosna should fit into at least Il-76 size cargo planes, making getting it where it needs to be much faster and easier than moving the much larger and far heavier Tunguska-M1. While I could be wrong, I have considerable doubts about air dropping the Sosna

Am uncertain whether this thing will be amphibious, both from a general flotation standpoint and one of stability driven by metacentric height.The video explains the concept for anyone not familiar with it. For purposes of this discussion, the Sosna system is a boat and is therefore subject to the factors discussed below. It is conceivable the thing may float but either topple over once in the water or be so top heavy that its use is effectively limited to calm water only. Am pretty sure the MoD wouldn't be too thrilled with a system which could cross but only with everything in stowed position. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUgXf2Rj2YQ

BTR,

I see considerable differences between your pic of the Sosna and akd's. Yours shows what appear to be no fewer than three antennas his doesn't (one on either side of the central portion with the EO gear and the MMW radar and one between the EO gear and the MMW radar). It would be extremely helpful to know which is the more recent image, for if, as I strongly suspect, those three antennas are radars or the central one is, say, a passive receiver and the other two are radars, then we are dealing with something altogether more capable and dangerous than a weapon system largely confined to visual and thermal channels.

Regards,

John Kettler

[BTR]

I dare say akd's picture is a just a printed demonstrator which may lack some details. The picture looks shopped overall. Also Tunguska's is a variation on series-5 GM general purpose tracked chassis produced by MMZ. The general chassis archetype is shared between KUB, BUK, TOR, Tunguska as well as respective command vehicles, loading equipment and other related special purpose G2A equipment. Nothing to do with T-72's there ;). 

[John Kettler]

BTR,

Appreciate clarification on akd's pic and the explanation of what chassis forms the automotive basis of the Tunguska-M1. Back in my military aerospace days we had very little info on it (as in, overhead imaged at Perm or similar) and it was viewed then as being on a T-72 chassis. That's why I wrote what I did. That the Russians use a not a tank core chassis for a bunch of weapons makes eminently good sense and is wholly in keeping with known Russian design practices. Tank Nut Dave wrote a nice piece on the Tunguska-M1.

http://tanknutdave.com/the-russian-aa-qtunguskaq-9m311-series/

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited December 12, 2015 by John Kettler