Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

Using MANPADS would be a huge step backwards.

The whole point of operating with the brigade is to defend that brigade that might be spread over a significant area. Having missiles with an effective range of only 5-6km simply doesn't cut it... especially considering that some of the IFVs will have MANPAD gripstocks anyway.

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.

They are going to have to anyway... there is no point spending all this money on an Armata brigade if you have non armata vehicles using different engines and transmissions and other components... the idea behind the armata brigade is that you need to support one vehicle type with one engine or related engine family with standardised components and the result is a group of vehicles with the same mobility and protection levels that can operate together.

Having the vehicle that protects all the other vehicles with very thin armour is just asking to be taken out first... leaving the whole unit vulnerable to air attack.

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.

Yes, that is why I suggested a separate vehicle... if it is chosen over the 57mm gun (and I think it will because of ammo size) then it will likely be the standard IFV gun, so adding an IFV or perhaps 4 to the Pantsir-S1 unit you could fill the troop compartment of the armata based IFV with auto ammo handling equipment and perhaps put a few hundred rounds in each vehicle. The Pantsir-S1 vehicles wont need their 30mm cannons which should make them smaller and lighter and cheaper and they could direct the IFVs to targets that the IFVs can mark with their own lasers and engage with guided ammo.

Using a large gun and MANPADS is not really an option because the 45mm gun could probably engage targets at greater range than the MANPADS... the missiles on the Pantsir-S1 and indeed TOR would be far more effective.

Of course a redesigned Pantsir-S1 with a single 45mm gun down the centreline with a fixed four faced AESA array on the roof that combines the search and tracking functions of the two radars currently used with 12 missiles attached to the sides of the turret could easily be an option too, though that would require a rather wider turret to accomodate the gun and its autoloader and internal space for shells.

Note the 45mm guns shells will look like very long cans and will be fairly compact and easy to store and handle.

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.

MANPADS are a last resort for vehicles, they are of course better able to use their performance than when carried by a man, but when you are relying on MANPADS you are letting the enemy get very close. It makes rather more sense to use something like SOSNA-R with a very high speed missile and 8-10km range, than a MANPADS.

I appreciate that for the light brigades, when working with 10-12 ton vehicles then something like Phoenix with MANPADS and 12.7mm HMGs is probably the limit in terms of weight, but for a 25 ton vehicle in a medium brigade then you need range and reach and power.

Iglas were used as an upgrade for the ZSU-23-4M4, but they are only intended to offer an air defence capability while the gun ammo is being reloaded and I suspect that is the same for the Gepard.

The point is that with the Pantsir-S1 the idea is that both systems, missile and gun are to be used as required with each supporting the other.

In the medium level vehicles it might make sense to separate the missiles and guns to reduce weight. For the heavy vehicles they probably wont need to, though the anti aircraft performance of the 45mm guns might make its use worth it, but I would still prefer separating the gun from the missile if they go for the heavier calibre gun... it all depends on how heavy and complex a four face AESA array is as its replacement of the search and tracking radar should allow much faster 360 degree electronic coverage with no moving parts and would free up the front of the turret for a gun which means the 30mm guns could be removed and the design adapted for the new 45mm gun (with guided shells one gun would do...)

For the light brigades pantsir-S1 would be too big and heavy... remember the tunguska is 34 tons. An 8 missile system on a kurganets or boomerang could be manageable but to squease it into a 10-12 ton platform... they might go for a single 2A38M 30mm twin barrel cannon and 4 or 8 SOSNA-R missiles, or they might go for Morfei or 4 x Pantsir-S1 missiles...

Yes, that is why I suggested a separate vehicle... if it is chosen over the 57mm gun (and I think it will because of ammo size) then it will likely be the standard IFV gun, so adding an IFV or perhaps 4 to the Pantsir-S1 unit you could fill the troop compartment of the armata based IFV with auto ammo handling equipment and perhaps put a few hundred rounds in each vehicle. The Pantsir-S1 vehicles wont need their 30mm cannons which should make them smaller and lighter and cheaper and they could direct the IFVs to targets that the IFVs can mark with their own lasers and engage with guided ammo.

True, 45 mm gun or 57 mm gun are good choice for IFV, which could do AD job in self defense. But to work with missile complex like Tor or Pantsir this gun must be inside dedicated AD vehicle. USSR have something similar in testings with 37 mm guns named ZSU-37-2.



