Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

Hard to say.

The system started out as a cheaper version of Tunguska fitted to a truck or trailer with simpler guns and more missiles.
The UAE however funded a huge upgrade that extended range and ceiling of the missiles and the replacement of the 2A72 single barrel cannon with the 2A38M twin barrel cannon and the electronics totally upgraded and new radars and optics too.

Mass production has certainly started but most of the first production models will be going to the customer that paid for their development... the UAE.

Once the UAE order has been met production will likely start for the Russian military, but I think this system will be a hot export earner so they might have to expand their production base by quite a bit to keep everyone happy.

The systems primary purpose is to protect larger SAM systems and fixed sites.

Note larger Russian SAMs are all mobile so its ability to fire on the move make it very useful for protecting larger Russian SAMs.

For fixed sites like HQs and comm centres a trailer model might be used that can be deployed and left to operate near the target it is protecting.

Sa-3s are still available in large numbers and this system can be used in a similar way to shoot down targets that don't require S-300 or S-400 missiles so the latter can be saved for targets more worthy of their performance.

Note the best way to defeat a protected target is with large numbers to overwhelm the defences. Just having an S-400 battery there might lead to the S-400 battery to run out of missiles, so Pantsir and SA-3 and other systems are used to help support the S-400 system. (of course the S-400 is not very widespread at the moment... AFAIK there are systems in Moscow and the Far East ATM).

Any confirmations to these news? When will tracked version of Pantsir come in production?

Any tracked versions will be for the Army and that might take a while because they might be looking for lighter versions like that BMP-3 chassis based version. The issue is that a 34 ton Tunguska is a little heavy for a medium and light brigade force, and is probably a little heavy full stop. Of course it combines the performance of two vehicles... ZSU-23-4 and SA-13 so its weight is not that bad as it totally exceeds the performance of both of those systems by a significant margin.

Initially it might just be a case of the Tunguska getting the radars of the Pantsir and EO systems and it will keep its missiles as they are.

The Pantsir has a different role to Tunguska really so although the Pantsir was based on the Tunguska they are quite different is requirements in some respects. The Pantsir will likely deal with rather more HARMS and ALARMs and perhaps even UAVs and UCAVs, whereas the Tunguska will deal with Helos and A-10s.

A universal turret would be a good idea and improve commonality amongst the Armed forces.

The navy can use it like a Kashtan, though the twin 30mm cannon have about 1/2 the rate of fire of the normal 6 barrel gatlings they fire the same ammo and the fixed twin barrel guns might be more accurate.
What they might not like is lack of reload capacity like Kashtan with 8 rounds ready to fire and 24 in reload magazines.
The air force can use the trailer version to defend airfields at low cost and the truck mounted model to move with similar large missiles like S-300 and S-400 that are also wheeled.
The Army can use a mix of tracked and wheeled for its various tracked and wheeled brigades and for HQ and comm centre defence the trailer model will be cheaper if less versatile than a tracked model.

According to the information I have it can operate in several modes.

One mode it basically operates by itself, so it performs all the required steps itself. Those steps are Search, detection, identification, priority threat selection, target designation, additional search, lockon, tracking,and target engagement using missiles and guns.

A second mode is as a battery of 6 vehicle where one vehicle operates as the leader as a battery command post. The lead vehicle does the search, identification, priority threat selection, additional search, and passes target engagement data to the remaining 5 vehicles who track and engage the targets themselves with missiles and guns.

A third mode with an external command battery post where all 6 vehicles receive target data and engage targets.

A fourth mode has each vehicle using telecoded links where each more widely separated vehicle acts as as an individual vehicle operating on its own performing all the interception functions but also sharing search data of targets. This means each vehicle will have target data about all targets near all vehicles and as each target is destroyed that information is transmitted to the other vehicles to update their air picture of enemy aerial targets.

