စစ္ေရယာဥ္မ်ား
အတြက္ တိုက္ခိုက္လာႏိုင္သည့္ ေလေၾကာင္းရန္ အႏၱရာယ္မွ ကာကြယ္ေပးႏိုင္မည့္ တာတိုဒံုးစနစ္
၃ခုကို ေဖၚျပေပးပါ့မယ္။ ျမန္မာ့တပ္မေတာ္ စစ္ေရယာဥ္ အသစ္မ်ားအတြက္ လက္ရွိအသံုးျပဳေနသည့္
IgLa ဒံုးစနစ္မ်ားထက္ ပိုမို ထိေရာက္သည့္ လက္ႏွက္မ်ားကို တပ္ဆင္မည္ဆိုပါက ျဖစ္ႏိုင္ေခ်
အလားအလာ မ်ားစြာ ရွိေသာ အမ်ိဳးအစားမ်ား ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ျမန္ႏုန္းျမင့္ တိုက္ေလယာဥ္မ်ား၊
ျမန္ႏုန္းနိမ့္ တိုက္ခိုက္ေရး ရဟတ္ယာဥ္မ်ား၊ ေမာင္းသူမဲ့ အမ်ိဳးမ်ိဳးနဲ႔ ဒံုးပ်ံမ်ားကိုပါ
ၾကားျဖတ ္တိုက္ခိုက္ႏိုင္ဖို႔ အတြက္ဆိုရင္ေတာ့ လက္ရွိ အသံုးျပဳေနတဲ့ Igla ေတြထက္ ပိုမို
ထိေရာက္တဲ့ ဒံုးလက္ႏွက္မ်ား လိုအပ္မွာျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
 |
| FM-90 |
FM-90 ဒါမွမဟုတ္
HQ-7A ဒံုးစနစ္ဟာ တရုတ္ႏိုင္ငံထုတ္ တာတိုေလကာ စနစ္တစ္ခုျဖစ္ျပီး၊ ၁၈၀ဒီကရီ လွည့္ႏိုင္ျပီး
ျပြန္ထဲမွာ သိမ္းထားႏိုင္တဲ့ ဒံုးက်ည္ ၈လံုးပါ ပစ္စင္တစ္ခုကို သေဘၤာ ကုန္းပတ္ေနရာမွာ
တပ္ဆင္ရမွာျဖစ္ျပီး တြဲလ်က္ပါ ရွာေဖြပစ္ခတ္ေရး ပံုစံ၃၆၀အက္စ္ E/F ေရဒါတစ္ခုပါ တပ္ဆင္ရပါမယ္။
ေရဒါဟာ ကီလိုမီတာ ၂၀ထိ ေထာက္လွမ္းႏိုင္ျပီး ဒံုးက်ည္ဟာ အသံထက္ ၂ဆေက်ာ္ အျမန္ႏုန္းနဲ႔
၁၅ကီလိုမီတာအတြင္းရွိ ပစ္မွတ္မ်ိဳးစံုကို ဖ်က္ဆီးႏိုင္ပါတယ္။ အနီေအာက္ေရာင္ျခည္သံုး
ေျခရာခံစနစ္နဲ႔ တယ္လီေဗးရွင္း စနစ္ကို ထည့္သြင္းထားပါတယ္။ အသံထက္ ၁ဆ ေအာက္ အျမန္ႏုန္းရွိတဲ့
ဘယ္ပစ္မွတ္မဆို တစ္ခ်က္တည္းနဲ႔ ထိမွန္ေအာင္ ပစ္ခတ္ႏိုင္ျပီး ေရယာဥ္ဖ်က္ ဒံုးမ်ားကို
ဒံုးက်ည္ ၃လံုးကေန ၄လံုးထိ အသံုးျပဳဖ်က္ဆီးႏိုင္ပါတယ္။ အဆင့္ျမင့္ထားတဲ့ စနစ္ေတြမွာ
ဒံုးက်ည္ ျပန္လည္ျဖည့္တင္းတဲ့ စနစ္ကို ပစ္စင္ေအာက္ ေရယာဥ္ထဲမွာ တပ္ဆင္လာႏိုင္ျပီး ဒံုးက်ည္ကိုလဲ
လမ္းတစ္ဝက္မွာ ပစ္ခတ္သူက ဖ်က္ဆီးႏိုင္ပါတယ္။ ျပင္ပကိုေရာင္းခ်တာကေတာ့ FM-80 ပံုစံ အေဟာင္းကိုသာ
ေရာင္းခ်တာျဖစ္ျပီး၊ သေဘၤာ ကိုယ္ထည္ထဲက ေနရာေပးစရာမလိုပဲ ကုန္းပတ္ေပၚမွာ တပ္ဆင္ႏိုင္ျပီး
သေဘၤာမွာပါဝင္တဲ့ CIWS ေတြနဲ႔ ခ်ိတ္ဆက္ႏိုင္တဲ့ စနစ္တစ္ခုျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
