Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

Viktor wrote:What borders me most is idea that Pancir-S1 can not shoot down anything flying faster than 400m/s such is HARM for example.

With its radar and 1000m/s missile I sow no problem dealing with HARM like threat.

Don't take this report as indicative of anything. It has been heavily....scrutinized on the big Russian forums.
Frankly there is lack of clarity where this thing i coming from, and if it is not just some anti KBP fantasy.
Not to mention it has already been exported to state that can afford to buy anything it wants, and has no lack of Western suppliers. IF the UAE found llarge faults in the complex outside of intended parameters there would have been a scandal.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/197121.html#comments
point 4: nonsense
point 8: nonsense
point 11:whole point of Pantsir is point defense of larger complexes

http://forums.airbase.ru/2005/10/t35307,54--pantsir-s1-dodelali.html

"The fact that this is portrayed as an "open" discussion on the Pantsir SAM itself brings doubt. Since when are these discussions "open"? This is either BS, or the experts who wrote this are
experts in their own eyes". Would be interesting to see what this "report" has to say about information sharing between vehicles, about serviceability, about user ergonomics: but nothing. "


http://forums.airbase.ru/2012/04/t62410,86--razvitie-morskogo-oruzhiya-2.4030.html#p2775184

And this is from a guy who has insider info + rages about domestic armaments half the time, so no KBP fanboy:

"Did the people who write this ever see a SAM? In it's current form it is certainly not a perfect vehicle, but its weakness are not what this report carries across. Report is full of nonsense
and lack of reality. For example:
1.) The SAM does not fire its guns on the move, everyone knows that. The strength of the guns is strong as will flip the Kamaz the hell over.
point 1.) There are masses of test firing at Saman targets (based on Osa) in the 6-8km parameters. The authors either are not privy to this info, or are purposefully not acknowledging it.
point 2.) They did not shoot at 1000 meter/second targets, because such targets do not exist.
point 3.) Maximum distance of shot is longer than 20km. Due to the function of any SAM, ability at such a range is much reduced. E95 target has nothing to do with this.
point 4.) old joke from followers of single stage rocket design.
pt 5.) Nonsense. Also, where did they get the size of the warhead of the hypersonic SAM? It is much larger...
pt 6.) nonsense
pt7.) Some semblance of sense. But this rocket, is one of self defense.
pt8.) Ricochet? Nonsense.
pt 9.) here the reporter just comes off as ignorant
pt 10.) Detection radar on Pantsir is centimeter. You could even say decimeter. the Phased array is milometer. All the problems with this are long known. TO the extent that they can, they are being solved by the producer. Plus, the new detection radar....just don't try to demand too much of the complex. 16km -against a plane, 12km - against a missile. No more is needed.

Just as I suspected.
Thanks TR1 for taking the time.
I gave you a + point for your post

What borders me most is idea that Pancir-S1 can not shoot down anything flying faster than 400m/s such is HARM for example.

The claim is not that it can't engage targets flying faster than 400m/s, the claim is that it hasn't been tested against such a threat.

I rather suspect that taking a standard Russian ARM like Kh-31 or Kh-58 they could perform such a test fairly easily and probably already have done so.

Note of course the peak speed from a HARM might be close to 1,000m/s or Mach 4 but at a distance of dozens of kms or more the flight speed of the missile will be lower than this with perhaps an average speed of something like 600m/s anyway.

BTW regarding The Armenians post regarding TR1s post... x2

Agree with TR1, those critics are there only for critics. But why would they want to criticise so much a product, which is exported well and make good money? I think tis is more marketing move from concurence. After all, if missile fail, Pantsir still have guns to kill.

No prob guys.
It is clear the road to Pantsir has been hard and full of problems, but that can be said of absolutely any system. It is also clear that these "problems" are either misstated and inaccurate, or are attempts to crap on the Panstir for being what it is, a small short range system. What do they want, S-400 performance in a tiny package?


Don't know if this video was posted before, hard to remember.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uiGAJH0Jv14

Showing how little tested the Panstir was. lol.
Also said MiG-29 was detected at 50km.
Mi-8 @ 26 km.
Small target E-95 - 27km.