Idea is good, but expensive, because you need two expensive vehicles, one with gun and another with missiles, like ZSU-23-4 and Strela-10 in the past. Sweden have now similar concept with CV-90-40 in AD version and RBS-70 placed on M-113.

MANPADS are a last resort for vehicles, they are of course better able to use their performance than when carried by a man, but when you are relying on MANPADS you are letting the enemy get very close. It makes rather more sense to use something like SOSNA-R with a very high speed missile and 8-10km range, than a MANPADS.

I appreciate that for the light brigades, when working with 10-12 ton vehicles then something like Phoenix with MANPADS and 12.7mm HMGs is probably the limit in terms of weight, but for a 25 ton vehicle in a medium brigade then you need range and reach and power.

Vehicles in medium and heavy brigades are able to carry systems like Tor, Pantsir and Buk, but vehicles for light brigades could not. Light brigades are more or less motorized infantry with armored vehicles, which drive them to battlefield, but than they walk. Infantry air defense is more or less based on MANPADs, so guns up to 30 mm, MANPADs and lighter missiles like Strela-10 or Sosna are maximum what they could carry. In my opinion using MANPADs on their AD vehicles is not that bad, because vehicles and infantry could share missiles, when needed. We will see what range will Verba have. If they increase range to 8 km, than there will be no need for Sosna, because Verba will be fire and forget type, while Sosna still need to be guided.

True, 45 mm gun or 57 mm gun are good choice for IFV, which could do AD job in self defense. But to work with missile complex like Tor or Pantsir this gun must be inside dedicated AD vehicle. USSR have something similar in testings with 37 mm guns named ZSU-37-2.

But then again you have to ask yourself if the IFVs in the brigade (a tank brigade will have one infantry battalion and 3 tank battalions, while a motor rifle brigade will have one tank battalion and 3 infantry battalions) can all carry and fire laser homing 45mm or 57mm shells and the whole Brigade operates under the same network... the main function of the Pantsir and TOR batteries will be to provide local air space information to the Brigade and to pass that up the chain to the local air defence network. They could also receive longer range information from the network regarding approaching threats or targets.

With that sort of information and all vehicles having satellite navigation with moving map displays showing friendly and enemy and unknown platforms the IFVs could perform anti aircraft roles using data from the network... a helo appears and the closest IFV (say 4km away from the threat) calls it and fires a single laser guided round...

For the heavy brigades Pantsir-S1 should be OK, for the medium brigades it might need to loose some weight... perhaps only four missiles on each side. For the light brigade perhaps a single 30mm gatling gun and four missiles, or perhaps 8 missiles and no gun and rely on IFVs.

Idea is good, but expensive, because you need two expensive vehicles, one with gun and another with missiles, like ZSU-23-4 and Strela-10 in the past. Sweden have now similar concept with CV-90-40 in AD version and RBS-70 placed on M-113.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear with my suggestion.

My idea is that as the vehicles get lighter then the size and weight of Pantsir-S1 starts to become a problem. Pantsir-S1 is heavier than Tunguska and Tunguska weighs 34 tons so it will be a problem to fit it into a 25 ton class vehicle.

The photo above of the tracked Pantsir-S1 is a GM-xxxx vehicle produced in Belarus and will be replaced by armata, kurganets, and the two boomerangs. It should fit armata, and might be shoehorned into kurganets and big boomerang, but with little boomerang you'd have problems.

My suggestion is to revise the search and tracking arrangement so that instead of two radar systems you have a 4 faced fixed AESA radar that can scan 360 degrees without moving. That should free up a lot of space in the turret because you had two separate radars with moving mechanisms for both. Further to reduce weight I was suggesting removing the guns and ammo and just keep the missiles, though prehaps reduce to 8 instead of 12 to further reduce weight.

To compensate for the loss of guns I was not suggesting making a new air defence vehicle like Shilka using a 45mm or 57mm gun... what I was suggesting is modifying a standard IFV so that instead of carrying troops it had extra ammo in its rear troop compartment. The 45mm rounds are very compact for their calibre so having the entire troop compartment they might have room for 4-500 rounds of ammo. This IFV will obviously no longer be an IFV, and of course it will be a light 6 wheeled Boomerang vehicle because the heavier brigades will have proper pantsir-s1 vehicles.