The thing is that the primary function of the Pantsir-S1 is to defend larger SAMs from attack so they will most often operate in the third mode above except when moving when they might operate in mode one or mode 4 or mode 2. If they are defending an S-300 or S-400 battery on the move then the mode 4 method of operation will allow a commander to place his Pantsirs along the moving column of vehicles giving him the air picture above his convoy that can be viewed in every node of the network while on the move. It also gives a more integrated view of the airspace above his convoy.

Obviously having all 6 search radars blazing out energy would give them away but having the front, middle and rear vehicle do a scan every few minutes and all 6 vehicles searching on IR and MMW radar bands should offer the best compromise between target detection and stealthiness.

BTW, I was just having a search through some of the older threads and I noticed in the thread about the Hermes missile replacing the ATAKA missile as the standard Helo launched ATGM this comment:

Savenkov also said that the caliber of "Hermes" is combined with Russia's newest missile-gun complexes "Pantsir S1. Therefore, in future, these complexes will also be able to have as part of its missile weapons Hermes.

This might not be so important for the Air Force Pantsirs that guard SAMs or HQs, but for the Armys use to replace Tunguska with a Panstir turret on a tracked chassis imagine a loadout of 8 SAMs and 4 Hermes missiles (in the 12 missile configuration with 6 ready to launch missiles on each side of the turret) so it can engage aircraft out to 20km and up to 10km in altitude AND it can use its guns out to 4km in range and 3km in altitude AND it can engage armoured vehicles and point hard targets out to 15km with Hermes and its 28kg HE warheads.

Will be very interesting.

In fact a lofted Hermes with radar homing (the article mentions IR, semi active laser homing and radar guidance... I am assuming MMW radar guidance for ground targets as with the Brimstone missile) would be an ideal weapon against an enemy helicopter hovering behind cover like a tree or mountaintop at extended ranges.

The work to extend its range to 20km will make it even more useful.

The thread about it is here:

http://russiadefence.forumotion.com/russian-army-f1/the-missile-complex-hermes-will-replace-ataka-t339.htm

It says tests are to be completed in 2010 and assuming it completes the test it will be introduced into service to replace the ATAKA missile. This is presumably in air and ground and sea roles.

This means Hind, Havok, and Hokum should all start getting this weapon maybe 2011-12 or so. I would assume they would be able to produce it in the same factory that makes SA-19 missiles and the new Pantsir missiles.

Is there any prototype of ground based Hermes ATGM system and on which vehicle it based?

If you look at their website http://kbptula.ru/eng/multi/hermes.htm it seems the land based vehicle is a truck with another truck that has some sort of arm mounted sensor. I would expect a lightly armoured amphibious wheeled vehicle might be a better choice to make it able to operate with light brigades, but who knows.

Because of the range of the missiles it will not need to loiter near the front line but a larger vehicle like that 6 wheeled recon vehicle you posted about might be a better basis if an arm with sensors can be incorporated with a rear mounted pod of launch tubes so it is more autonomous. Of course with a control vehicle you could probably have 6 or more missile vehicles able to deal with any large armoured force. Because the missiles are terminally guided you would save money by only having one control vehicle... having control equipment on every vehicle would increase costs without greatly improving performance one would think. A bit like one aircraft in a group of aircraft carrying ARH AAMs using its radar to find and select targets and all aircraft carrying AAMs. If only one aircraft had a radar you would save money buying aircraft. Imagine an enormous Chinese force moving across flat plains and they spot a light Russian brigade and start to close for the kill and all of a sudden hundreds of ATGMs launched 20km away start falling and decimating your vehicles... followed shortly after by a SMERCH barrage with small anti vehicle bomblets from 90km range to kill the troops that survived by bailing from their vehicles. Obviously not a very realistic scenario because it ignores air defence vehicles capacity to deal with incoming missiles and air power on both sides as such an armoured thrust would require air control to prevent a massacre anyway.

That actually mean, that every Pantsir could have 2 to 4 Hermes missiles for self defense against ground targets and every Hermes system could have 2 to 4 Pantsir missiles for self defense against flying targets.