By the way it shot down the Saman target numerous times, that has a maximum speed of 450 meters per second. That is pretty impressive and indicative of ability to shoot down small incoming missiles. That was not the only high speed target as well....

http://media.englishrussia.com/newpictures/unionshield2011-50.jpg

Pantsir has way more sales than Buk-M2 as of now as well.
Though for Russia, a tracked chassis is needed no doubt.

The tests shown on youtube video could be done in one single day with only one missile reload. As I know Pantsir did far harder test firing on international exhibition in UAE than it this tests. Pantsir was intensively tested in UAE as well in years in Russia, before accepted in PVO VVS. Also Russian air defense units operate and fire with Pantsirs on some exercises. I still think those critics were written based on some Youtube promo videos, because results from other firings were never mentioned.

TR1 wrote:Pantsir has way more sales than Buk-M2 as of now as well.
Though for Russia, a tracked chassis is needed no doubt.

Pantsir and Buk-M2 are first of all different classes; it makes no sense to compare them.

The Buk-M2 BTW is a very, very capable medium-range SAM; I wouldn't be surprised if it's no. 1 in the world in its class. But the problem is that it's pretty expensive; to date only Russia and Venezuela have ordered/operate them AFAIK, maybe another country too I'm not sure. To most customers it just makes more sense to spend that money on upgraded Pechoras instead (Russia, Ukraine and Poland offer a selection of affordable modernised stationary, containerised and self-propelled versions), and put the balance towards more S-300s.

I meant Tor, woops.

flamming_python wrote:

TR1 wrote:Pantsir has way more sales than Buk-M2 as of now as well.
Though for Russia, a tracked chassis is needed no doubt.

Pantsir and Buk-M2 are first of all different classes; it makes no sense to compare them.

The Buk-M2 BTW is a very, very capable medium-range SAM; I wouldn't be surprised if it's no. 1 in the world in its class. But the problem is that it's pretty expensive; to date only Russia and Venezuela have ordered/operate them AFAIK, maybe another country too I'm not sure. To most customers it just makes more sense to spend that money on upgraded Pechoras instead (Russia, Ukraine and Poland offer a selection of affordable modernised stationary, containerised and self-propelled versions), and put the balance towards more S-300s.

I am not sure about Venezuela yet. But Syria has definitly the BUK-M2E. It was shown during military maneuvers not too long ago.

But the problem is that it's pretty expensive; to date only Russia and Venezuela have ordered/operate them AFAIK, maybe another country too I'm not sure.

Every TEL having a guidance radar makes a battery very expensive compare to the KUB units it replaced where the TELs only carried missiles.

The thing is that the single battery radar could be taken out with a HARM leaving the rest of the battery vulnerable to air attack because they had no way of finding or engaging targets once the battery radar was hit.

The BUK corrects this problem with each vehicle able to find targets and guided missiles to those targets independently... but obviously cost is the issue, but that extra cost buys capability that Gadaffi could have used...

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/209274.html

Russian MoD this year buy 28 Pantsirs and they sign a contract for 27 additional Mi-35M helicopters. They will also sign additional contracts for Mi-28N and Mi-8AMTSh. In total they will buy this year 58 planes and 124 helicopters

medo wrote:http://bmpd.livejournal.com/209274.html

Russian MoD this year buy 28 Pantsirs and they sign a contract for 27 additional Mi-35M helicopters. They will also sign additional contracts for Mi-28N and Mi-8AMTSh. In total they will buy this year 58 planes and 124 helicopters

Nice. Pretty much the one thing completely covered in new purchases, attack helos.

TR1 wrote:

medo wrote:http://bmpd.livejournal.com/209274.html

Russian MoD this year buy 28 Pantsirs and they sign a contract for 27 additional Mi-35M helicopters. They will also sign additional contracts for Mi-28N and Mi-8AMTSh. In total they will buy this year 58 planes and 124 helicopters

Nice. Pretty much the one thing completely covered in new purchases, attack helos.

It seems they really need to replace old Mi-24.

More interesting is, that after those critics, MoD increase orders for Pantsirs. This year they will get 4 complete batteries.

