Talk:Tor missile system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Russia / Technology & engineering / Military (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
 

name[edit]

this name (torus) continues the line of "geometry" names of SA systems: Kub (Cube), Kvadrat (Square), Krug (Round). --jno 09:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Operator: Myanmar[edit]

IISS Military Balance 2007 stated 48 units of Tor Missile System in Myanmar/Burma's order of battle. However, User:85.75.82.99 claim that his "friends" in Russian MOD has confirmed that is not to be true, but he has not provided any verifiable proof that this supposed confirmation from Russian MOD. Please do not make up stories to support your claim. IISS Military Balance is a prominent publication and their information are based upon Weapon transfer registered with United Nations. Okkar 12:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the deal is not confirmed yet from both Russia and Myanmar the correct is to add near to the numbers the word ,not comfirmed, to Tunguska , Tor M-1 and Buk M-1 SAMs. when then confirmed ,to remove the ,not confirmed, .

Libya[edit]

"Libya has decided to buy the Tor-M1. 20 Launchers to be ordered soon." Reference please. Bogdan 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.166.14 (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Syria[edit]

Deleted Syria from the list of operators, while referanced all accounts of Syrias use of TOR seem to originate from an Aviation Week article that miss-identified a recent shipment of PANTSIR for TOR.--Typhoon9410 (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was withdrawn. JPG-GR (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The article currently does not comply with the developed name convention of Russian SAM systems, should be "9K330 Tor" as opposed to "Tor Missile System" like "9K37 Buk", "9K33 Osa", "9K22 Tunguska" etc. --Typhoon9410 (talk)

I partially agree : The Tor Missile System (SA-15) is the 9K330. but here is a little problem :
Tor 
9K330
Tor-M 
9K331
Tor-M1 
(no name)
Tor-M2 
9K332
All those variants would also require a separate article... What I suggest is to keep the current name and use it as a system family (a little bit like the S-300 family).
By the same token, The SA-6, SA-11 and SA-17 could be merged as the same system family... It kinda annoys me too to have multiple standards.
--Ŧħę௹ɛя㎥ 21:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thats a good point, its the problem of dealing with all these changing designations (had this problem with radars), even Tor Missile System is quite specific to one particular system, the 9K330. Though I agree it is the better "catch all" name for the whole family and that we should probably keep the current name. Merging SA-11 and SA-17 under "Buk Missile System" sounds good though I would be inclined to keep the Kub Missile System seperate, though they are closely related.Typhoon9410 (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

TLAR[edit]

"Each 9K331 vehicle is a completely autonomous transporter, launcher, and radar unit TLAR (smilar but not a TLAR) as it cannot move the missile) although it can be linked into a wider air defense system." This statement from the "Description" section needs to be clarified by someone who knows what a TLAR is. I don't, but there's obviously something wrong with this statement and the semi-compound parenthetical note. Oneforlogic (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Corrected TLAR to TELAR.Typhoon9410 (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
"E" stands for Erector, which Tor is not. TLAR is OK. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 20:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Georgia[edit]

Source that shows that georgia has Tor SAM is a YouTube video that contains russian generals speculations that georgia might have Tor systems.

Other sources, including russian ones, indicate that that Georgian used Buk-M1 to shot Ty22M.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw081808p2.xml&headline=Georgian%20Military%20Folds%20Under%20Russian%20Attack

Also, fact that Ty-22M was used for reconnaissance is desputed. Somw sources indicate that plain was used to bomb targets in georgia.

The combat history for this article was written during the conflict and does need an update, the interview is a good source for speculation around Tor in Georgia, but you are correct in that the source does not demonstrate its existance. Tor does not show up in any arms database either so I have changed the status to unconfirmed. As for the use of the Tu-22M, recon was the stated purpose of the aircraft in the interview at the time of its destruction. "so we needed aircraft recon, this is why we used this type of aircraft"Typhoon9410 (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite[edit]

I've just completed a major rewrite of the article, fixing up grammar, spelling and sentence structure, to make the article more readable. Kudos to all who have worked on this article, it's a diamond in the rough. Just needs a bit more polishing, but the substance is there. If we can get few more references, I reckon we can get this to B-class.