Well if the Pantsir battery had a Hermes control vehicle operating with it, and the Hermes battery had at least one Pantsir vehicle operating with it (to provide protection from helos and A-10s) then yes, you could mix and match in both cases. Looking at the missile carrying trucks for Hermes in the link above each vehicle seems to carry 24 missiles which is a lot of armoured targets, or for a large airfield that is a lot of aircraft/missiles/UAVs that can be dealt with per vehicle.

It could be easier to say, if we see an actual photo of ground based Hermes ATGM, to see, how it looks like and than compare it to Pantsir-S1.

I would suspect that to fire a Hermes missile the Pantsir-S1 would need a control vehicle to provide it with data, and I would suspect a Hermes launch vehicle would not be able to actually use the Pantsir-S1 missiles without the tracking radar on Pantsir-S1 to track the target and transmit manoeuvring commands to the missile in flight.

I also think because of the range of both weapons they both should be able to operate pretty much together and support each other against a variety of threats. Their capabilities compliment each other... and both will need protection from aircraft and air launched weapons and armour.

Anyway, the compatibility of both missiles to be used on the same system, make Pantsir and Hermes very versatile answer for big specter of treats.

I agree. Though the Hermes missiles will be more expensive than Pantsir-s1s dumb radio command guided missiles because although Hermes uses radio command for the inital phase they will likely be lock on after launch terminally guided missiles with semi active laser homing, IR, or MMW radar homing missiles. I would suspect that the MMW radar homing and IR homing models might be combined to discern real targets from rocks heated by the sun. It would also mean that targets already hit can be ignored by later missiles.

The ground based version would probably work most effectively with a platform near the target area, whether that is a light ground vehicle with a laser target marker, or UAV, or perhaps helicopter like a Ka-52 finding targets with its MMW radar and confirming the target with IR and electro optics.

If you look at the drawing of the truck mounted land based Hermes system on this page:

http://russiadefence.forumotion.com/russian-army-f1/the-missile-complex-hermes-will-replace-ataka-t339.htm

At the bottom of Vlads last post in the thread above you can see a Kamaz truck with the antenna on the control truck and 24 missiles in two packs of 12 missiles which makes it a combined command vehicle/launcher.



Fairly clear they want 24 missiles per vehicle but they haven't decided what sort of chassis to mount it on. Truck would certainly be the cheapest, but not the most mobile when it comes to river crossings in a light brigade.

BTW


from http://www.missiles.ru/germes-a.htm

as found by Vlad in above thread.

Caption said it was Hermes (mockup) next to Ka-52 at MAKS-2007.

Both Hermes and Pantsir use radio command guidance for the initial flight phase. The difference is that Pantsir uses radio command guidance all the way to impact with the target, while Hermes uses it to fly to the target area where its terminal guidance will find the target and get a lock and then guide itself into that target.

The website mentions that with a more powerful booster the Hermes could be used to 100km ranges... I would assume it would fly a ballistic flight path to the target area and then perform a steep diving attack on the target in such a case... a bit like a BVR missile where it is fired to the estimated target area. It would be easier for a missile for ground targets because they move less.

Remember with its warhead of nearly 30kgs it is not just for use against tanks and armoured vehicles, it can be used against all sorts of targets including radars and even enemy artillery.

It seems both Missiles, Hermes and Pantsir use radio guidance, Hermes partially, could make both missiles useable from both systems in optical mode with radio guidance.

That could make Hermes cheaper, but it would become a line of sight only weapon. The reality is that the Pantsir missile is already such a line of sight weapon so if you wanted to use the missiles that way you could use the surface to air missile instead of the ATGM.

This is good option for Pantsir, which defend S-300/400 in case if enemy ground unit succeed to come close to their positions. On the other hand Hermes could use Pantsir missiles as cheaper missile in self defense against attacking planes.