The significant purchase of Pantsirs is interesting... and necessary... this is part of the counter to cruise missile decapitation attack popular in the west.

The current talk from the US involves the arrival of enough ships and subs to deploy about 430 cruise missiles... which is four times the number they used against Libya. It is clearly an indication that the Iranian air defence forces are perceived to be much stronger than Libyas and they need extra brute force to overcome it.

With a fully operational IAD and well positioned systems you can be much more efficient in your use of AD assets and systems. The key with cruise missiles is early detection... with aircraft in the air even a simple AAM is an effective anti cruise missile weapon, but obviously layers is the key... even an enormous volley attack of Tomahawks is useless against deep underground bunkers, so clearly their targets will be communications centres, radar sites, air defence sites, and airfields. They need to take out some or all of the air defence network before they can risk the big heavy bombers needed to bring in the deep penetration bombs needed to take on the deep underground shelters.

The significant purchase of Pantsirs is interesting... and necessary... this is part of the counter to cruise missile decapitation attack popular in the west.

True. I also think that every S-400 battalion get one battery of Pantsirs for protection. This year RuAF will have 8 battalions of S-400 and let say 20 previous and 28 from this year, they will have 8 batteries of Pantsirs to complete their protection.

True. I also think that every S-400 battalion get one battery of Pantsirs for protection. This year RuAF will have 8 battalions of S-400 and let say 20 previous and 28 from this year, they will have 8 batteries of Pantsirs to complete their protection.

Their versatility and mobility also make them very useful... I would expect they will try to get as many as they can afford.

In terms of performance at sea nothing shows the improvement more than a small patrol boat getting Pantsir-S1 to replace a Kashtan-M mount. Now Kashtan-M is a good system with its 10km range missiles and 4km range 30mm guns the biggest threat to a small patrol boat... helicopters and fixed wing aircraft are kept at arms length with very few helos able to attack with common weapons from more than 8km or so.
Compared with a MANPADS turret firing mistral or stinger or igla which max out at 6-7km a helo like an Apache can stand off with 8km range Hellfires and hammer that boat. The boat will not be fast enough to outrun or out manouver a helo and would rely on trying to shoot down the incoming missiles.

With Pantsir-S1 the range of the missiles extends the engagement range to 20km which means that helicopters can be engaged before they launch.

The flat open sea is one thing however, on land the advantage shifts even further in favour of the ground platform because the radar picture of the surrounding airspace can be accessed via datalink with the ground vehicle able to search passively using thermal and optical sights and the terrain can make detection of the ground vehicle difficult or impossible till it is too late. The clever use of terrain to defend a target means you can place individual vehicles in places to passively detect threats and pass target data on to the rest of the defence... for instance imagine a flat open valley with something you are protecting on that plain, but there is a small hill 4-5km away that an enemy might use to observe from behind. Your vehicles around the target can't see through the hill so an approach from behind the hill and then popping up from behind the hill to observe and then launch an attack from makes a lot of sense... except the defenders already thought of that and have stationed a 2-3 Pantsir-S1s in the forest beyond the small hill which the attacking helos flew over on their way to the small hill. Those vehicles would pass target data to the IAD network and a squad of fighters is on the way... after they launch their attack (they can do so from medium range because the targets have already be identified as hostile and are cleared to fire) any survivors can be mopped up with the forward located Pantsir-S1s which can each engage 4 targets at a time... though I would think of a flight of 6-8 helos that the fighters will have taken out more than half with R-77s already... of course an observation unit on top of the small hill with Iglas could also have called up an air attack and alerted the ground forces, but if instead of half a dozen helos the threat was 20-30 cruise missiles flying low and fast with the first missile aimed at the radar station on top of the hill then lets assume the first warning is the first cruise missile detected at 10km by the radar on top of the hill, decoys and jammers would be pointless as the missiles are guided to a coordinate rather than a signal, but the very high speed of the Pantsir-S1 missiles might make interception possible if they are ready. Border assets detecting the incoming missiles several minutes before hand would greatly increase the chances of survival. If alerted the three Pantsir-S1 vehicles could take on 12 targets at once till they run out of ammo. The radar on the hill could possibly survive because only the first few missiles will be going for the radar, the rest will be aimed at the known AD vehicle positions around the target and the target itself. Early detection would also lead to getting fighters into the air and their efforts will thin out the numbers of threats the ground based systems will have to deal with...