As always, my edits are open to revision, scrutiny, and criticism. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Good rewrite, reads well, minor changes I made.
  • Finally got a source for the PGM statement.
  • Included Kinzhal trials ship class as I think its interesting to know what vessels are used during development, for Russia it generally involved grafting the new system onto an older vessel, S-300F as another example.
  • The 9A330 is the designation of the Tor TELAR as the complete unit, which is based on the GM### MMZ chassis.
  • The aquisition radar (top parabolic) and engagment radar (frontal phased) should be detailed as two seperate radar, in the text they seemed to have become merged.
  • Georgia has not yet been proven as operating Tor, Nogovitsyn was speculating on a cause for the Tu-22 loss.Typhoon9410 (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I had a look back, and you're right, it appears I turned 2 radars into one. If only that were possible =}. I'm assuming you can read Cyrillic, so I'll take your word on that source. I'm also having a scout around some of the English sites and books, so I'll see if I can find some more. Once this one's done to everyone's satisfaction, I'll move onto the SA-1, then 2, etc. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Place: Soviet Union?[edit]

Someone repeatedly writes "Soviet Union" in the table field for "Place of origin". The SU seized to exist in 1991, and the field is not called "originally developed in" or something like this. Please comment - or stop changing it from "Russia". --Bernd vdB (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Its an interesting debate as to what "Place of origin" should stand for, the SU or Russia. The field does not specify any time point, be it current or original so both are technically valid. Personally I would prefer to use SU as it was first place chronologically and I feel it fits better the definition of origin "the place where something begins" and Tor began in the SU. Additionally if Russia is used then it gives the impression the system was developed post-1991, like for example Pantsyr which is false. Anyone else?Typhoon9410 (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
"Place" in my understanding refers to a physical coordinate more than to a time coordinate, but english is not my mother language, so correct me if I'm wrong. BTW the text says precisely where and when the different developement steps took place. The systems that are in use now are definitely russian. --Bernd vdB (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
They are indeed and I would consider the Tor-M2 and Tor-M1-1 to be "Russian" Tor, but the place of origin for the Tor-M1 and Tor was the Soviet Union, as first in the order I would put SU as place of origin. I think it is more correct to use the original location even if it doesnt technically exist today, your origin does not change with time. For example someone would say "I was born in the Soviet Union" it would be less correct to say "I was born in the Russian Federation" because the Russian federation did not exist when the person was born.Typhoon9410 (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is about the whole group of systems, and none of those are unchanged from soviet time. Would you also mark a car with this background as "place of origin: Soviet Union"? Strange. --Bernd vdB (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if we had a all-encompassing article on a series of cars that were initially designed and manufactured within the Soviet Union then its origin would be the Soviet Union. It is no coincidence on en.wikipedia I think, that all pre-1991 Russian weapons carry the SU as their place of origin.Typhoon9410 (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so then you should consequently add this kind of wisdom to articles like Lada Niva - where the soviet origin is not mentioned with one word. Otherwise people might forget the importance of history ... --Bernd vdB (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, had I any interest in the article I would edit it accordingly, though the automobile infobox appears to neglect an origin heading anyway. Do we have a consensus on the nature of "place of origin"?Typhoon9410 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I was just mentioning "Lada Niva" in order to illustrate how far fetched the argument is. --Bernd vdB (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Im just trying to illustrate the meaning of the term "place of origin" for you, it is certainly trivial but im sorry you believe it to be far fetched. As said it is no conincidence that all other pre-1991 articles carry SU as their origin (limitations of the automobile infobox accepted) becuase the SU was the place where Tor came into being, it doesnt matter that the SU no longer exists today. How do you believe that by presenting Tor as originating in the post-1991 Russian Federation is more correct than the 1986 SU when it was actually introduced?

One more attempt at an illustration, the R-36 missile was developed by Yuzhnoye in what is now the Ukraine but the R-36 place of origin was the SU because Ukraine did not exist when the missile was developed. The origin of the R-36 as with any other example does not update itself with the times.