I would think the other way might be interesting... using MMW radar guided and IR guided Hermes missiles against aerial targets in a swarm aerial attack as fire and forget missiles so they could handle more targets simultaneously.
I would expect the Pantsir missile can be used against ground targets and Hermes could be used against aerial targets but each would be more effective against the targets they were designed to kill. Though a heavy target like a transport (ie AC-130U) or heavily armoured aircraft like an A-10 could warrant a 30Kg HE warhead of a Hermes to bring it down perhaps.

Of course the issue with the ground Hermes system defending itself with Pantsir missiles is the lack of ground to air sensors like search radar. It will have the equivelent of the guidance radar because that is used to send the radio commands to manoeuvre the outgoing missile towards the target (in this case the target area).

From the picture of Hermes you post, I have impression, that Hermes more looks like Grad MLRS, than ATGM like Kornet or Khrizantema. It could be positioned far behind front lines and fire missiles on enemy targets as other artillery batteries.

If you look at the mockup on the KBP website they have two trucks, one with lots of missiles looking very much like a Grad launcher, but of course larger than 122mm calibre and of course with two stage terminally guided missiles. The other truck has an extending arm with the tracking radar antenna used to track targets and guide missiles with radio commands.

The KBP website also mentions eventually using larger booster motors and one assumes lofted flight trajectories to achieve flight ranges of 100km. This would certainly mean huge potential for engaging enemy targets like artillery and even armour in rear staging areas, or enemy HQs.

Maybe will Hermes be part of artillery units and work together with artillery recce system and CPs to engage targets and be connected with them with data links. Maybe in that case Hermes could also attack tanks from the top.

It would certainly make sense to field these vehicles with artillery to take advantage of their recon assets to find targets quite deep in enemy territory. There is talk of extending the range of the 300mm Smerch rockets from 90km to 120-150km and they already use UAVs to find targets and for post attack damage assessment. Having guided missiles to hit critical point targets might mean supplementing the use of missiles like Tochka. Of course some targets need a heavier hammer than 30kgs so Tochka with its 500kg warhead will still be useful.

These missile vehicles will be able to operate further back from the front line than Shturm vehicles and even Krisantema.
I would think there will still be a need for Krisantema because it will be cheaper and able to operate with other tracked vehicles.

I could see a Ka-52 operating 50km behind enemy lines finding targets and sending launch and target information back to a Hermes unit 20km behind friendly lines and observing the result of 5 or ten missiles falling down from the sky into the thin roof armour of the enemy tanks at supersonic speeds...

Nice vid, thanks for posting.

Regarding firing on the move as far as I am aware the tracked and wheeled models could all fire their guns while moving, though accuracy is effected it is still possible.
The problem was firing the missile while on the move because of the potential of damage to the missile as it leaves the launch tube.

It seems they have solved these problems, though it was clearly firing from a fairly flat level piece of ground rather than the very rough cross country land it is seen driving over in the video.

Operationally it might use missiles while driving in a convoy, but I think to improve accuracy it might pull over to the side of the road to fire its guns at targets.

Sometimes also if the rounds hit hard things like rocks or even if they just hit at very shallow angles they can bounce off or even break up with the tracer component continuing to burn.

I had some .22lr tracer rounds and they were neat fun. I especially liked to use them after it had rained at night because the wet ground reflected their light. Because the rounds were only .22lr they were only travelling at about the speed of sound.

From the side they seemed to move fast and were just red lines of light, but from above and behind the rifle as you fired them because you could see their entire flight path they strangely seemed rather different.

On a wet night they looked like golf ball sized balls of red light that floated away on a lazy curve with a patch of red refected glow on the ground below them as they travelled. Quite often when they hit the ground you'd see them suddenly bounce straight up in a line or streak.

It was because they were heading away from me that they seemed so slow I guess.

I would expect no matter how good the stabilisation is that firing on the move with guns will always be an emergency option and that stopping and firing would be the preferred engagement method.

If it did have to fire on the move I would expect longer bursts would compensate for the reduced accuracy.