Basically you'd have 4-6 of these vehicles with extra ammo operating with the air defence regiments... you could also add a couple to the TOR battery as well to give them some extra gun power.

Very simply any target that could best be engaged with gun fire... perhaps an enemy helo detected by its IR signature hovering behind a tree can be engaged with a 45mm APFSDS round through the tree, or a low flying hovering helo could be engaged with a laser homing 45mm or 57mm shell out to 5-6km or so.

The missile vehicle with its AESA array should be able to direct the IFVs to targets and those IFVs can then engage them themselves without further assistance.

Of course in the light units they might just replace Pantsir with Morfei when it is ready.

If they increase range to 8 km, than there will be no need for Sosna, because Verba will be fire and forget type, while Sosna still need to be guided.

True but SOSNA-R is rather faster than Igla... it takes about 10 seconds to reach 8km...

Light brigades will not have marching infantry, they will be highly mobile and the situation will determine whether they attack objectives mounted or dismounted.

We are not talking about troops in SUVs, these are APCs and IFVs with 4 and 6 wheel configurations in probably the 10-15 ton class.

To compensate for the loss of guns I was not suggesting making a new air defence vehicle like Shilka using a 45mm or 57mm gun... what I was suggesting is modifying a standard IFV so that instead of carrying troops it had extra ammo in its rear troop compartment. The 45mm rounds are very compact for their calibre so having the entire troop compartment they might have room for 4-500 rounds of ammo. This IFV will obviously no longer be an IFV, and of course it will be a light 6 wheeled Boomerang vehicle because the heavier brigades will have proper pantsir-s1 vehicles.

This is exactly what Swedes have with CV-9040 AAV. Modified IVF with 40 mm Bofors gun for AD job and it also have small search radar.



Russians could do the same to place 45 mm or 57 mm gun on tracked IFV or 8x8 wheeled IFV and modify it for AD job, It will work with same Barnaul-T or Polyana IADS as other SAMs will.

But I doubt such big guns could be placed on lighter 6x6 Boomerang. They are too powerful for lighter vehicles. In my opinion 30 mm is maximum for them.

the main function of the Pantsir and TOR batteries will be to provide local air space information to the Brigade and to pass that up the chain to the local air defence network. They could also receive longer range information from the network regarding approaching threats or targets.

Actually Tor and Pantsir are on receiving end of air space informations although they could share picture with battery command post and higher. Ground forces also have their own IADS build through Barnaul-T, Polyana-D4M1 and other complexes to provide pictures and orders to firing units. In my opinion Barnaul-T will provide those guns needed info about air space situation.

Light brigades will not have marching infantry, they will be highly mobile and the situation will determine whether they attack objectives mounted or dismounted.

We are not talking about troops in SUVs, these are APCs and IFVs with 4 and 6 wheel configurations in probably the 10-15 ton class.

High mobility of light brigades doesn't mean they will fight in battle inside lightly armored vehicles. Vehicles are there to quicly transport them from one zone to another. They will fight mostly as infantry.

http://www.function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=11364065@egNews

Russian ground forces didn't cancel Pantsir-S1. At the moment testing example was in production and after testings with ground forces, they will make decision about it. Till now it was not tested yet.

This is exactly what Swedes have with CV-9040 AAV. Modified IVF with 40 mm Bofors gun for AD job and it also have small search radar.

The difference is that I wouldn't bother with the small radar... if the weather is too bad to see the target with thermal sights then it is probably too bad to use laser guided shells too.

Also just modifying the troop compartment for more ready to use ammo storage... perhaps a removable automated ammo rack that can be driven up the rear ramp and into the troop compartment after first removing the seats etc would allow any IFV to perform the role if needed and it also means that empty racks can be driven out and full racks driven into the rear to replace them... in fact you could have two... one rack you drive in and then the gunner can push a button and all the ammo from the drive in auto ammo handling rack can load its ammo into the turret ammo store. That rack can be withdrawn and a second rack full of ammo can be driven in so the vehicle is fully loaded and ready for combat.

As all the IFVs have rear ramps in all the weight classes in all the brigades you could design these auto ammo racks for all the vehicle types (Armata, kurganets, and both Boomerangs).

But I doubt such big guns could be placed on lighter 6x6 Boomerang. They are too powerful for lighter vehicles. In my opinion 30 mm is maximum for them.