 |
| SA-N-4 Gecko |
OSA-M ဒါမွမဟုတ္
SA-N-4 Gecko ဒံုးစနစ္ဟာ ရုရွားတပ္မေတာ္သံုး တာတိုပစ္ ေလေၾကာင္းရန္ ကာကြယ္ေရး စနစ္တစ္ခုျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
အနိမ့္ပ်ံပစ္မွတ္မ်ားနဲ႔ သေဘၤာဖ်က္ဒံုးမ်ားရန္ကို ကာကြယ္ဖို႔ အဓိက အသံုးျပဳတာမို႔ လွိဳင္းေတြအေပၚ
၅မီတာ အျမင့္က ပ်ံသန္းလာမယ့္ ျမန္ႏုန္းျမင့္ ပစ္မွတ္ေတြကို အဓိကထားပါတယ္။ ဒါေပမယ့္
၃၆၀ဒီဂရီလွည့္ႏိုင္ျပီး ဒံုးက်ည္၂စင္းခ်ိတ္ဆြဲႏိုင္တဲ့ ဒံုးပစ္စင္အပါအဝင္ က်ည္ထိုးစနစ္အားလံုးဟာ
သေဘၤာအတြင္းမွာ တပ္ဆင္ထားရမွာျဖစ္ျပီး ပစ္ခတ္ခ်ိန္မွသာ ပစ္စင္ဟာ သေဘၤာကုန္းပတ္ေပၚ ထိုးထြက္လာျပီး
ပစ္ခတ္မွာျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ဒါ့ေၾကာင့္ သေဘၤာ အတြင္းမွာ သီးသန္႔ေနရာေပးဖို႕ လိုအပ္ပါတယ္။ က်ည္ထားထားရင္
ပထမ တစ္စကၠန္႔အတြင္းမွာ ဒံုးက်ည္ ၂လံုးပစ္ႏိုင္မွာ ျဖစ္ေပမယ့္ က်ည္ထိုးမထားရင္ေတာ့
အဆင္သင့္ျဖစ္လို႔ ၁၂စကၠန္႔လိုအပ္ပါတယ္။ က်ည္ျပန္ျဖည့္ခ်ိန္ ၁၆-၁၈စကၠန္႔ထိ လိုအပ္ပါတယ္။
တြဲဖက္ တပ္ဆင္ထားတဲ့ ေရဒါစနစ္ဟာ အနိမ့္ပ်ံ ပစ္မွတ္ေတြကို ၃၀ကီလိုမီတာထိ ေထာက္လွမ္းႏိုင္ျပီး
မီတာ ၂၀၀၀ေက်ာ္တဲ့ အျမင့္ပ်ံ ပစ္မွတ္ေတြကို ၅၀ကီလိုမီတာနဲ႔ အထက္ေထာက္လွမ္း ေစာင့္ၾကည့္ႏိုင္ပါတယ္။
ဒံုးက်ည္ေတြဟာ အသံထက္ ၂ဆခြဲအျမန္ႏုန္းနဲ႔ ပ်ံသန္းႏိုင္ျပီး ေလယာဥ္လိုပစ္မွတ္ေတြကို
၁၅ကီလိုမီတာထိ၊ ဒံုးက်ည္ေတြကိုေတာ့ ၄-၉ကီလိုမီတာထိ ပစ္ခတ္ႏိုင္ျပီး ဒံုးက်ည္တစ္လံုးတည္းနဲ႔
ထိမွန္ႏိုင္ေခ် ၈၅%ေက်ာ္ ရွိပါတယ္။ စနစ္တစ္ခုတည္းမွာ ေပးႏိုင္တဲ့ သေဘၤာေနရာကိုလိုက္လို႔
ဒံုးက်ည္ အလံုး၄၀ သယ္ေဆာင္ႏိုင္ပါတယ္။
 |
| Barak-1 ဒံုးပ်ံပစ္စင္ ၄ခု |
Barak-1 ဒံုးပ်ံစနစ္ဟာ
အိႏၵိယတပ္မေတာ္သံုး စနစ္ျဖစ္ျပီး အစၥေရးထုတ္ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ VLS (Vertical launching
system) သံုးတဲ့ စနစ္ျဖစ္ျပီး ျပဳျပင္ထိမ္းသိမ္းစရာ မလိုသေလာက္ နဲပါးပါတယ္။ ထူးျခားခ်က္ကေတာ့
မူလရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္ဟာ CIWS ေတြကို အေထာက္ကူျပဳဖို႔ ျဖစ္တာမို႔ သီးျခားေရဒါ စနစ္တပ္ဆင္စရာ