Talking about cruise missiles, on Russian Far East air defense exercise S-300 crews fire on real Kh-55 cruise missiles launched from Tu-95 planes and shot them down. Cruise missiles are not such big problem for modern and competent air defense. Also majority of western cruise missiles will be launched from sea, so their routes to strategically important targets in Russia and China are well known for their military, so good placement of navy ships could mean, majority of cruise missiles will be shot down before they reach the coast. I doubt NATO will go to launch cruise missiles from closed seas like Baltic or Bleak Sea, because their ships will be well in range of coastal Yakhont and Club anti ship missiles.

For the most part of their flights cruise missiles will fly at medium altitude and at cruise speed to maximise range.

In the case of attacking Iran I rather suspect that many of the missiles will not come in from the sea as the sea is flat and an even temperature so IR and radar sensors will pick up cruise missiles fairly easily.

It is more likely that the US will route its missiles through other countries to confuse the defences.

Using waypoints they will likely route the missiles to come from unexpected weakly defended directions... if the Iranians had any smarts they will pretend to neglect certain unlikely directions so when the US uses that direction to attack some carefully hidden mobile systems can pop up and smoke the attackers. Careful use of fake SAM sites... especially if it is fully manned can make the Americans think certain areas are strongly defended... a few loyal subjects "defect" with knowledge of nuclear facilities that don't exist... the risk to bomb a fake site is the same as to bomb a real site... first sign of an attack and get the men to run away to hide in bunkers and let them think they have taken out something important.

They should order 5,000 Pantsir-S1 systems with no radar, only optics/thermals, and get a licence to produce the missiles and make tens of thousands of them.

Not getting radars makes the system orders of magnitude cheaper and harder to find, though it will degrade its performance you can compensate for that buy buying lots more.

Or perhaps you could get a custom designed version with a 4 sided AESA radar antenna that performs search and track functions for one vehicle in the battery with the rest EO only... a decent modern AESA with modern electronics it should be able to guide 20-30 missiles by itself and track hundreds of targets at one time... The extra cost of that one vehicle compensated for by the lower cost of the rest of the vehicles and that one vehicle of course gives you day/night/all weather performance and early warning.

After MIG-31 modernization program, new attack comes on Pancir-S1 again.


Source is loved by TR1 - izvestia.ru

Main problem is that Pancir-S1 can not hit maneuvering targets and therefore can not hit guided munition and therefore is useless.

Makes no sense but here it goes.

WTF is going on with all those attacks, MIG-31/Bulava/Graney/Pancir-S1/T-90/BMP etc etc?

09/14/12 ARMY ABANDONED "ARMOR". DEFENSE DID NOT SUIT FEATURES AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS
September 14 2012.



News . Command of the Army has refused to adopt the anti-aircraft missile and gun system (ZRPK) "Shell-S1". Complex tests have shown that it does not meet the stated requirements. This "News" said a source in the Main Command of the Ground Forces.

- Recent military tests at the site Ashuluk showed that technical and combat characteristics ZRPK "Shell-S1" do not comply with the Army. On this basis, it was decided not to purchase these systems, - he said.

ZRPK "Shell-S1" designed Tula Instrument Design Bureau (KBP)-based air defense systems "Tunguska". His task - to cover part of the air attack in battle and on the march, to protect strategic targets, the cover of anti-aircraft missile systems, long-range S-300, S-400 and S-500 run. "Shell-S1" can also affect and ground targets - infantry and light armored vehicles.

Defense Ministry previously purchased ten systems "Shell-S1", they are now distributed teams Aerospace Defense (ASD) for the cover of the S-400 "Triumph". The plans of the Ministry of Defense to purchase of about one hundred ZRPK "Shell-S1" for ASD teams over the next eight years.

Question of supplies of "armor" in the Army debated for several years, comparative trials of these complexes and anti-aircraft missiles "Tor-M2" Concern PVO "Almaz-Antey". As told to "Izvestia", the representative of the Russian military-industrial complex, all tests were not very successful for the "shell".