However to just get this tiresome issue resolved I have edited the place of origin to Soviet Union (Russia) which appeases everyone.Typhoon9410 (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Range?[edit]

Janes has this range at 15km vice 500km Birdman93 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's short-range. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 21:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The vehicle transporter range is 500 km vs Missile range of 15km. Other Wikipedia missile articles have this problem too, which I guess is a carry over from Jane's Derrymobile 22:30, 5 May 2015

Operators[edit]

That section seems to be unbalanced, one should really arrange the sources properly. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Analogs significantly worse than Tor $)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). [edit]

Analogs significantly[1] worse[2][3] than Tor

Layout[edit]

I can't figure out where the missiles are in the vehicle: do they launch from the slanted panels on the edges, or are they concentrated in the center? The panels look like doors, but it doesn't seem like there's enough space under them to fit a 10ft missile vertically. Are they laid out in a line, with two 4-missile boxes edge-to-edge, or are they clustered side by side in two rows of four? And where do the crew sit? It looks like it must be very cramped. Are they all located in the front of the hull? Also, why does the whole top turn? I thought it was a fixed unit until I saw the photo of the wheeled unit on the bottom. It's a vertical launch system, so why does it need to turn to face the target? I know the radar needs to face the target, but they could just mount the radar on its own pivot and make the missile launcher stationary in the chassis. Seems like it'd be a lot simpler. Are the missiles designed to only turn in one direction when they are fired, to make them simpler, so they have to be properly oriented in the right general direction before they are ejected from the launcher? I know naval missiles can turn in any direction after launch...or I assume they can...but that makes them a little more complex. I guess the question is is it better to make the missile more complex or the launcher more complex? AnnaGoFast (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC) (BTW, I'm changing the bit where the person is declaring that the Tor is "obviously superior to analogues, as can be seen by comparing charts" (to paraphrase). The tone is wrong, such things shouldn't be stated as fact, they should be stated as "So-and-so BELIEVES/JUDGES/CONSIDERS the Tor missile system to be superior". It's not Wikipedia's place to state who is the best, or who "wins". You can report that someone ELSE calls them the best, but that's it. You don't say "the Ferrari 468 is the best car in the world", you say "Automobile magazine has judged the Ferrari 458 the 'best car in the world'". Besides, I'll check out the references they gave, but if it's just a couple of charts "proving" his/her point, I'm deleting it as original research. I've found this on a couple other articles, armchair experts evaluating systems and declaring them the best based on the numbers they found. That's not good enough for Wikipedia. AnnaGoFast (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect image linked to Tor system[edit]

The image with the description of "SA-N-9 firing from the Kirov class cruiser Frunze." is actually showing the PK-2 decoy launcher launching flares.

http://militaryhistory.x10.mx/shippictures/kirov%20class/kirov%2001.jpg

13 - ПУСКОВЫЕ УСТАНОВКИ ВЫСТРЕЛИВАЕМИХ ПОМЕХ = decoy launcher

You can clearly see the bow of the Frunze here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Kirov-class_battlecruiser.jpg

The SA-N-9 was never installed on it (they were only installed on Pyotr Velikiy and only on its stern) - the bow SA-N-9 launchers would go on these two large square panels. You can see from the incorrect photo that the launch is taking place just behind the RBU launcher and this is the structure housing the decoys.

So, the image needs to be removed from the Tor wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijozic (talkcontribs) 10:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tor missile system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

HQ-17 (China Variant)[edit]

The following statement "Unlike the Tor system, the HQ-17 incorporates an IFF array on top of an electronically scanned array radar, modernized electronics, a new all-terrain launcher, and the ability to datalink with other china systems" is highly misleading. Chances are the editor that put the information paraphrased it wrongly. Both Russian and Chinese Tor system have the same antenna configuration albeit conforming to different military standards. It reads much better if the "unlike" is changed to "like", to reflect the superficial similarity between the two. Or if we want to reflect the source properly, the statement should be changed into, "In comparison to Tor system, HQ-17 is similar in form and function except that it uses Chinese custom electronics...." or something close to it. We can see HQ-17 isn't that different from the outside compared to Russian Tor, on the same source cited for the misleading statement. The current statement implied the original version do not have an IFF antenna and electronically scanned array radar which is clearly not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.138.189.149 (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tor missile system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)