မလိုပဲ CIWS ဒါမွမဟုတ္ ေရယာဥ္ပါ ပစ္ခတ္မွဳ ထိမ္းသိမ္းေရး စနစ္ေတြနဲ႔ တြဲဖက္ႏိုင္ပါတယ္။
ဒံုးက်ည္ ၈လံုးစီ ပါဝင္ျပီး က်စ္လစ္သိပ္သည္းတဲ့ ေဒါင္လိုက္ပစ္စင္ေတြကို သေဘၤာရဲ့ ေနရာလြတ္
တစ္ခုခုမွာ တပ္ဆင္ႏိုင္ျပီး ၃၆၀ဒီကရီ လံုျခံဳမွဳ ေပးနိုင္ပါတယ္။ အနိမ့္ပ်ံပစ္မွတ္ေတြနဲ႔
ဒံုးပ်ံကာကြယ္ေရးအတြက္ အသံုးျပဳႏိုင္ပါတယ္။ အသံထက္ ၂ဆအျမန္ႏုန္းရွိျပီး သာမန္ ပစ္မွတ္ေတြကို
၁၀ကီလိုမီတာ၊ ဒံုးပ်ံေတြကိုေတာ့ ၅ကီလိုမီတာ အတြင္းမွာ ပစ္ခတ္ႏိုင္ပါတယ္။ ေဒါင္လိုက္ပစ္စင္
၁ခုမွ ၆ခုထိ သေဘၤာ အရြယ္အစားေပၚ လိုက္လို႔ တပ္ဆင္ၾကပါတယ္။ က်ေနာ္တို႕ေရတပ္ရဲ့ တိုက္သေဘၤာမ်ားမွာ Igla ထက္ပိုေကာင္းတဲ့ ေလေၾကာင္းရန္ ကာကြယ္ေရး ဒံုးအသစ္မ်ား ျမင္ေတြ႕ရပါလိမ့္မည္ဟု ေမွ်ာ္လင့္ရပါတယ္။ က်န္းမာခ်မ္းသာၾကပါေစ။
ဘက သူတို႔ F-25မွာ တပ္ထားတဲ႔ FM-90နဲ႔ ေလက်ယ္ေနတာ။ ကိုယ္တို႔ရဲ႕ F-12နဲ႔ F-14မွာ OSA-Mသာတပ္ဆင္လိုက္ရင္ ေလကာက သာၿပီ။ ေလတပ္သတင္းေလးၾကားရင္ လဝနဲ႔လြတ္တဲ႔ hintေလးေပးပါအံုး ကိုMM. ေမ်ွာ္ရတာ ေမာေနျပီ။
ReplyDeleteigla ကို အေျခခံ ျပီး ခပ္ၾကီးၾကီး ထုတ္လိုက္လို႕မရဘူး လား ဗ်ာ..။ အစ္ဂလာ ေတာင္ နည္း ပညာ ရွိေသးတာ ပဲ... ေနာ္.။ စိတ္ထဲရွိတာ ေျပာတာ ပါ.. ျဖစ္ႏိုင္ မျဖစ္ ႏိုင္ မသိပါဘူး။ ဘ ဆီ က ေရယဥ္တစ္စီးမီးေလာင္ေသးတယ္ေနာ္....။ အဲ့ အေၾကာင္း ေလး လည္း သိခ်င္တယ္...။
ReplyDeleteက်န္စစ္သား တို႕ ဆင္ျဖဴ ရွင္တို႕လည္း ျမင္ခ်င္ေနပါတယ္ ဆို မွ ေပၚ ကို မလာ ေတာ့ ဘူး.... ။ အလန္း ေတြဆင္ထား တယ္ လို႕ပဲ... မွတ္ထား လိုက္မယ္...။ အဆဆ... တိုး တက္ပါေစ တပ္မေတာ္ ေရ...။
Purely depending only on 4/5km range AK-630 Gatling gun is too much dangerous for a frigate to defend supersonic ASCM, and CIWS is the last of the last ditch for ship self defense). Every MN naval Frigate class ships seriously needs effective point defense system. It is a necessary step to fulfill the fundamental needs (purely defensive nature) of MN naval ships for the survival in the high intensity maritime battles.