- Not rocket capable of hitting targets maneuvering, the complex itself is bulky and not mobile, which is essential for infantry units, there are questions to radio-based, - the "News" officer who is familiar with the situation. In addition, he noted that in modern warfare, such short-range combat aircraft are powerless against that attack, not coming into range air defense systems and helicopters against enemy far more effectively man-portable air defense systems and small arms.

In turn, the Deputy Director General of the Tula KBP Yuri Savenkov told "Izvestia", which in the main technical and combat characteristics of the complex of serious questions have no command of the Army.

- The main complaint the Army high command to the complex is that it is on the wheel platform and suhoputchiki want ZRPK on crawlers, - he stressed.

According to the head of the Center for Military Forecasting, Colonel Anatoly Tsygankov, despite the failure of "shell", the MoD still have to equip the land of missile-gun air defense systems.

- Six years ago we adopted the concept that air defense units, the Army must be equipped with anti-aircraft missile and cannon. This concept is no one has yet been canceled. Therefore, the Ministry of Defence will have to either bring the "Shell-S1", or looking for their foreign counterparts, which is not, - said the Gypsy.

In this case, the head of the Institute of Analytical Department of Political and Military Analysis Alexander Khramchikhin said "News" that the failure "armor" to shoot down targets maneuvering makes it useless weapon.

- If the system can not bring down the maneuvering target, which means he will not be able to hit guided munitions. This means that the unit, which is a set of covers, will be vulnerable to enemy fire MLRS. Until this problem is solved, "shell" for the ground forces to buy pointless said Khramchikhin.

Complex "Shell-S1" is equipped with 12 anti-aircraft guided missiles 9M335. Launch range -12 km, The height of the targeted objectives - 8 km. The complex can lay up to three missiles. Artillery weapons - two 30-mm automatic cannon 2A72. Single-barreled gun. Fighting module installed on the roof body combat vehicle. In addition to the weapons include radar target detection and target tracking station and rockets. There is also an optical channel fire control system. In the body of the combat vehicle operators placed guidance and commander.
http://izvestia.ru/

Ah yes, "Sources" at it again.

Thing is, the testing between Tor and Pantsir happened....like 3 years ago. Things improve in that timeframe.

Hilarious!

The Pantsir-S1 evolved from the Pantsir, which in turn was developed as a version of Tunguska which has been in service since the mid 1980s.

It is used on land as the above mentioned systems and at sea in the systems Kashtan and Kashtan-M, and is about to enter service in the Pantsir-S1 naval model.

... but it can't hit manouvering targets?

Lets assume that is not the BS that is appears to be... guided munitions actually do very little manouvering, they generally make minor course corrections as they approach the target... nothing extreme or fundamental... we are not talking more than a 1-2 g turn to bring the weapon back on course.
Helicopters are another primary target and they physically can't perform more than 2-3gs simply because they don't fly fast enough.

There are wheeled, trailer based (ie shelterised) and tracked models of Pantsir-S1 that have been proposed already, the only problem I have seen is that the tracked model is based on a GM-9999 type chassis made in Belarus. With the new wheeled and tracked vehicles being developed in Russia right now however I would say that getting both wheeled and tracked models will not be too much of a problem... they will just have to wait till the new vehicle platforms are ready.

It is rather interesting that the officer in the know that talks about things suggests that the Pantsir-S1 lacks the range to engage the launch platform as well as the weapons, because the Pantsir-S1 has a range of 18-20km with missiles which certainly out reaches any helo/anti armour missile combo I am familiar with, unlike TOR which has a shorter range.

If the Pantsir-S1 system it too big and bulky for use with infantry then perhaps they need to break it up/down.

In the new armoured vehicles the turrets are unmanned so the crew positions in the turret in the Pantsir can also be eliminated, which means more stuff can be in the turrets, and the rear hulls of the vehicles could be used for the remaining electronics and bits and bobs. If necessary a hull extension could be used to further accommodate the full system and also considering it has been a few years, perhaps an electronics revamp to make the electronics smaller and lighter might be in order too.

I laughed out loud when they suggested looking at foreign alternatives to Pantsir-S1...