I agree that the lighter vehicles might use different weapon options, but I actually thought that the Boomerang-10 should be able to handle the 45/57mm gun and might perhaps use it as the main gun for the tank vehicle in place of the 125mm.

I think the medium wheeled and tracked vehicles could use the long recoil 125mm gun from Sprut, and of course armata should have no problems with the full power 125mm gun, but that the Boomerang 10 could use the 45/57mm gun for its gun platform/tank.

The boomerang-10 IFV could use a 30mm cannon and perhaps 4 Kornet-EMs... I was going to suggest the BMP-3M armament but with all that ammo in such a small vehicle you might not fit sufficient troops... it is after all a troop transport.

Actually Tor and Pantsir are on receiving end of air space informations although they could share picture with battery command post and higher. Ground forces also have their own IADS build through Barnaul-T, Polyana-D4M1 and other complexes to provide pictures and orders to firing units. In my opinion Barnaul-T will provide those guns needed info about air space situation.

It used to be that way, but with the range performance of the radars fitted to the vehicles and of course other radar equipped vehicles supporting the brigade I would think it would very much be a case of mutual communication.

Keep in mind that the Brigades are very mobile and when operating in places like Georgia where there was little to no coverage of air space then the sensors the brigade is equipped with will often generate better information than the assets of the aerospace defence forces. It will very much be a case of sharing what they can see, while not wanting to transmit all the time to give yourself away.

These days with very small UAVs that are not easy to track or engage it is important for all units to keep an eye out for threats/targets.

High mobility of light brigades doesn't mean they will fight in battle inside lightly armored vehicles. Vehicles are there to quicly transport them from one zone to another. They will fight mostly as infantry.

The brigades will be fully mechanised, there will not be truck delivered units.

Having said that of course the vehicles will deliver the troops to their objectives who might attack mounted or on foot depending on the situation. If the enemy has lots of snipers and MGs but little in the way of effective anti armour weapons then a mounted attack will minimise casualties. Of course if the enemy has plenty of anti armour weapons and knows how to use them then the troops will attack dismounted with the vehicles providing stand off support.

Light brigades however rely on speed and firepower... you wouldn't use them to invade a city or serious enemy hard position.

Russian ground forces didn't cancel Pantsir-S1. At the moment testing example was in production and after testings with ground forces, they will make decision about it. Till now it was not tested yet.

Also keep in mind the vehicle this system is to replace is the Tunguska M1 which entered service in about 2003, so they might decide the existing system does the job and delay purchase for a few years anyway. If they did purchase it it will likely replace older systems... AFAIK they don't still use Shilka in units but there are still quite a few SA-8s in service that have not been replaced by TOR yet... because SA-8 was pretty good and TOR was expensive.

medo wrote:http://www.function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=11364065@egNews

Russian ground forces didn't cancel Pantsir-S1. At the moment testing example was in production and after testings with ground forces, they will make decision about it. Till now it was not tested yet.

Fresh from the news oven:

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120919/176048717.html

[quote="GarryB"]

AFAIK they don't still use Shilka in units...

There are still a few Shilkas in some units.

It used to be that way, but with the range performance of the radars fitted to the vehicles and of course other radar equipped vehicles supporting the brigade I would think it would very much be a case of mutual communication.

Absolutely, Those systems will communicate and share their radar pictures. But believe me, crews in firing vehicles will not coordinate the work and deliver targets to other users, but will be concentrated on their own job. Battery command post for Tor or Pantsir is that point, which do exactly that and could also coordinate and deliver targets to other users, like MANPADs and IFV AA guns, being indirectly or through higher level.

Light brigades however rely on speed and firepower... you wouldn't use them to invade a city or serious enemy hard position.

Maybe I'm a little of old school, when something is light, than it is infantry. But other way, I agree. Light brigades will be kind of quick reaction force.

The difference is that I wouldn't bother with the small radar... if the weather is too bad to see the target with thermal sights then it is probably too bad to use laser guided shells too.

Of course Russians don't need to place radar on such a vehicle. The point of CV-9040 is exactly that, that Swedes got AD vehicle from standard IFV and have similar gun 40 mm. Without radar you could not tell the difference from outside.

There are still a few Shilkas in some units.

And quite a few in storage I suspect, but their numbers will diminish.

I know that there are quite a large number of OSAs in service because it was replaced by one vehicle that was very expensive... TOR.

The Shilka on the other hand was replaced by half a vehicle... Tunguska... which also replaced the SA-13.