ReplyDeleteNext step, as a fair concept, all those Frigate ships should be fitted thoroughly modernized fleet air defense like VLS Shtil -1 (though it is not too good to extend missile’s range longer because of its poor Orekh radar illuminator, but MDW expressed Russian use ARH for upgraded version) for independent deployment and to enhance the tactical maneuver of these individual ships.
As a wider perspective or ambitious move in naval warfare doctrine, to extend the fundamental defensive nature to some offensive capability, some elite ships or Future Frigate size stealth ships should be fitted with modernized naval theatre air defense missile systems with ballistic engagement capable like 120km range Redut-K VLS module. In calculation of firing range, 200km range HHQ-9 is quite impressive, but its effectiveness and system maturity is questionable. Politically, Burma should not rely on China in highly sophisticated weapon systems. If HQ-9 and its derivatives or modified versions are reliable and effective, why China seriously imported S-400/SA-21 Growler from Russia? Do they merely want to steal the technology?
VLS Redut-K, navalized version of S-350E Vityez, which uses medium range 9M96 E2 and short range 9M96E missile from the latest S-400 Triumph system, so their effectiveness is no need to question. S-350E Vityez is the latest invention to substitute the old and out dated S-300P model series in Russian inventory except PMU-2 (Russia didn’t use temporarily modified PMU-2 because of more capable S-400 system) and eventually it will replace all Buk system in Mid Range air defense role, and Vityez shares many nature of Triumph and designed to be compatible with currently deployed S-400 system. It means Vityez can be assumed as a miniature design or supporting sub system of SA-21 Growler. If Redut-K can be inducted in MN ships, MN’s air defense capability will be equal to the latest Astor AD missile system (SAMP/T) of French made Singaporean Formidable class frigate. Even Indian Navy ships have 70km range Barak-8 as a longest range AD system. Area denial and Theatre anti air access capability of MN in Myanmar sea territory will be greatly enhanced.
At least without fitting point defense systems, and more to say, by neglecting sub-surface and naval aerial warfare doctrine, these frigates cannot effectively control the Burmese sea territory in case of any potential naval conflict in green water, it cannot strategically maneuver and possibly can be used just as OPV for coastal guard role.
As for the necessary point defense systems for MN ships, currently modified Pantsir-M missile gun module (navalized version of Pantsir S-1) should be the first priority.
Second rated option should be VLS Yozh (navalized version of Tor M-1) or Kashtan-MS missile gun module.
Pantsir’s new 1300 m/s speed 57E6 missile can engage supersonic targets with speed up to 1000m/s within the range of 20km and 15km altitude. It means 4.5mach speed 57E6 missile can engage over 3 mach speed target. It can be understandable that it can engage any type of currently used supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles (Except Russian domestic used Yahkhont which has over 4.5 mach speed and Chinese YJ-12 which also claimed over 4 mach speeds, developed from the stolen design of SS-N-22 Sunburn. Indian Brahmos or export version Yakhont is downgraded which has 2.8 mach speeds).
ReplyDeletePantsir-M is developed from Kashtan system. Because originally Kashtan/Tunguska and Pantsir are especially developed to engage US’s stealth featured subsonic cruise missiles, smart bomb, standoff weapon, AGM-88 HARM, high accuracy PGMs, and Harpoon ASM, those systems are reliable to engage western subsonic ASCMs and PGM attacks, but the problem is that Russian point defense system need to defend wide spread Russian developed supersonic weapon systems. Pantsir-M is developed from Kashtan to fill that gap. With its modern phased array detection and guidance radar, its reaction time from the target acquisition to firing first missile is 4 to 6 second. Tor M-1 reaction time is on 5 to 8 second but according to many sources it may take longer time around 10 seconds.
Pantsir and Kashtan have its own independent and built-in target detection and tracking radar and secondary electro optical target engagement systems in its individual firing module. It means Pantsir and kashtan systems combined the concept of Point Defense system and CIWS and it can operate independently from ship main fire control system. Even if the ship main sensors are dissolved by the initiative assault of enemy’s Anti radiation missiles (like HARM or Kh-31) and in a worst case scenario even if its own radar cannot operate, the system can engage the target by its built-in optronic guidance channel until the system unit is not destroyed by direct hit.