BTW a few inaccuracies there as well... the Pantsir-S1 has two twin barrel 2A38M cannon, as used in Tunguska, and hasn't used the 2A72 guns (BMP-3) for some time. Also the range of the missiles is 18-20km, not 12km.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this report is not for the current Pantsir-S1, that it is for the older model that was basically an upgrade of the Pantsir where they took all the old systems (radar etc) and improved them as much as they could. This was rejected by the United Arab Emirates who them paid for the Pantsir-S1 which has all new electronics, new sophisticated modern radars, new EO systems, new guns etc etc.

To put it in perspective the 2 single barrel 2A72 cannon fire at about 500 rpm each so we are talking about 1,000-1,200 rpm. The 2A38M guns used on the Tunguska fire the same powerful ammo at about 2,500 rpm each, so we are talking about an extra 4,000 rpm per vehicle.

Thing is, the testing between Tor and Pantsir happened....like 3 years ago.

They weren't actually tested against each other, there is a requirement for both systems.

The air defence companies in a brigade have missile platoon and a gun and missile platoon.

Traditionally the Gun and missile component was a mix of ZSU-23-4 and either SA-9 or SA-13, and the missile platoon was traditionally the OSA, or SA-8.

The TOR is the natural replacement for the SA-8, and Tunguska replaced the Shilka and the SA-13.

Now they are looking at what to replace the TOR and Tunguska with, and the two contenders are upgraded models of both systems.

They aren't competing against each other, they are just replacing older models of themselves.

The first attempt to upgrade Pantsir was half arsed and though the Russian military actually accepted it the United Arab Emirates decided to fund a proper upgrade... the result is Pantsir-S1.

The Pantsir-S1 is not an infantry support air defence system, it is optimised for defending other things like larger SAMs or airfields, or HQs etc. It is wheeled because that makes it cheaper... it doesn't need to keep up with tanks and IFVs, it just needs to keep up with the big slow trucks of a heavy SAM system... or an airfield.

Isn't there already around ten or so of them in service with the air defense forces around Moscow? If Pantsir is so underwhelming, why did they buy some based off their previous tests?

Complex "Shell-S1" is equipped with 12 anti-aircraft guided missiles 9M335. Launch range -12 km, The height of the targeted objectives - 8 km. The complex can lay up to three missiles. Artillery weapons - two 30-mm automatic cannon 2A72. Single-barreled gun.

It seems they are talking about first prototype from the middle of the nineties. Someone should say to Izvestia to check calendar. It's 2012 now.

The main complaint the Army high command to the complex is that it is on the wheel platform and suhoputchiki want ZRPK on crawlers, - he stressed.

Wheeled version is for VKO, not for ground forces. LOL



What the hell is this than?

Six years ago we adopted the concept that air defense units, the Army must be equipped with anti-aircraft missile and cannon. This concept is no one has yet been canceled. Therefore, the Ministry of Defence will have to either bring the "Shell-S1", or looking for their foreign counterparts, which is not, - said the Gypsy.

The nearest foreign counterpart is Crotale NG, but still far behind Pantsir-S1 or they have in mind something from China, what is even worse? Who is this Gypsy?

In the new armoured vehicles the turrets are unmanned so the crew positions in the turret in the Pantsir can also be eliminated, which means more stuff can be in the turrets, and the rear hulls of the vehicles could be used for the remaining electronics and bits and bobs. If necessary a hull extension could be used to further accommodate the full system and also considering it has been a few years, perhaps an electronics revamp to make the electronics smaller and lighter might be in order too.

Pantsir-S1 doesn't have crew in the turret from the beginning. Tunguska have.

The huge irony is that in most areas the plan so far seems to be a drive for unification of systems between the branches... the Pantsir-S1 is ideal for the Air Force, but in wheeled form not so good for the Army.

Not really a huge shock... 30 years ago each branch of the military could buy separate systems designed especially for them... the Tu-128 Fiddler aircraft was an enormous custom designed interceptor especially for the PVO and not used by any other part of the Air Force.

These days they want unification... to the point where the next generation short range AAM called 9M100, will be used by pretty much all aircraft that can use the R-73, but will also enter service in the Army as the Morfei, and will be used in the Navy as well as a point defence missile.