Absolutely, Those systems will communicate and share their radar pictures. But believe me, crews in firing vehicles will not coordinate the work and deliver targets to other users, but will be concentrated on their own job. Battery command post for Tor or Pantsir is that point, which do exactly that and could also coordinate and deliver targets to other users, like MANPADs and IFV AA guns, being indirectly or through higher level.

I agree that that is the way it used to happen, but now with better night and all weather sensors... not necessarily just radars but also thermal and just plain optical sights that the data gathering capacity of most vehicles has increased beyond the level of current generation recon vehicles.

This means that as the commander detects a threat they will mark it on their digital battle management system maps, and when they identify it that information will be added to the shared map so other units in the area will now see that threat on their maps too. This information wont just be used locally but will be passed up the chain to HQs for the regiment and the brigade. For targets the unit cannot identify the HQ might send a UAV for a closer look or a ground based recon unit to determine if it is a friend, or foe or neutral.

Targets detected by air defence units will operate the same way, they will receive long range target information from the IADS, but they will also pass up information on threats they detect locally... this will likely be done automatically as part of the battle management system (BMS).

The improved datalink communications and C4IR system is akin to a business computer setup.

Without proper networking infrastructure each computer had a very specific role, like doing the accounting, or printing reports and letters etc, or producing drawings.
The data sharing would be by floppy disk and distribution of software from above would occur when necessary only.

With the new net centric structure the main change is the bandwidth of the communication channels and the ability for every computer connected to the network... either hard wired or wireless, to communicate with other computers and resources on the network including printers and computer controlled machines and network based hard drives for shared storage (ie NAS)etc etc.

This change in level of communication means much better cooperation and fewer bottlenecks for access to resources.

Taken back to the military situation, it means artillery can be as responsive as previously calling on tanks within your own unit to fire upon a structure. It means target and threat information can be shared as it is collected instead of coming as a surprise when you stumble on the enemy unit yourself. Most importantly it means you will know where your guys are and get to know where there guys are much faster with much better coordination and use of the force available to you.

Maybe I'm a little of old school, when something is light, than it is infantry. But other way, I agree. Light brigades will be kind of quick reaction force.

The Modern Soviet and Russian armies are fully mechanised so really the only equivalent of a light infantry unit that they have would be the VDV which is also fully mechanised which makes it mobile and with very high fire power for its role... even more so if it gets helicopter and Su-25xx support as the latter resources are just getting more and more powerful by the day.

I agree that that is the way it used to happen, but now with better night and all weather sensors... not necessarily just radars but also thermal and just plain optical sights that the data gathering capacity of most vehicles has increased beyond the level of current generation recon vehicles.

This means that as the commander detects a threat they will mark it on their digital battle management system maps, and when they identify it that information will be added to the shared map so other units in the area will now see that threat on their maps too. This information wont just be used locally but will be passed up the chain to HQs for the regiment and the brigade. For targets the unit cannot identify the HQ might send a UAV for a closer look or a ground based recon unit to determine if it is a friend, or foe or neutral.

Targets detected by air defence units will operate the same way, they will receive long range target information from the IADS, but they will also pass up information on threats they detect locally... this will likely be done automatically as part of the battle management system (BMS).

The improved datalink communications and C4IR system is akin to a business computer setup.

Without proper networking infrastructure each computer had a very specific role, like doing the accounting, or printing reports and letters etc, or producing drawings.
The data sharing would be by floppy disk and distribution of software from above would occur when necessary only.

With the new net centric structure the main change is the bandwidth of the communication channels and the ability for every computer connected to the network... either hard wired or wireless, to communicate with other computers and resources on the network including printers and computer controlled machines and network based hard drives for shared storage (ie NAS)etc etc.

This change in level of communication means much better cooperation and fewer bottlenecks for access to resources.

Taken back to the military situation, it means artillery can be as responsive as previously calling on tanks within your own unit to fire upon a structure. It means target and threat information can be shared as it is collected instead of coming as a surprise when you stumble on the enemy unit yourself. Most importantly it means you will know where your guys are and get to know where there guys are much faster with much better coordination and use of the force available to you.