Yozh’s 9M331 missile speed is 850 m/s and can engage target which maximum speed is 700m/s. Yozh’s firing range is 12 km.
Third option should be Israeli Barak-1. But Barak-1 firing range is very limited.
ReplyDeleteHQ-7A/ FM-90 is a clone of French Crotale system, which French and its some clients no longer used that system. Malaysia and Indonesia navy used latest French technology, MBDA’s VL-MICA missile system in their Gowind class and Sigma class Frigate/Corvette. HQ-7A missile has maximum velocity of 750m/s, some web sources indicated that domestic HQ-7B missile has maximum 930 m/s but it is not for export. MDW expressed HQ-7 can engage the target speed of under 1 Mach. You can easily compare effectiveness of missiles used in Pantsir-M which can engage theoretically 3 Mach speed target when it needs to engage supersonic targets such as Brahmos or 3M-54TE club ASCM.
Actually, HQ-7A will be the best precious thing only for the world poorest ape like agile State and the world largest stateless human exporter Bangladesh which has lack of military knowledge.
Militarily there is no way to get worry about Bangladesh, if it tries to copy Burmese armament model (several times Bengali monkeys peeping and bought what weapons systems Burmese inducted, e.g. Nora B-52 , VT-1A and Kornet ATGM) Burma just need to destroy its naval bases and its all ships with massive multiple rocket attack till it changes to small piece of iron scraps, it would be a very cheap and inexpensive method in case of any military conflict. How they can defend our ballistic attack with their monkey style half copy? All Bangladeshi artillery regiments and outdated small tank units will be changed to dust. Provocative Bangladeshis and their PM Shaik Hasina said with full of lies, in the procurement process in Bangladesh, always referred India and Myanmar as their potential threats though Burma’s peaceful co-existence foreign policy is always deaf and dumb. Actually these half civilized Bengaladeshis feared the repatriation of their half starving and illegally immigrated mobs (named themselves Rohingya in Myanmar) by India and Myanmar governments.
Bangladesh, though its military looks just like clowns; its uncontrollable, undisciplined, out bursting and hyper density population are ever trying to search lebensraum (living space) in India and Myanmar for a long time since it gained independence from their old cruel master Pakistan. It is the number one security threat which Burma unfortunately had to face for many decades up to now.
One day, Burma must eliminate those security threats.
MANPAD like Igla is very useful and necessary for army infantry units to counter enemy’s transport helicopters, light attack helicopters, scout, drones and small aircraft and very low flying low speed ground fire support aircrafts in a close quarter range.
ReplyDeleteThe dimension of naval warfare is absolutely different from army’s ground battles. Probably it is useful for Navy’s costal guard ships, very small patrol boat and riverine boat. But it is absolutely irrational to fit for green water (no way to express blue water) capable Frigate size ships and corvettes. No enemy naval strike aircraft will approach so much nearly to the ships up to 5 or 6 km, because even the outdated air launched anti ship missile can reached at least around 100km.
It would be very amusing if someone think that one can defend ASM with Igla. Probably it would be useful for enemy’s unlucky naval helicopters which stupidly approach to our ships. Russian idea for using Igla combined with some extra sensors in some naval ships is improvised invention only for very poor, unintelligent and cheap customers. Probably the Russian way of making money from the poor.
9k33M Osa-M or SA-N-4 naval version was first introduced in 1972, originally derived from the 1960 era developed SA-8 Gecko army point defense weapon system. Outdated and obsolete missile system. Indian navy trying to substitute some remaining Gecko system with Barak-1. Russia for a long time no longer used Gecko. JSC Kupol specially invented 9M330/331 Tor M-1 to substitute SA-8 Gecko system. Obsolete Gecko missile is used as a target missile when Tor M-1 system is test firing in the Kupol’s promotional video. After Osa AKM, the Osa system has no life span for future development.
Brahmos/Yakhont missiles are very popular and got much interest in the South East Asia region. Indonesia has already bought Yakhont missile. How MN can engage Yakhont with HQ-7 and obsolete Osa-M systems?
If Burma’s military possessed thoroughly modernized and advanced Tor M-1 system as MDW expressed in its propaganda post “Has the Armed Forces been really built up during the last twenty years?”, why MDW proposed the absolutely outdated and obsolete weapon system as a future weapon system?
Just thinking that Burma’s armament programs and procurement are inconsistent, misleading and rewinding backward?
Of course, I know what you are thinking, for our beloved nation......
ReplyDelete