152mm guns for the Army will be joint developed with the Navy.

SAMs will be unified between the AF, Army, and Navy, and ADF (aerospace defence force).

It therefore makes sense that the Pantsir-S1, which replaces the Pantsir in the Air Force, and the Pantsir in the ADF, and the Kashtan-M in the Navy, would also replace the Tunguska in the Army.

The irony is that the Army is moving to new vehicles... the vast majority that will be in service will be wheeled anyway.

If Pantsir-S1 can't intercept manouvering targets what has changed? Tunguska could. The Pantsir is based on Tunguska and it could too.

The Navy think it can intercept present and future anti ship missiles.

I suspect the real issue is that the TOR might actually be making direct contact with manouvering targets, while the Pantsir-S1 is using its proximity fuse.

The unification of design between Pantsir-S1 and Hermes suggests there is too much invested in the system to back out now.

Together a Pantsir-S1 regiment and a TOR regiment would be thoroughly complimentary, The TOR can target incoming guided weapons, while the extended reach and very high speed of the Pantsir-S1 missiles means it can engage helicopters and UCAVs. The guns on the Pantsir-S1s offer a capability to engage targets at closer ranges at lower cost and of course to engage targets like UAVs and drones as well as incoming missiles and bombs.

They developed an ANIET equivalent for the 30mm cannon shell... it would be interesting to see that fitted to a proper AD gun...

Of course it might be possible that a new AD vehicle might be developed... certainly a laser beam homing 45mm shell could effectively replace the two 30mm guns and greatly extend effective gun range to the point where targets at 7-8km can be engaged by gun. The addition of 12 missiles and a rearrangement of the turret to allow for a single gun mount might make for an interesting new system..

Indeed these systems will operate in heavy, medium, and light brigades with tracked and wheeled vehicles.

Perhaps a solution in the light, medium and heavy units would be to assign a few IFVs that have been redesigned as air defence IFVs. In current BMP units these were BMP-2 vehicles with gripstocks for MANPADS, but in these new units they could have their troop carrying capacity replaced with automated rack mounts for 45mm ammo and to operate with the units Pantsir-S1s where the Pantsir-S1s give them target information and they locate their target and fire on them using onboard lasers to mark their target themselves.
Such gun vehicles could be used in other units for fire support purposes where their direct fire capability would be useful with standard and laser guided shells.

Of course it might be possible that a new AD vehicle might be developed... certainly a laser beam homing 45mm shell could effectively replace the two 30mm guns and greatly extend effective gun range to the point where targets at 7-8km can be engaged by gun. The addition of 12 missiles and a rearrangement of the turret to allow for a single gun mount might make for an interesting new system..

I don't see a problem to place Pantsir on another vehicle if they don't like current one. They could place it on new Armata chassis for tracked version and on new 8x8 vehicle for wheeled version.

Well, 45 mm gun is far larger gun than 30 mm one. Placing larger gun on a system like Pantsir, it means you have to take missiles away or to place few smaller ones like Igla. Similar AAA systems like German Gepard, Polish Loara, Japanese Type 87 and similar Chinese one, equipped with Oerlicon 35 mm gun are without missiles. Germans with modernization place two Stingers on Gepard. 45 mm gun is even larger than 35 mm gun.

Perhaps a solution in the light, medium and heavy units would be to assign a few IFVs that have been redesigned as air defence IFVs. In current BMP units these were BMP-2 vehicles with gripstocks for MANPADS, but in these new units they could have their troop carrying capacity replaced with automated rack mounts for 45mm ammo and to operate with the units Pantsir-S1s where the Pantsir-S1s give them target information and they locate their target and fire on them using onboard lasers to mark their target themselves.
Such gun vehicles could be used in other units for fire support purposes where their direct fire capability would be useful with standard and laser guided shells.

Russia already have similar turret from MT-LB-6MB5 upgrade with GSh-30-2 gun and Igla missiles. This turret could be also placed on BTR-82A or Vystrel vehicle. They could increase number of Iglas from to 2 to 4 and could get good light VSHORAD system for lighter brigades and could work well with Barnaul-T.