Absolutely. C4ISR or IADS just increase the value of units command post, who is the units nerve center and the beginning of the structure. Command posts are centers, who distribute needed info to their firing units as well as collect all new info from them and give to higher level. Firing unit will have info only for his level and his territory, not the whole picture. In contrary it will be to easy for enemy to know what we know and to give us a game of mirrors, that we know, what enemy want we know, but not what we have to know.

Firing unit will have info only for his level and his territory, not the whole picture.

Absolutely... there is no way a Pantsir-S1 regiment rolling towards Tblisi will have a full air picture from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok, but equally it will have more of the radar picture than what its own sensors can detect. From other sources it will get early warning of threats and targets in its area of operations including target information about any potential threats like SEAD aircraft in the area.

In return each vehicle in the regiment will be finding a plotting targets and trying to identify them and passing that information up the line where targets and threats will be recorded and monitored from friendly forces in the region making a more complete map of where the enemy forces are known to be in near real time.

That entire map wont be downloaded to units, just relevant chunks, so a tank platoon HQ would get information about enemy attack helos in his area. Knowing their precise location he can choose to engage or evade.

For an air defence regiment of course their role is to find and engage such a target.

Russia to test Pantsyr gun system against cruise missiles

The Russian armed forces are to carry out live firing tests of the Army's Pantsyr short-range gun-missile air defense system against cruise missile targets for the first time at a range in northern Russia, the Defense Ministry said on Wednesday.

"The Pantsyr will be tested in live attacks for the first time against real cruise missile targets on the range," a Defense Ministry source said.

The system has previously only been tested against practice targets imitating cruise missiles.

"The system has been flown several thousand kilometers to an airfield near the Pemboi Range in the Komi Republic, after which it will be driven to the firing range," the source said.

The Pantsyr, produced by Russia's KBP, is a combined gun-missile system combining a wheeled vehicle mounting a fire-control radar and electro-opitical sensor, two 30-mm cannons and up to 12 57E6 radio-command guided short-range missiles, and is designed to take on a variety of targets flying at low-level, including cruise missiles and aircraft.

Cruise missiles represent a difficult target as they are small, fast moving and often have a low infrared and radar signature.

The Pantsyr can engage targets up to 12 miles (20 km) by missile and 2.5 miles (4 km) using the cannon, KBP claims.

Source : RIA Novosti

http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/23876/

Pantsir doing some Tundra offroading.

So Pantsir will be tested with off road capabilities and with capabilities of working in harsh winter conditions.

Pantsir shows its shortcomings by shooting down actual cruise missiles launched by Tu-95.

http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/

TR1 wrote:Pantsir shows its shortcomings by shooting down actual cruise missiles launched by Tu-95.

http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/

Dat is awesome

i'm curious on what drone is used.. hmm seeing it's launched from 800 Km.. i wonder if it's a Kh-55 missile that running out of service life..thus converted into drone.

Excellent news. It shows Pantsir is effective in cold polar environment as in hot desert one. If I understand correctly, they fire on the move. Was this test done by army crews or by KBP crews? If they were army crews, it also show that military crews have more and more skills on them, what make system more effective.

Stealthflanker wrote:

TR1 wrote:Pantsir shows its shortcomings by shooting down actual cruise missiles launched by Tu-95.

http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/

Dat is awesome

i'm curious on what drone is used.. hmm seeing it's launched from 800 Km.. i wonder if it's a Kh-55 missile that running out of service life..thus converted into drone.

This was an actual cruise missile- drones and targets were used previously .
Fair bet that it was either Kh-55, Kh-55SM or Kh-555.

medo wrote:Excellent news. It shows Pantsir is effective in cold polar environment as in hot desert one. If I understand correctly, they fire on the move. Was this test done by army crews or by KBP crews? If they were army crews, it also show that military crews have more and more skills on them, what make system more effective.

It can fire missiles on the moves, gun would tip the truck.

I am actually curious about the gun effectiveness in the target-trials, so far all the talk has been about the missiles.

http://www.ria.ru/arms_mm/20121020/904837230.html

Short video from tests in Ria novosti.

http://lelik1970.livejournal.com/4259.html

And photos from the event.

TR1 wrote:http://lelik1970.livejournal.com/4259.html

And photos from the event.

Excellent photos. Pantsir fire missiles stationary, but in conditions like in real battlefield, in the middle of nowhere in winter. Any informations if Pantsir use battery command post vehicle?

[center]

One of rare photos of 1RL123 Pantsir battery radar. Some data for the radar.

http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/arhprint/1324521